Background: Greater efforts are needed to overcome the worldwide reported low achievement of LDL-c targets. This survey aimed to dissect whether and how the physician-based evaluation of patients with diabetes is associated with the achievement of LDL-c targets. Methods: This cross-sectional self-reported survey interviewed physicians working in 67 outpatient services in Italy, collecting records on 2844 patients with diabetes. Each physician reported a median of 47 records (IQR 42–49) and, for each of them, the physician specified its perceived cardiovascular risk, LDL-c targets, and the suggested refinement in lipid-lowering-treatment (LLT). These physician-based evaluations were then compared to recommendations from EAS/EASD guidelines. Results: Collected records were mostly from patients with type 2 diabetes (94%), at very-high (72%) or high-cardiovascular risk (27%). Physician-based assessments of cardiovascular risk and of LDL-c targets, as compared to guidelines recommendation, were misclassified in 34.7% of the records. The misperceived assessment was significantly higher among females and those on primary prevention and was associated with 67% lower odds of achieving guidelines-recommended LDL-c targets (OR 0.33, p < 0.0001). Peripheral artery disease, target organ damage and LLT-initiated by primary-care-physicians were all factors associated with therapeutic-inertia (i.e., lower than expected probability of receiving high-intensity LLT). Physician-suggested LLT refinement was inadequate in 24% of overall records and increased to 38% among subjects on primary prevention and with misclassified cardiovascular risk. Conclusions: This survey highlights the need to improve the physicians’ misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia in patients with diabetes to successfully implement guidelines recommendations into everyday clinical practice.

Morieri M.L., Lamacchia O., Manzato E., Giaccari A., Avogardo A., Amoresano L., et al. (2022). Physicians’ misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia as determinants of low LDL-cholesterol targets achievement in diabetes. CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY, 21(1), 1-12 [10.1186/s12933-022-01495-8].

Physicians’ misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia as determinants of low LDL-cholesterol targets achievement in diabetes

D'Addato S.
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
2022

Abstract

Background: Greater efforts are needed to overcome the worldwide reported low achievement of LDL-c targets. This survey aimed to dissect whether and how the physician-based evaluation of patients with diabetes is associated with the achievement of LDL-c targets. Methods: This cross-sectional self-reported survey interviewed physicians working in 67 outpatient services in Italy, collecting records on 2844 patients with diabetes. Each physician reported a median of 47 records (IQR 42–49) and, for each of them, the physician specified its perceived cardiovascular risk, LDL-c targets, and the suggested refinement in lipid-lowering-treatment (LLT). These physician-based evaluations were then compared to recommendations from EAS/EASD guidelines. Results: Collected records were mostly from patients with type 2 diabetes (94%), at very-high (72%) or high-cardiovascular risk (27%). Physician-based assessments of cardiovascular risk and of LDL-c targets, as compared to guidelines recommendation, were misclassified in 34.7% of the records. The misperceived assessment was significantly higher among females and those on primary prevention and was associated with 67% lower odds of achieving guidelines-recommended LDL-c targets (OR 0.33, p < 0.0001). Peripheral artery disease, target organ damage and LLT-initiated by primary-care-physicians were all factors associated with therapeutic-inertia (i.e., lower than expected probability of receiving high-intensity LLT). Physician-suggested LLT refinement was inadequate in 24% of overall records and increased to 38% among subjects on primary prevention and with misclassified cardiovascular risk. Conclusions: This survey highlights the need to improve the physicians’ misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia in patients with diabetes to successfully implement guidelines recommendations into everyday clinical practice.
2022
Morieri M.L., Lamacchia O., Manzato E., Giaccari A., Avogardo A., Amoresano L., et al. (2022). Physicians’ misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia as determinants of low LDL-cholesterol targets achievement in diabetes. CARDIOVASCULAR DIABETOLOGY, 21(1), 1-12 [10.1186/s12933-022-01495-8].
Morieri M.L.; Lamacchia O.; Manzato E.; Giaccari A.; Avogardo A.; Amoresano L.; Angotti S.; Bartone L.; Caraffa F.; Carboni A.; Carro S.; Cervone S.; ...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cardiovascular Diabetology 2022 21 1 57.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 1.26 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.26 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
12933_2022_1495_MOESM1_ESM.docx

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Additional file 1: Table S1. Clinical characteristics in the overall population and stratified by high or very high CV risk. Table S2. Lipid lowering treatments, adherence and adverse events in the overall population and stratified by high or very high CV risk. Figure S1. Relationship of physician-based misclassified CVD risk and achievement of LDL-c targets or current lipid-lowering treatments. Figure S2. Guidelines-recommended treatments that would be necessary to achieve guidelines recommended LDL-c targets in the described population.
Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Universal – Donazione al Pubblico Dominio (CC0 1.0)
Dimensione 193.16 kB
Formato Microsoft Word XML
193.16 kB Microsoft Word XML Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/957530
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 15
social impact