ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2020
Gaps in Dyslipidemia Care Among Working-Aged Individuals With Employer-Sponsored Health Care.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Considerations for Healthcare Provider-Administered Lipid-Lowering Medications.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2024Review
- Gaps in Dyslipidemia Care Among Working-Aged Individuals With Employer-Sponsored Health Care.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Article
- Social Determinants of Health Challenges Are Prevalent Among Commercially Insured Populations.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology guidelines defined patient-management groups that would benefit from lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We assessed gaps in dyslipidemia care among employees and spouses with health benefits. Methods and Results We studied 17 889 employees and spouses who were covered by an employer-sponsored health plan and participated in an annual health assessment. Using medical claims, laboratory tests, and risk assessment questionnaires, we found that 43% of participants were in one of 4 patient-management groups: secondary prevention, severe hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL at least once in the preceding 5 years), diabetes mellitus, or elevated 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease. To assess gaps in dyslipidemia care, we used LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL as the goal for both the secondary prevention group and those in the elevated 10-year risk group with >20% risk; LDL-C ≤100 mg/dL was used for the other groups. Among those in patient-management groups, 27.3% were in the secondary prevention group, 7.4% were in the severe hypercholesterolemia group, 29.9% were in the diabetes mellitus group, and 35.4% were in the elevated 10-year risk group. About 74% of those in patient-management groups had above-goal LDL-C levels, whereas only 31% had evidence of a lipid-lowering therapy in the past 6 months: 45% in the secondary prevention group, 31% in the severe hypercholesterolemia group, 36% in the diabetes mellitus group, and 17% in the elevated 10-year risk group. Conclusions The substantial gaps in LDL-C treatment and goal attainment among members of an employer-sponsored medical plan who were mostly aware of their LDL-C levels indicate the need for gap-closure initiatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.