Secondary prevention in the clinical management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Core components, standards and outcome measures for referral and delivery.

Despite major improvements in diagnostics and interventional therapies, cardiovascular diseases remain a major health care and socio-economic burden both in western and developing countries, in which this burden is increasing in close correlation to economic growth. Health authorities and the general population have started to recognize that the fight against these diseases can only be won if their burden is faced by increasing our investment on interventions in lifestyle changes and prevention. There is an overwhelming evidence of the efficacy of secondary prevention initiatives including cardiac rehabilitation in terms of reduction in morbidity and mortality. However, secondary prevention is still too poorly implemented in clinical practice, often only on selected populations and over a limited period of time. The development of systematic and full comprehensive preventive programmes is warranted, integrated in the organization of national health systems. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of the process of delivery and outcomes is a necessity. Cardiology and secondary prevention, including cardiac rehabilitation, have evolved almost independently of each other and although each makes a unique contribution it is now time to join forces under the banner of preventive cardiology and create a comprehensive model that optimizes long term outcomes for patients and reduces the future burden on health care services. These are the aims that the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation has foreseen to promote secondary preventive cardiology in clinical practice.

Home medication management practices and associated factors among patients with selected chronic diseases in a community pharmacy in Uganda

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are rapidly increasing and are currently the major cause of death and disability worldwide. Patients with chronic diseases experience many challenges including medicine-related problems. However, there is limited information about the home management of medicines among these patients. This study therefore was to determine home medication management practices and associated factors among patients with chronic diseases seeking care in a community pharmacy in Uganda. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a community pharmacy in Kampala from June to July 2010. A total of 207 consenting chronic disease patients or caregivers of children with chronic disease were consecutively sampled. The patients were visited at home to evaluate their drug management practices and to check their medical forms for disease types and drugs prescribed. An interviewer-administered questionnaire and an observation checklist were used to collect the data. RESULTS: Overall home medication management was inappropriate for 70% (n = 145) of the participants (95% CI = 63.3-76.2) and was associated with perceived severity of disease (not severe OR =0.40, moderately severe OR = 0.35), duration of disease >5 years (OR = 2.15), and health worker not assessing for response to treatment (OR = 2.53). About 52% (n = 107) had inappropriate storage which was associated with inadequate information about the disease (OR = 2.39) and distance to the health facility >5 kilometres (OR = 2.82). Fifteen percent (n = 31) had no drug administration schedule and this was associated with increasing age (OR = 0.97), inadequate information about the disease (OR = 2.96), and missing last appointment for medical review (OR = 6.55). About 9% (n = 18) had actual medication duplication; 1.4% (n = 3) had expired medicines; while 18.4% (n = 38) had drug hoarding associated with increasing number of prescribers (OR = 1.34) and duration of disease (OR = 2.06). About 51% (n = 105) had multiple prescribers associated with perceiving the disease to be non severe (OR = 0.27), and having more than one chronic disease (OR = 2.37). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic disease have poor home management of medicines. In order to limit the occurrence of poor outcomes of treatment or drug toxicity, health providers need to strengthen the education of patients with chronic disease on how to handle their medicines at home.

Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: A mendelian randomisation study

Background: High plasma HDL cholesterol is associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction, but whether this association is causal is unclear. Exploiting the fact that genotypes are randomly assigned at meiosis, are independent of non-genetic confounding, and are unmodified by disease processes, mendelian random isation can be used to test the hypothesis that the association of a plasma biomarker with disease is causal.
Methods: We performed two mendelian randomisation analyses. First, we used as an instrument a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the endothelial lipase gene (LIPG Asn396Ser) and tested this SNP in 20 studies (20 913 myocardial infarction cases, 95 407 controls). Second, we used as an instrument a genetic score consisting of 14 common SNPs that exclusively associate with HDL cholesterol and tested this score in up to 12 482 cases of myocardial infarction and 41 331 controls. As a positive control, we also tested a genetic score of 13 common SNPs exclusively associated with LDL cholesterol.
Findings: Carriers of the LIPG 396Ser allele (2·6% frequency) had higher HDL cholesterol (0·14 mmol/L higher p=8×10-13) but similar levels of other lipid and non-lipid risk factors for myocardial infarction compared with noncarriers. This difference in HDL cholesterol is expected to decrease risk of myocardial infarction by 13% (odds ratio [OR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·84-0·91). However, we noted that the 396Ser allele was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·99, 95% CI 0·88-1·11, p=0·85). From observational epidemiology, an increase of 1 SD in HDL cholesterol was associated with reduced risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·62, 95% CI 0·58-0·66). However, a 1 SD increase in HDL cholesterol due to genetic score was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0·93 95% CI 0·68-1·26, p=0·63). For LDL cholesterol, the estimate from observational epidemiology (a 1 SD increase in LDL cholesterol associated with OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·45-1·63) was concordant with that from genetic score (OR 2·13 95% CI 1·69-2·69, p=2×10 -10).
Interpretation: Some genetic mechanisms that raise plasma HDL cholesterol do not seem to lower risk of myocardial infarction. These data challenge the concept that raising of plasma HDL cholesterol will uniformly translate into reductions in risk of myocardial infarction.