Prevalence and management of dyslipidemia in primary care practices in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Objective</h3> To estimate the prevalence of dyslipidemia and to describe its management in Canadian primary care. <h3>Design</h3> Retrospective cohort study using primary care electronic medical record data. <h3>Setting</h3> Canada. <h3>Participants</h3> Adults aged 40 years or older who saw a Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network contributor between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. <h3>Main outcome measures</h3> Presence or absence of dyslipidemia as identified by a validated case definition and the treatment status of patients identified as having dyslipidemia based on having been prescribed a lipid-lowering agent (LLA). <h3>Results</h3> In total, 50.0% of the 773,081 patients 40 years of age or older who had had a primary care visit in 2018 or 2019 were identified as having dyslipidemia. Dyslipidemia was more prevalent in patients 65 or older (61.5%), in males (56.7%) versus females (44.7%), and in those living in urban areas (50.0%) versus rural areas (45.2%). In patients with documented dyslipidemia, 42.8% had evidence of treatment with an LLA. Stratifying patients by Framingham risk score revealed that those in the high-risk category were more likely to have been prescribed an LLA (65.0%) compared with those in the intermediate-risk group (48.7%) or the low-risk group (22.8%). The strongest determinants of receiving LLA treatment for dyslipidemia include sex, with males being 1.95 times more likely to have been treated compared with females (95% CI 1.91 to 1.98; <i>P</i><.0001); and body mass index, with those with obesity having a significantly increased likelihood of being treated with an LLA (adjusted odds ratio of 1.36, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.41; <i>P</i><.0001). <h3>Conclusion</h3> This study provides an updated look at the prevalence and treatment of dyslipidemia among Canadians. Half of patients aged 40 years or older have dyslipidemia, with an even higher prevalence observed among adults aged 65 years or older, males, and those with obesity or other chronic conditions. There are still gaps in treatment among those with documented dyslipidemia, principally among those calculated to have high or intermediate Framingham risk scores. Particular attention should also be paid to those at higher risk for not receiving treatment, including female patients and those within normal body mass index ranges.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".