4.8 Article

Lipid Treatment Assessment Project 2 A Multinational Survey to Evaluate the Proportion of Patients Achieving Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goals

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 120, 期 1, 页码 28-34

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.838466

关键词

hypercholesterolemia; lipids; prevention; statins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Information about physicians' adherence to cholesterol management guidelines remains scant. The present survey updates our knowledge of lipid management worldwide. Methods and Results-Lipid levels were determined at enrollment in dyslipidemic adult patients on stable lipid-lowering therapy in 9 countries. The primary end point was the success rate, defined as the proportion of patients achieving appropriate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for their given risk. The mean age of the 9955 evaluable patients was 62 +/- 12 years; 54% were male. Coronary disease and diabetes mellitus had been diagnosed in 30% and 31%, respectively, and 14% were current smokers. Current treatment consisted of a statin in 75%. The proportion of patients achieving LDL-C goals according to relevant national guidelines ranged from 47% to 84% across countries. In low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups, mean LDL-C was 119, 109, and 91 mg/dL and mean high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 62, 49, and 50 mg/dL, respectively. The success rate for LDL-C goal achievement was 86% in low-, 74% in moderate-, and 67% in high-risk patients (73% overall). However, among coronary heart disease patients with >= 2 risk factors, only 30% attained the optional LDL-C goal of < 70 mg/dL. In the entire cohort, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was < 40 mg/dL in 19%, 40 to 60 mg/dL in 55%, and > 60 mg/dL in 26% of patients. Conclusions-Although there is room for improvement, particularly in very-high-risk patients, these results indicate that lipid-lowering therapy is being applied much more successfully than it was a decade ago. (Circulation. 2009; 120: 28-34.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据