对脂蛋白(a)检测的态度和障碍:宾夕法尼亚大学医疗系统医疗服务提供者调查

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Archna Bajaj MD, Jillian D'souza BS
{"title":"对脂蛋白(a)检测的态度和障碍:宾夕法尼亚大学医疗系统医疗服务提供者调查","authors":"Archna Bajaj MD,&nbsp;Jillian D'souza BS","doi":"10.1016/j.jacl.2024.04.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background/Synopsis</h3><p>Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent, genetic, and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Elevated Lp(a) levels increase a person's risk for myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and aortic stenosis. Guidelines generally recommend testing for Lp(a) in high-risk patients, with some recent guidelines recommending testing once in all adults. It is estimated that &gt;20% of the population carry Lp(a) levels high enough to increase risk, however due to undertesting, many of these patients have not been identified.</p></div><div><h3>Objective/Purpose</h3><p>To understand the attitudes and barriers to testing for Lp(a) across relevant clinical settings and specialties at the University of Pennsylvania Health Systems (UPHS).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A brief IRB-approved survey in REDCap was distributed via email to select groups of UPHS providers in Cardiology, Neurology, Primary Care, and Vascular Surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The survey was sent to approximately 525 providers in December 2023. Of these, 116 providers completed the survey (54% Internal Medicine/Family Practice, 31% Cardiology, 10% Neurology, 4% Vascular Surgery). Approximately 31.0% (n=36) of all providers routinely tested for Lp(a) in their practice, but this varied by specialty (44% of Cardiologists versus 22% of Internal Medicine/Family Practice providers). For these providers, the most common reasons for testing included a familial history of ASCVD, a history of ASCVD in the patient, and high cholesterol (Table 1). A total of 80 providers (69%) responded that they do not regularly test for Lp(a). The most common reasons for not testing included lack of familiarity with Lp(a), insurance/billing concerns, lack of clinical trial outcomes data, and lack of available pharmaceutical interventions (Table 2).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While there is likely selection bias in the providers who chose to complete the survey, a surprisingly high number of responders (69%) described not regularly testing for Lp(a) in their practice. While results from ongoing clinical trial investigations of novel Lp(a)-lowering treatments may address provider hesitation toward utility of Lp(a)-testing, there is still a large gap to fill in Lp(a) awareness. Increasing provider knowledge of Lp(a) and incorporation into broader clinical guidelines are needed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15392,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical lipidology","volume":"18 4","pages":"Pages e487-e488"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attitudes and Barriers to Lipoprotein(a) Testing: A Survey of Providers at the University of Pennsylvania Health System\",\"authors\":\"Archna Bajaj MD,&nbsp;Jillian D'souza BS\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacl.2024.04.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background/Synopsis</h3><p>Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent, genetic, and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Elevated Lp(a) levels increase a person's risk for myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and aortic stenosis. Guidelines generally recommend testing for Lp(a) in high-risk patients, with some recent guidelines recommending testing once in all adults. It is estimated that &gt;20% of the population carry Lp(a) levels high enough to increase risk, however due to undertesting, many of these patients have not been identified.</p></div><div><h3>Objective/Purpose</h3><p>To understand the attitudes and barriers to testing for Lp(a) across relevant clinical settings and specialties at the University of Pennsylvania Health Systems (UPHS).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A brief IRB-approved survey in REDCap was distributed via email to select groups of UPHS providers in Cardiology, Neurology, Primary Care, and Vascular Surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The survey was sent to approximately 525 providers in December 2023. Of these, 116 providers completed the survey (54% Internal Medicine/Family Practice, 31% Cardiology, 10% Neurology, 4% Vascular Surgery). Approximately 31.0% (n=36) of all providers routinely tested for Lp(a) in their practice, but this varied by specialty (44% of Cardiologists versus 22% of Internal Medicine/Family Practice providers). For these providers, the most common reasons for testing included a familial history of ASCVD, a history of ASCVD in the patient, and high cholesterol (Table 1). A total of 80 providers (69%) responded that they do not regularly test for Lp(a). The most common reasons for not testing included lack of familiarity with Lp(a), insurance/billing concerns, lack of clinical trial outcomes data, and lack of available pharmaceutical interventions (Table 2).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While there is likely selection bias in the providers who chose to complete the survey, a surprisingly high number of responders (69%) described not regularly testing for Lp(a) in their practice. While results from ongoing clinical trial investigations of novel Lp(a)-lowering treatments may address provider hesitation toward utility of Lp(a)-testing, there is still a large gap to fill in Lp(a) awareness. Increasing provider knowledge of Lp(a) and incorporation into broader clinical guidelines are needed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15392,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical lipidology\",\"volume\":\"18 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages e487-e488\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical lipidology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287424000540\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical lipidology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287424000540","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/简介脂蛋白(a)[Lp(a)]是动脉粥样硬化性心血管疾病(ASCVD)的一个独立、遗传和致病风险因素。脂蛋白(a)水平升高会增加心肌梗死、冠心病、缺血性中风和主动脉狭窄的风险。指南一般建议对高危患者进行脂蛋白(a)检测,最近的一些指南建议对所有成年人进行一次检测。目标/目的了解宾夕法尼亚大学卫生系统(UPHS)相关临床机构和专科对脂蛋白(a)检测的态度和障碍。方法 通过电子邮件向宾夕法尼亚大学医疗系统心脏病学、神经病学、初级保健和血管外科的部分医疗服务提供者群体发送一份经 IRB 批准的 REDCap 简要调查问卷。其中,116 名医疗服务提供者完成了调查(54% 内科/家庭医生、31% 心脏科、10% 神经内科、4% 血管外科)。在所有医疗服务提供者中,约有 31.0%(n=36)的医疗服务提供者在其诊疗过程中例行检测脂蛋白(a),但这一比例因专业而异(44% 的心脏病专家与 22% 的内科/家庭医生)。对于这些医疗机构来说,最常见的检测原因包括家族性 ASCVD 病史、患者有 ASCVD 病史和高胆固醇(表 1)。共有 80 位医疗服务提供者(69%)回答说他们没有定期检测脂蛋白(a)。不检测的最常见原因包括:不熟悉脂蛋白(a)、保险/账单问题、缺乏临床试验结果数据以及缺乏可用的药物干预措施(表 2)。结论虽然选择完成调查的医疗服务提供者可能存在选择偏差,但令人惊讶的是,有很多应答者(69%)表示在他们的实践中没有定期检测脂蛋白(a)。虽然正在进行的新型降 Lp(a)疗法临床试验调查的结果可能会解决医疗服务提供者对 Lp(a)检测效用的犹豫不决,但在 Lp(a)认知方面仍有很大差距需要填补。需要增加医疗服务提供者对脂蛋白(a)的了解,并将其纳入更广泛的临床指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Attitudes and Barriers to Lipoprotein(a) Testing: A Survey of Providers at the University of Pennsylvania Health System

Background/Synopsis

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent, genetic, and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Elevated Lp(a) levels increase a person's risk for myocardial infarction, coronary artery disease, ischemic stroke, and aortic stenosis. Guidelines generally recommend testing for Lp(a) in high-risk patients, with some recent guidelines recommending testing once in all adults. It is estimated that >20% of the population carry Lp(a) levels high enough to increase risk, however due to undertesting, many of these patients have not been identified.

Objective/Purpose

To understand the attitudes and barriers to testing for Lp(a) across relevant clinical settings and specialties at the University of Pennsylvania Health Systems (UPHS).

Methods

A brief IRB-approved survey in REDCap was distributed via email to select groups of UPHS providers in Cardiology, Neurology, Primary Care, and Vascular Surgery.

Results

The survey was sent to approximately 525 providers in December 2023. Of these, 116 providers completed the survey (54% Internal Medicine/Family Practice, 31% Cardiology, 10% Neurology, 4% Vascular Surgery). Approximately 31.0% (n=36) of all providers routinely tested for Lp(a) in their practice, but this varied by specialty (44% of Cardiologists versus 22% of Internal Medicine/Family Practice providers). For these providers, the most common reasons for testing included a familial history of ASCVD, a history of ASCVD in the patient, and high cholesterol (Table 1). A total of 80 providers (69%) responded that they do not regularly test for Lp(a). The most common reasons for not testing included lack of familiarity with Lp(a), insurance/billing concerns, lack of clinical trial outcomes data, and lack of available pharmaceutical interventions (Table 2).

Conclusions

While there is likely selection bias in the providers who chose to complete the survey, a surprisingly high number of responders (69%) described not regularly testing for Lp(a) in their practice. While results from ongoing clinical trial investigations of novel Lp(a)-lowering treatments may address provider hesitation toward utility of Lp(a)-testing, there is still a large gap to fill in Lp(a) awareness. Increasing provider knowledge of Lp(a) and incorporation into broader clinical guidelines are needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
6.80%
发文量
209
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: Because the scope of clinical lipidology is broad, the topics addressed by the Journal are equally diverse. Typical articles explore lipidology as it is practiced in the treatment setting, recent developments in pharmacological research, reports of treatment and trials, case studies, the impact of lifestyle modification, and similar academic material of interest to the practitioner. While preference is given to material of immediate practical concern, the science that underpins lipidology is forwarded by expert contributors so that evidence-based approaches to reducing cardiovascular and coronary heart disease can be made immediately available to our readers. Sections of the Journal will address pioneering studies and the clinicians who conduct them, case studies, ethical standards and conduct, professional guidance such as ATP and NCEP, editorial commentary, letters from readers, National Lipid Association (NLA) news and upcoming event information, as well as abstracts from the NLA annual scientific sessions and the scientific forums held by its chapters, when appropriate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信