Awareness of lipid guideline recommendations for high-risk patients amongst primary care physicians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Lipid guidelines for cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction have evolved in recent years, particularly since the introduction of PCSK9 inhibitors. In many jurisdictions, CV risk management is provided by primary care physicians (PCPs). We surveyed Canadian PCPs regarding their awareness and implementation of the 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) lipid guideline recommendations for patients following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or for those with diabetes but without CV disease. Methods and results From a national database of PCPs with interest and/or experience in CV medicine, we invited PCPs to complete a survey regarding lipid management in high-risk patients. A committee of PCPs and specialists with lipid expertise including several co-authors of the 2021 CCS lipid guidelines had designed the survey to probe awareness and practice patterns. A total of 203 PCPs from across Canada completed the survey between January and March 2022. 23.6% of respondents had previously prescribed a PCSK9 inhibitor. Almost all (96.5%) PCPs concurred that a post-ACS patient should be seen by their PCP within 4 weeks of hospital discharge (79.3% within 2 weeks). Almost half (45.3%) responded that discharge summaries provided inadequate information relevant for PCPs, and 43% felt that lipid management post-ACS was the primary responsibility of specialists. More than half (56%) articulated challenges when seeing a post-ACS patient, related to inadequate discharge information, complexities of polypharmacy and duration of therapies, and managing perceived or real statin intolerance. 62% correctly identified the LDL-C intensification threshold of 1.8 mmol/L in post-ACS patients, while 79% considered that PCSK9 inhibitors were indicated only for those patients who were already receiving statins plus ezetimibe or had substantially elevated LDL-C levels. 55.2% were able to correctly identify clinical features associated with greatest absolute benefit of PCSK9 inhibitors in post-ACS patients. For patients with diabetes but without ASCVD, 80% of PCPs incorrectly believed that PCSK9 inhibitors were indicated for LDL-C levels above threshold despite statin therapy, and only 42% correctly identified the LDL-C threshold for treatment intensification of 2.0 mmol/L. Conclusion While PCPs are aware of the urgency regarding lipid management in post-ACS patients, many encounter challenges after hospital discharge, frequently deferring lipid management to specialists. Thus, almost one year following publication of the 2021 CCS lipid guidelines, substantial knowledge gaps remain regarding intensification thresholds and treatment options for patients post-ACS or for those with diabetes. Innovative and effective knowledge translation programs are urgently required. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Amgen Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".