MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Awareness of lipid guideline recommendations for high-risk patients amongst primary care physicians in Canada

2022· article· en· W4306321199 on OpenAlexaffabout
Manoj Kumar Gupta, M Padarath, L Prest, Nirav Naik, R A Hegele

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolypharmacyGuidelinePrimary careFamily medicineAcute coronary syndromeStatinEmergency medicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→