Dyslipidemias and the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Analysis of the FAMUS primary care register

Citation
M. Xhignesse et al., Dyslipidemias and the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Analysis of the FAMUS primary care register, CAN J CARD, 16(7), 2000, pp. 879-885
Citations number
28
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems
Journal title
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
ISSN journal
0828282X → ACNP
Volume
16
Issue
7
Year of publication
2000
Pages
879 - 885
Database
ISI
SICI code
0828-282X(200007)16:7<879:DATPPO>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a pharmacolog ical approach to dyslipidemias is controversial. Little is known about the clinical management by general practitioners in this area, OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of treatment of patients in primary pr evention who were entered in the FAmily Medicine, Universite de Sherbrooke (FAMUS) register and to calculate the probability of their receiving a hypo lipidemic agent according to the presence of various risk profiles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Descriptive study based on the FAMUS prospective prim ary care register. Data from patients in primary prevention (those who had not sustained a cardiovascular event) were extracted and analyzed. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 52,505 patients in the register, 48,190 were identifie d as being in primary prevention. Of these, 22,250 (46.2%) had a complete l ipid profile on record, and 2300 had received a prescription for a hypolipi demic agent (4.8%). Patients under pharmacological treatment had significan tly higher lipid values. The adjusted relative risk of being treated with a hypolipidemic agent was 1.3 for smokers, 1.3 for diabetic patients, 2.0 fo r those with a positive family history of premature cardiovascular disease, 2.2 for hypertensives and 3.3 for men over 45 years of age or women over 5 5 years, compared with patients who were nor taking lipid-lowering medicati ons. The number of risk factors was even more strongly associated with the probability of being treated. CONCLUSION: Overall, few patients in primary prevention in the register wer e treated with a pharmacological agent. The presence of associated risk fac tors in this study was an important predictor for treatment, suggesting tha t patients in primary prevention are being evaluated globally as a function of all of their risk factors, not just their lipid and lipoprotein levels. Further attention, nonetheless, needs to be directed to the segment of the population with multiple risk factors whose lipoprotein profile is unknown or who are not being treated to guideline target levels.