Grover Steven A, Lowensteyn Ilka, Joseph Lawrence, Kaouache Mohammed, Marchand Sylvie, Coupal Louis, Boudreau Ghislain
McGill Cardiovascular Health Improvement Program and the Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, The Montreal General Hospital, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Nov 26;167(21):2296-303. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.21.2296.
Despite increasing evidence that treating dyslipidemia reduces cardiovascular events, many patients do not achieve recommended lipid targets.
To determine whether showing physicians and patients the patient's calculated coronary risk can improve the effectiveness of treating dyslipidemia in a primary care setting, patients were randomized to receive usual care or ongoing feedback regarding their calculated coronary risk and the change in this risk after lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, or both to treat dyslipidemia. Outcomes, based on intention-to-treat analysis, included changes in blood lipid levels, coronary risk, and the frequency of reaching lipid targets.
Two hundred thirty primary care physicians enrolled 3,053 patients. After 12 months of follow-up, 2,687 patients (88.0%) remained in the study. After adjustment for baseline lipid values, significantly greater mean reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio were observed in patients receiving risk profiles (51.2 mg/dL [to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259] and 1.5, respectively) vs usual care (48.0 mg/dL and 1.3, respectively), but the differences were small (-3.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.4 to -1.1 mg/dL; and -0.1; 95% CI, -0.2 to -0.1, respectively). Patients in the risk profile group were also more likely to reach lipid targets (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.48). A significant dose-response effect was also noted when the impact of the risk profile was stronger in those with worse profiles.
Discussing coronary risk with the patient is associated with a small but measurable improvement in the efficacy of lipid therapy. The value of incorporating risk assessment in preventive care should be further evaluated.
尽管越来越多的证据表明治疗血脂异常可减少心血管事件,但许多患者并未达到推荐的血脂目标。
为了确定向医生和患者展示患者计算出的冠心病风险是否能提高基层医疗环境中血脂异常治疗的有效性,患者被随机分为接受常规治疗或持续获得关于其计算出的冠心病风险以及生活方式改变、药物治疗或两者兼用以治疗血脂异常后该风险变化的反馈。基于意向性分析的结果包括血脂水平变化、冠心病风险以及达到血脂目标的频率。
230名基层医疗医生招募了3053名患者。经过12个月的随访,2687名患者(88.0%)仍留在研究中。在对基线血脂值进行调整后,接受风险评估的患者低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平和总胆固醇与高密度脂蛋白胆固醇比值的平均降低幅度显著大于常规治疗组(分别为51.2mg/dL[换算为毫摩尔每升时,乘以0.0259]和1.5),而常规治疗组分别为48.0mg/dL和1.3,但差异较小(-3.3mg/dL;95%置信区间[CI],-5.4至-1.1mg/dL;以及-0.1;95%CI,-0.2至-0.1)。风险评估组的患者也更有可能达到血脂目标(优势比,1.26;95%CI,1.07至1.48)。当风险评估对病情较差的患者影响更强时,还观察到显著的剂量反应效应。
与患者讨论冠心病风险与血脂治疗疗效有小但可测量的改善相关。应进一步评估在预防保健中纳入风险评估的价值。