Jorge Navarro-Pérez

Is the Physician's Behavior in Dyslipidemia Diagnosis in Accordance with Guidelines? Cross-Sectional Escarval Study

Background Clinical inertia has been defined as mistakes by the physician in starting or intensifying treatment when indicated. Inertia, therefore, can affect other stages in the healthcare process, like diagnosis. The diagnosis of dyslipidemia requires ≥2 high lipid values, but inappropriate behavior in the diagnosis of dyslipidemia has only previously been analyzed using just total cholesterol (TC). Objectives To determine clinical inertia in the dyslipidemia diagnosis using both TC and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) and its associated factors. Design Cross-sectional. Setting All health center visits in the second half of 2010 in the Valencian Community (Spain). Patients 11,386 nondyslipidemic individuals aged ≥20 years with ≥2 lipid determinations. Measurement Variables Gender, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, age, and ESCARVAL training course. Lipid groups: normal (TC<5.17 mmol/L and normal HDL-c [≥1.03 mmol/L in men and ≥1.29 mmol/L in women], TC inertia (TC≥5.17 mmol/L and normal HDL-c), HDL-c inertia (TC<5.17 mmol/L and low HDL-c), and combined inertia (TC≥5.17 mmol/L and low HDL-c). Results TC inertia: 38.0% (95% CI: 37.2–38.9%); HDL-c inertia: 17.7% (95% CI: 17.0–18.4%); and combined inertia: 9.6% (95% CI: 9.1–10.2%). The profile associated with TC inertia was: female, no cardiovascular risk factors, no cardiovascular disease, middle or advanced age; for HDL-c inertia: female, cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease; and for combined inertia: female, hypertension and middle age. Limitations Cross-sectional study, under-reporting, no analysis of some cardiovascular risk factors or other lipid parameters. Conclusions A more proactive attitude should be adopted, focusing on the full diagnosis of dyslipidemia in clinical practice. Special emphasis should be placed on patients with low HDL-c levels and an increased cardiovascular risk.

Rationale and methods of the cardiometabolic valencian study (escarval-risk) for validation of risk scales in mediterranean patients with hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidemia

BackgroundThe Escarval-Risk study aims to validate cardiovascular risk scales in patients with hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidemia living in the Valencia Community, a European Mediterranean region, based on data from an electronic health recording system comparing predicted events with observed during 5 years follow-up study.Methods/DesignA cohort prospective 5 years follow-up study has been designed including 25000 patients with hypertension, diabetes and/or dyslipidemia attended in usual clinical practice. All information is registered in a unique electronic health recording system (ABUCASIS) that is the usual way to register clinical practice in the Valencian Health System (primary and secondary care). The system covers about 95% of population (near 5 million people). The system is linked with database of mortality register, hospital withdrawals, prescriptions and assurance databases in which each individual have a unique identification number. Diagnoses in clinical practice are always registered based on IDC-9. Occurrence of CV disease was the main outcomes of interest. Risk survival analysis methods will be applied to estimate the cumulative incidence of developing CV events over time.DiscussionThe Escarval-Risk study will provide information to validate different cardiovascular risk scales in patients with hypertension, diabetes or dyslipidemia from a low risk Mediterranean Region, the Valencia Community.

Patients’ and physicians’ preferences for type 2 diabetes mellitus treatments in Spain and Portugal: a discrete choice experiment

Objective To assess Spanish and Portuguese patients’ and physicians’ preferences regarding type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatments and the monthly willingness to pay (WTP) to gain benefits or avoid side effects. Methods An observational, multicenter, exploratory study focused on routine clinical practice in Spain and Portugal. Physicians were recruited from multiple hospitals and outpatient clinics, while patients were recruited from eleven centers operating in the public health care system in different autonomous communities in Spain and Portugal. Preferences were measured via a discrete choice experiment by rating multiple T2DM medication attributes. Data were analyzed using the conditional logit model. Results Three-hundred and thirty (n=330) patients (49.7% female; mean age 62.4 [SD: 10.3] years, mean T2DM duration 13.9 [8.2] years, mean body mass index 32.5 [6.8] kg/m2, 41.8% received oral + injected medication, 40.3% received oral, and 17.6% injected treatments) and 221 physicians from Spain and Portugal (62% female; mean age 41.9 [SD: 10.5] years, 33.5% endocrinologists, 66.5% primary-care doctors) participated. Patients valued avoiding a gain in bodyweight of 3 kg/6 months (WTP: €68.14 [95% confidence interval: 54.55–85.08]) the most, followed by avoiding one hypoglycemic event/month (WTP: €54.80 [23.29–82.26]). Physicians valued avoiding one hypoglycemia/week (WTP: €287.18 [95% confidence interval: 160.31–1,387.21]) the most, followed by avoiding a 3 kg/6 months gain in bodyweight and decreasing cardiovascular risk (WTP: €166.87 [88.63–843.09] and €154.30 [98.13–434.19], respectively). Physicians and patients were willing to pay €125.92 (73.30–622.75) and €24.28 (18.41–30.31), respectively, to avoid a 1% increase in glycated hemoglobin, and €143.30 (73.39–543.62) and €42.74 (23.89–61.77) to avoid nausea. Conclusion Both patients and physicians in Spain and Portugal are willing to pay for the health benefits associated with improved diabetes treatment, the most important being to avoid hypoglycemia and gaining weight. Decreased cardiovascular risk and weight reduction became the third most valued attributes for physicians and patients, respectively.

Clinical applicability and cost-effectiveness of DIABSCORE in screening for type 2 diabetes in primary care

AIMS To evaluate the applicability and cost-effectiveness of a clinical risk score (DIABSCORE) to screen for type 2 diabetes in primary care patients. METHODS Multicenter cross-sectional study of 10,508 adult no previously diagnosed with diabetes, in 2 Spanish regions (Canary Islands and Valencian Community). The variables comprising DIABSCORE were age, waist to height ratio, family history of diabetes and gestational diabetes. ROC curves were obtained; the diabetes prevalences odds ratios (HbA1c ≥6.5%) between patients exposed and not exposed to DIABSCORE ≥100, and to fasting blood glucose ≥126mg/dL were calculated. The opinions of both the professionals and the patients concerning DIABSCORE were collected, and a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. RESULTS In both regions, the valid cut-off point for diabetes (DIABSCORE=100), showed an area under the curve >0.80. The prevalences odds ratio of diabetes for DIABSCORE ≥100 was 9.5 (3.7-31.5) in Canarian and 18.3 (8.0-51.1) in Valencian; and for glucose ≥126mg/dL it was, respectively, 123.0 (58.8-259.2) and 303.1 (162.5-583.8). However, glucose ≥126mg/dL showed a low sensitivity (below 48% in both communities) as opposed to DIABSCORE ≥100 (above 90% in both regions). Professionals (100%) and patients (75%) satisfaction was greater when using DIABSCORE rather than glucose measurement for diabetes screening. The cost of each case of diabetes identified was lower with DIABSCORE ≥100 (7.6 € in Canarian and 8.3 € in Valencian) than glucose ≥126mg/dL (10.8 € and 10.5 €, respectively). CONCLUSIONS DIABSCORE is an applicable and cost-effective screening method for type 2 diabetes in primary care.

Lipid profile, cardiovascular disease and mortality in a Mediterranean high-risk population: The ESCARVAL-RISK study

Introduction The potential impact of targeting different components of an adverse lipid profile in populations with multiple cardiovascular risk factors is not completely clear. This study aims to assess the association between different components of the standard lipid profile with all-cause mortality and hospitalization due to cardiovascular events in a high-risk population. Methods This prospective registry included high risk adults over 30 years old free of cardiovascular disease (2008–2012). Diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidemia or diabetes mellitus was inclusion criterion. Lipid biomarkers were evaluated. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and hospital admission due to coronary heart disease or stroke. We estimated adjusted rate ratios (aRR), absolute risk differences and population attributable risk associated with adverse lipid profiles. Results 51,462 subjects were included with a mean age of 62.6 years (47.6% men). During an average follow-up of 3.2 years, 919 deaths, 1666 hospitalizations for coronary heart disease and 1510 hospitalizations for stroke were recorded. The parameters that showed an increased rate for total mortality, coronary heart disease and stroke hospitalization were, respectively, low HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.25, 1.29 and 1.23; high Total/HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.22, 1.38 and 1.25; and high Triglycerides/HDL-Cholesterol: aRR 1.21, 1.30, 1.09. The parameters that showed highest population attributable risk (%) were, respectively, low HDL-Cholesterol: 7.70, 11.42, 8.40; high Total/HDL-Cholesterol: 6.55, 12.47, 8.73; and high Triglycerides/HDL-Cholesterol: 8.94, 15.09, 6.92. Conclusions In a population with cardiovascular risk factors, HDL-cholesterol, Total/HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides/HDL-cholesterol ratios were associated with a higher population attributable risk for cardiovascular disease compared to other common biomarkers.

Inmates of the mid nineteenth-century Valencian asylum 'Hospital dels Ignoscents, Folls e Orats'. Is their illness diagnosable?

was at that time in Cambridge (UK) with a grant from the University of Valencia, and at the invitation of Dr Berrios. We wish to express our gratitude to Dr Berrios and the University of Valencia. Address for correspondence: c/ Ciscar n&deg; 55 pta. 6a, 46005 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: lorenzo.livianos@uv.es a Unidad Docente de Psiquiatria y Psicologia M&eacute;dica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Valencia, Spain. b Instituto de Estudios Documentales e Hist&oacute;ricos sobre la Ciencia, Universidad de Valencia, Spain. Introduction