Background: Despite practice guidelines, strategies for lowering LDL-C are often poorly adopted in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Five countries (Brazil, Kuwait, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and UAE) enrolled 2,422 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with low density lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) above 1.4 mmol/L. Patients were followed at 6 ± 2 months intervals to assess LDL-C level and treatment with ezetimibe and/or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i). Results: 2422 patients 60.4 ± 11.7 years old and 29% women were enrolled from 87 participating cardiology sites. Overall, 91.1% of patients had coronary artery disease and FH in 12.3%. At baseline LDL-C was 2.96 ± 1.36 mmol/L and 1.87 ± 1.28 mmol/L (p<0.0001) at last available observation (n=2014). Proportion of patients achieving LDL<1.4 mmol/L (primary endpoint) increased from zero to 41.4% (p<0.0001). At baseline, 99.2% of patients were on statin (81.3% high intensity statin), 34.4% on ezetimibe and its use increased significantly (62.9%, p<0.0001). PCSK9i use increased to 35.0% from baseline to last follow up (p<0.0001). Clinical outcomes such as ACS, CVA/TIA, PCI, CABG, or hospitalization for ASCVD reasons were recorded in 10.7% of patients during the follow up. Patients with no event had an overall LDL-C of 1.90 ± 1.3 mmol/L while those with an event had LDL-C significantly higher at the visit immediately prior to event (2.70 ± 1.35, p=0.0001). Conclusion: The results indicate the feasibility of overcoming treatment inertia and improving LDL-C control which should help to achieve reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in ASCVD patients.

Background: Despite clear and concise practice guidelines, strategies for lowering LDL-C are often poorly adopted in clinical practice, and many patients fail to reach guideline-recommended levels despite physician education and quality improvement programs. We studied whether physician focussed, guideline-based practice level educational intervention can improve lipid lowering management. Methods: Cardiologists or internal medicine specialists from the province of Ontario, Canada who were using a cardiology specific EMR (CEREBRUM, WELL Health Technologies Corporation) were invited to participate. Practice level data of patients with history of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and lipid profile were studied. Physicians were alerted when patients in their practice were not treated according to recommendations. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level of below 1.8 mmol/L. Results: Of the invited 378 specialists, 178 agreed to participate and shared their practice involving 7,683 ACS patients who were 70.4 ± 10.3 years of age and 27.2% were women. Overall, 57.7% of patients had LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L at the start of the program (1.84 ± 0.87 mmol/L) and 63.0% (1.75 ± 0.79 mmol/L) at the end of the program (p<0.0001). With respect to the lipid lowering therapy, statin therapy was used in 52.9% of patients at the start of the program and increased to 72.1% at the end (p<0.0001). The use of ezetimibe increased from 12.6% to 19.0% (p<0.0001) and the use of PCSK9i from 1.2% to 2.4% (p<0.0001). Conclusion: The results indicate the feasibility of using EMR as a platform to deliver educational intervention and overcoming treatment inertia and improving LDL-C lowering.

Background We studied care gap in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with respect to lipid‐lowering therapy. Methods and Results We enrolled patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or FH and low‐density lipoprotein‐cholesterol >2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow‐up physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations of 2009 patients (median age, 63 years, 42% women), 52.4% had CVD only, 31.7% FH only, and 15.9% both CVD and FH. Patients with FH were younger and more likely to be women and non‐White with significantly higher baseline low‐density lipoprotein‐cholesterol level (mmol/L) as compared with patients with CVD (FH 3.92±1.48 versus CVD 2.96±0.94, P <0.0001). Patients with FH received less statin (70.6% versus 79.2%, P =0.0001) at baseline but not ezetimibe (28.1% versus 20.4%, P =0.0003). Among patients with FH only, 45.3% were at low‐density lipoprotein target (≥ 50% reduction from pre‐treatment level or low‐density lipoprotein <2.5 mmol/L) at baseline and increasing to 65.8% and 73.6% by visit 2 and 3, respectively. Among patients with CVD only, none were at recommended level (≤2.0 mmol/L) at baseline and 44.3% and 53.3% were at recommended level on second and third visit, respectively. When primary end point was analyzed as a difference between baseline and last available follow‐up observation, only 22.0% of patients with FH only achieved it as compared with 45.8% with CVD only ( P <0.0001) and 55.2% with both FH+CVD ( P <0.0001). Conclusions There is significant treatment inertia in patients with FH including those with CVD. Education focused on patients with FH should continue to be undertaken.

Background: We compared the use of lipid lowering therapy, low density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and proportion achieving guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in patients with private vs. public insurance coverage for their lipid lowering treatment. Materials and Methods: Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) Canada enrolled 2009 patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and an LDL-C above the guideline-recommended target of <2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During two follow-up visits physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations. Results: Of 2009 patients enrolled (median age 63 years, 42% female), there were 1284 (64%) patients with private and 725 (36%) with public insurance for lipid lowering therapy. Patients with private insurance were younger and less likely to have a history of heart failure or to be on bile acid sequestrants. There was no difference between the groups in their lipid levels or lipid lowering therapy at baseline. During the follow up, there was no difference in the use of ezetimibe; however, the use of PCSK9i was more frequent in patients with private insurance (31.7 % vs. 21%, p<0.0001), the mean LDL-C level was slightly lower (2.11±1.17 vs. 2.31±1.17 mmol/L, p = 0.001), and the proportion of patients achieving the guideline-recommended LDL-C level was greater (54% vs. 45.5%, p = 0.001). After adjustment for other factors in a multivariable model, private insurance was not a significant predictor of achieving the guideline-recommended LDL-C level in a multivariable model. Conclusion: While PCSK9i use was higher in patients with private insurance, the majority of patients with either private or public insurance experienced similar treatment inertia. The cost of non-generic medications does not appear to be the dominant reason for the continued care gap in lipid lowering of high-risk patients.

Objectives: Optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging. Limited data are available from the primary care setting on achievement of guideline-recommended targets in this population before the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Methods: The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada survey included 5,172 patients with T2D seen by primary care physicians (PCPs) in November 2012. We compared treatment targets and therapeutic interventions in patients with and without CKD. Results: Compared with those without CKD (n=3,804), patients with CKD (n=1,368) were older, more likely to be female, had a longer duration of diabetes and had more vascular complications. Patients with CKD more frequently had a less stringent glycated hemoglobin (A1C) target of <= 8.0% set by PCPs (10.3% vs 20%, p<0.001), and fewer patients with CKD met the A1C target of <= 7.0% (50.9% vs 47.1%, p=0.016) than those without CKD. Both groups had a similar likelihood of achieving the blood pressure (BP) target of <= 130/80 mmHg (36.8% vs 34.8%, p=0.20), whereas patients with CKD more frequently achieved a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target of <= 2.0 mmol/L (54.8% vs 61.3%, p<0.001). Overall, only 12.5% in both groups achieved all 3 targets (12.3% vs 13.3%, p=0.33). Conclusions: Only 1 of 8 patients with T2D achieved optimal glycemic, BP and cholesterol targets, regardless of the presence or absence of CKD. Although more medical interventions were used in patients with CKD, a lower proportion achieved guideline-recommended targets for A1C. These findings provide a benchmark for future comparison. (C) 2021 Canadian Diabetes Association.

Background: Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) exposes unsuspecting patients to elevated stroke risks. The op-timal algorithm for identifying patients who should be screened for AF remains undetermined. The objective of this study is to determine the AF burden in an asymptomatic, at-risk population. We also sought to investigate potential predictors of undiagnosed AF. Methods: This registry is a prospective observational study assessing continuous ECG monitoring in screening for AF using a wearable single lead 7-day continuous monitoring device. Patients included were asymptomatic indi-viduals, at risk for AF as determined by either 1) >-65 years of age with >-1 high risk factor or; 2) >-75 years of age and >-2 moderate risk factors. A multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the predictive value of cer-tain patient characteristics in identifying patients susceptible to have undiagnosed AF. Results: Among the 942 patients included, 25 patients (2.7%) had evidence of AF detected. Only 8 patients had AF duration >-24 h. History of perioperative AF (OR: 3.25, 95%CI: 1.08-9.79, p = 0.036), age over 85 (OR: 4.71, 95%CI: 1.31-16.92, p = 0.017) and absence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (OR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.10-0.76, p = 0.013) were found to be predictive of undiagnosed AF. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of office-based AF screening in at-risk population. The low rate of AF detection suggests that the optimal algorithm for identifying asymptomatic patients who would benefit from continuous screening remains unclear. Advanced age, history of perioperative AF and absence of CVD are variables that could be explored further. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Background: Despite widespread use of statins, it is estimated that 40 -50% of Canadian patients with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) do not achieve recommended LDL-C level.We aimed to ascertain the care gap and whether the use of physician reminders imbedded in the electronic medical record (EMR) can optimize the use of second-and thirdline therapy as recommended by guidelines and its impact on LDL-C goal achievement in a real-world experience. Methods:We invited 300 physicians from our list of those known to be using Telus EMR in order to participate and share their practice level data.Physicians were asked whether they aimed to prescribe guidelines' recommended therapy in patients with LDL-C above recommended level.Results: Of the invited physicians, 159 were recruited to participate and 140 activated their dashboard and 97 shared their practice results.There were 7,647 patients coded as ASCVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) of whom 63% were male and 81% were older than 60 years of age and 49% had history of hypertension (HT), 29% diabetes, and 19% CKD.Approximately half (51%) of patients did not have the cholesterol panel results documented in EMR in the past two years.Of those with documented LDL-C, the value was above the recommended level of <2.0 mmol/L in 33% of patients; 22% had LDL-C between 2.0 and 3.0 mmol/L and 11% above 3.0 mmol/L.Among patients with LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L, 35% were receiving no treatment, 32% were on sub-optimal dose of statin, 22% were on high intensity statin but no ezetimibe, 10% were on statin and ezetimibe, and only 1% were on PCSK9i.The most common reason for not being on any lipid lowering was patient refusal or intolerance in 47% followed by "my management is appropriate" in 32%; only in 15% of patients were there a plan to modify therapy at the next visit.Conclusion: significant care gaps exist among primary care practices with respect to lipid lowering management with half of the patients not having the LDL-C level on the chart and of those with LDL-C, a third of patients not achieving guidelines recommended LDL-C level.Programs designed to overcome treatment inertia are needed to improve LDL-C control and achieve reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of high-risk patients.

A recent acute coronary syndrome provides an opportunity to optimise secondary prevention strategies to reduce the risk of future cardiovascular events. This review provides an updated synopsis of current evidence-based approaches. New clinical trial data on the use of antiplatelet and anticoagulants allow choices of the selection and duration of treatment. Lipid lowering after an acute coronary syndrome is now enhanced, with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors providing added benefit on top of statin and ezetimibe treatment in high-risk patients. In addition, a recent trial of icosapent ethyl, a highly purified ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, addresses residual risk in patients with elevated triglycerides already treated with statins. The use of both sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes reduces cardiovascular events independently of glucose lowering.

Background: Despite the widespread use of statins, approximately 40% to 50% of Canadian patients with known cardiovascular disease do not achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal. Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid lowering (GOAL) is an investigator-initiated study aiming to ascertain the use of second-and third-line therapy and its impact on LDL-C goal achievement in a real world setting.Methods: GOAL enrolled patients with clinical vascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians managed patients as clinically indicated but with online reminders of guideline recommendations.Results: Of 2009 patients enrolled (median age 63 years, 42% were female), baseline total cholesterol was 5.5 + 1.4 mmol/L, LDL-C was 3.3 + 1.3 mmol/L, nonehigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 4.1 + 1.4 mmol/L, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 1.3 + 0.4 mmol/L, and triglycerides were 2.0 + 1.5 mmol/L. Lipid-lowering therapy used at baseline was statin therapy in 76% (with 24% statin intolerant) and ezetimibe in 25%. During follow-up, the proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C level of < 2.0 mmol/L increased signifi-cantly to 50.8% as a result of additional lipid-lowering therapy. Patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level were more likely to not be statin intolerant (83.8% vs 70.7%, P < 0.0001) and to be taking a high-efficacy type and dose of statin (52.4% vs 35.9%, P < 0.0001). The 3 top reasons for not using the recommended therapy with ezetimibe were patient refusal in 33%, not needed in 22%, and intolerance in 20%, whereas for PCSK9i the reasons were cost in 26%, not needed in 27%, or patient refusal in 25%.Conclusion: The results indicate the feasibility of optimizing management, resulting in achievement of the guideline-recommended LDL-C level. This has the potential to translate into reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of Canadian patients.

Background We studied whether significant differences in care gaps exist between specialists and primary care physicians (PCPs). Methods GOAL Canada enrolled patients with CVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and LDL-C > 2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow-up, physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations based on Canadian Guidelines. Results A total of 177 physicians (58% PCPs) enrolled 2009 patients; approximately half of the patients were enrolled by each physician group. Patients enrolled by specialists were slightly older (mean age 63 years vs 62), female (45% vs 40%), Caucasian (77% vs 65%), and had a slightly higher systolic pressure and lower heart rate. Patients enrolled by specialists had less frequent history of FH, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and liver disease but more frequent history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation and premature family history of CVD. There was no significant baseline difference in LDL-C, HDL-C or non-HDL-C, although total cholesterol and triglycerides were slightly higher in patients managed by PCPs. At baseline, PCPs were more likely to use statins (80% vs 73%, P = .0002) and other therapies such as niacin or fibrate (10% vs 6%, P = .0006) but similar use of ezetimibe (24% vs 27%, P = .15). At the end of follow-up, specialists used less statins (70% vs 77%, P = .0005) and other therapies (6% vs 10%, P = .007) but more ezetimibe (45% vs 38%, P = .01) and the same frequency of PCSK9i (28% vs 27%, P = .65). The proportion of patients achieving the recommended LDL-C level of 2.0 mmol/L or below (primary endpoint) was similar at last available visit between specialists and PCPs (44% vs 42%, P = .32). Conclusion Despite minor differences in the clinical profile of their patients, both PCPs and specialists actively participate in the management of lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk CVD patients and experience similar challenges and care gaps.

Background: Physicians treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) assess stroke and bleeding risks when deciding on anticoagulation. The agreement between empirical and physician-estimated risks is unclear. Furthermore, the association between patient and physician sex and anticoagulation decision-making is uncertain. Methods: We pooled data from 2 national primary care physician chart audit databases of patients with AF (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation and Coordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Chart Audit) with a combined 1035 physicians (133 female, 902 male) and 10,927 patients (4567 female and 6360 male). Results: Male physicians underestimated stroke risk in female patients and overestimated risk in male patients. Female physicians estimated stroke risk well in female patients but underestimated the risk in male patients. Risk of bleeding was underestimated in all. Despite differences in risk assessment by physician and patient sex, > 90% of patients received anticoagulation across all subgroups. There was modest agreement between physician estimated and calculated (ie, CHADS(2) score) stroke risk: Kappa scores were 0.41 (0.35-0.47) for female physicians and 0.34 (0.32-0.36) for male physicians. Conclusions: Our study is the first to examine the association between patient and physician sex influences and stroke and bleeding risk estimation in AF. Although there were differences in agreement between physician estimated stroke risk and calculated CHADS(2) scores, these differences were small and unlikely to affect clinical practice; further, despite any perceived differences in the accuracy of risk assessment by sex, most patients received anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND:The Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting after Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI) demonstrated superiority of routine early coronary angiography (and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) compared with standard therapy in fibrinolytic-treated patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at 30 days. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the long-term (>7 year) effects of an early invasive strategy. METHODS:We linked the study cohort and administrative datasets to assess long-term follow-up status including repeat procedures, hospitalizations, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the relationship between randomized treatment and long-term adverse outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 881 patients had long-term follow-up and were included in our study. After a mean follow-up of 7.8 years, there were no significant differences in death, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or heart failure admissions (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.13]; P = 0.41) between those randomized to an early invasive vs standard treatment strategy. Following the index hospitalization, there were no significant difference in the rates of coronary revascularization between the early invasive and the standard therapy groups (81 [19.3%] vs 76 [17.9%]; P = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS:Despite the short-term benefit and safety of an early invasive strategy in patients with STEMI receiving fibrinolysis, no statistically significant differences in MACE were observed over 7.8 years.

Objective: The Goal Oriented controL of Diabetes in the Elderly populatioN (GOLDEN) Program assessed the management of older persons with type 2 diabetes in Canadian primary care. Methods: Data were extracted from the records of 833 consecutively identified persons 65 years of age or older who had type 2 diabetes and were taking 1 antihyperglycemic agent or more; they were managed by 64 physicians from 36 Ontario clinics. Results: More than half (53%) had glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels of 7.0% or lower, 41% had blood pressure levels below 130/80 mm Hg, and 73% had low-density lipoprotein levels of 2.0 mmol/L or lower; 19% met all 3 criteria. Over the past year, 11% had been assessed for frailty, 16% for cognitive dysfunction and 19% for depression; 88% were referred for eye checkups, and 83% had undergone foot examinations. One-tenth were taking 4 or more antihyperglycemic agents, 87% statins and 52% an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. More than half of those with high clinical complexity had A1C levels of 7.0% or lower; of these, one-third were taking a sulfonylurea, and one-fifth were taking insulin. In the patients with A1C levels of 7.0% or above and low clinical complexity, there was often no up-titration or initiation of additional antihyperglycemic agents. Conclusions: Older persons with type 2 diabetes often have multiple comorbidities. Unlike eye and foot examinations, there was less emphasis on evaluating for frailty, cognitive dysfunction and depression. The GOLDEN patients had generally well-controlled glycemic, blood pressure and cholesterol profiles, but whether these would be reflected in a "sicker" population is not known. Personalized strategies are necessary to avoid undertreatment of "healthy" older patients and overtreatment of the frail elderly. (c) 2017 Canadian Diabetes Association.

Patients with ACS remain at high risk of major coronary events and require further therapy to improve their survival and lower morbidity. A total of 35 Canadian hospitals participated and enrolled NSTEMI ACS patients admitted with the first event. Patients surviving to hospital discharge were followed up at 4 and 6 months to assess the use of recommended secondary prevention measures. Physicians were reminded of the recommended secondary prevention measures by way of a clinical reminder which was shown if an individual patient management did not conform to the recommendations. A total of 423 patients (70% male) who were 63.4 ± 11.2 years old were recruited by 28 hospitals. Systolic and diastolic BP was 140 ± 23 and 80 ± 14 mmHg, respectively and the heart rate was 75±15 beats per minute. Time from symptom onset to presentation was 1-12 hours in 57%, 12-24 hours in 20%, and > 24 hours in 23%. Presenting ECG was normal in 43%, revealed T wave inversion in 30%, ST segment depression in 26% and non-specific changes in 18%. While in hospital 93% of patients had an angiogram, PCI was performed in 67% and CABG in 12%. Recommended secondary prevention measures were prescribed in only 31% of patients at hospital discharge; the use of the clinical reminder was associated with significant increase in secondary prevention treatments during the follow up (p =0.0072). Simple clinical reminders offered as part of the electronic data entry appear feasible and may support optimizing patient care based on guidelines and recommendations.

Objectives: To describe the clinical histories and management of adults with type 2 diabetes who were not reaching their target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and to identify barriers to achieving therapeutic goals. Methods: Practice assessment surveys and practice audits were completed by 88 primary care physicians (PCPs) in the Diabetes Mellitus Assessment of Clinical managemenT In ONtario (DM-ACTION) program and by 56 diabetes specialists in the Diabetes Mellitus IMproving PAtient Care in our communiTies (DM-IMPACT) program. The DM-ACTION audit analyzed data from 1,173 adults with A1C levels >= 7.3% who were not prescribed insulin; the DM-IMPACT audit included 135 individuals with similar characteristics. Results: Most PCPs (92%) and specialists (88%) stated that they typically recommend A1C levels of <= 7.0%; more than 90% indicated that they adjusted antihyperglycemic therapy within 3 months if suboptimal A1C targets endured. Among the DM-ACTION patients, the median A1C level was 7.8%; the median time between the last 2 A1C tests was 5 months; 58% were taking <= 2 noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents; and adjustment of glucose-lowering therapy was noted for only 56%. The corresponding values for the DM-IMPACT patients were 8.0%, 4 months, 43% and 68%, respectively. PCPs and specialists attributed patients' factors and patients' adherence as primary causes of poor achievement of guidelin-recommended targets. PCPs perceived patients' factors as the predominant barrier to optimizing care, but the specialists believed that therapeutic inertia stems from a wide range and a varied combination of patient-centric factors. Conclusions: Type 2 diabetes remains a health-care challenge in Canada and globally. Primary care physicians and specialists attributed patients' factors as principal obstacles to optimal diabetes management. However, physician-associated therapeutic inertia may also be an important barrier to unmet therapeutic goals. (C) 2018 Canadian Diabetes Association.

Objectives: Optimal treatment of blood pressure (BP) and other cardiovascular risk factors, including hyperglycemia, is integral to diabetes management. There are limited data from the primary care setting concerning the contemporary and comprehensive management of type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors in relation to guideline-recommended BP target achievement. Methods: The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada (DM-SCAN) survey included 5172 ambulatory patients with type 2 diabetes. Data were collected on patient demographics, medical histories, medication usage, BP levels and laboratory investigations. We stratified the study population based on their attainment of the BP target recommended by the Canadian Diabetes Association 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada and the Canadian Hypertension Education Program (< 130/80 mmHg) and compared patient clinical characteristics and treatments. Results: Of the 5145 patients with available BP data, 36% achieved the BP target. Prevalence of smoking, known coronary artery disease, retinopathy, neuropathy and nephropathy were similar in the groups with BP 130/80 mmHg or higher and BP 130/80 mmHg or lower. Patients with BP 130/80 mmHg or higher were taking more antihypertensive agents and were more likely to be taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers, diuretics and calcium channel blockers. They also had significantly higher glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels. Overall, these patients were also less likely to achieve guideline-recommended glycemic and lipid targets. Conclusions: Only about one-third of patients with diabetes achieved the target BP of below 130/80 mmHg. Patients with BP 130/80 mmHg or higher were also less likely to achieve optimal guideline-recommended glycated hemoglobin and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol targets. Improved comprehensive management of all risk factors in patients with diabetes is warranted. (C) 2017 Canadian Diabetes Association.

Using data collected from 2 national atrial fibrillation (AF) primary care physician chart audits (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation [FREEDOM AF] and Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [CONNECT AF]), we evaluated the frequency of, and factors associated with, the use of cardiovascular (CV) evidence-based therapies in Canadian AF outpatients with at least 1 CV risk factor or co-morbidity. Of the 11,264 patients enrolled, 9,495 (84.3%) were eligible for one or more CV evidence-based therapies. The proportions of patients with AF receiving all eligible guideline-recommended therapies were 40.8% of patients with coronary artery disease, 48.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus, 40.2% of patients with heart failure, 96.7% of patients with hypertension, and 55.1% of patients with peripheral arterial disease. Factors that were independently associated with nonreceipt of all indicated evidence-based therapies included sinus rhythm rather than AF at baseline and liver disease. In conclusion, although most Canadian outpatients with AF have CV risk factors or co-morbidities, a substantial portion of these patients did not receive all guideline-recommended therapies. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of care for patients with AF in Canada.

Using data collected from 2 national atrial fibrillation (AF) primary care physician chart audits (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation [FREEDOM AF] and Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [CONNECT AF]), we evaluated the frequency of, and factors associated with, the use of cardiovascular (CV) evidence-based therapies in Canadian AF outpatients with at least 1 CV risk factor or co-morbidity. Of the 11,264 patients enrolled, 9,495 (84.3%) were eligible for one or more CV evidence-based therapies. The proportions of patients with AF receiving all eligible guideline-recommended therapies were 40.8% of patients with coronary artery disease, 48.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus, 40.2% of patients with heart failure, 96.7% of patients with hypertension, and 55.1% of patients with peripheral arterial disease. Factors that were independently associated with nonreceipt of all indicated evidence-based therapies included sinus rhythm rather than AF at baseline and liver disease. In conclusion, although most Canadian outpatients with AF have CV risk factors or co-morbidities, a substantial portion of these patients did not receive all guideline-recommended therapies. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of care for patients with AF in Canada. Using data collected from 2 national atrial fibrillation (AF) primary care physician chart audits (Facilitating Review and Education to Optimize Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation [FREEDOM AF] and Co-ordinated National Network to Engage Physicians in the Care and Treatment of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [CONNECT AF]), we evaluated the frequency of, and factors associated with, the use of cardiovascular (CV) evidence-based therapies in Canadian AF outpatients with at least 1 CV risk factor or co-morbidity. Of the 11,264 patients enrolled, 9,495 (84.3%) were eligible for one or more CV evidence-based therapies. The proportions of patients with AF receiving all eligible guideline-recommended therapies were 40.8% of patients with coronary artery disease, 48.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus, 40.2% of patients with heart failure, 96.7% of patients with hypertension, and 55.1% of patients with peripheral arterial disease. Factors that were independently associated with nonreceipt of all indicated evidence-based therapies included sinus rhythm rather than AF at baseline and liver disease. In conclusion, although most Canadian outpatients with AF have CV risk factors or co-morbidities, a substantial portion of these patients did not receive all guideline-recommended therapies. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of care for patients with AF in Canada.

The Diabetes Mellitus Assessment of Clinical managemenT In ONtario (DM-ACTION) program sought insights into the management of adults with T2D not at guideline recommended A1C. 88 primary care physicians completed practice surveys, 90% of whom saw >10 persons with diabetes/week. Between 9/2016 and 5/2017, data from 1165 adults with T2D, recent A1C ≥7.3%, and managed with lifestyle strategies ± non-insulin antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) were analyzed. The cohort (60% men) had a median (interquartile range) age of 61 (53–68) years, T2D for 8 (5–12) years, A1C 7.8 (7.4–8.5)%, BP 126/78 (120–132/70–80) mmHg and LDL-C 1.9 (1.4–2.6) mmol/L. BP <130/80 mmHg was documented for 44%; LDL-C≤2.0 mmol/L for 57%; 28% met both targets. Most (86%) had a BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2; 66% had hypertension, 69% dyslipidemia and 10% had an eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73m2. Most (83%) were using ≤3 AHAs. Although 94% of the physicians reported typically initiating/adding an AHA within 3 months for unmet A1C goals, AHA uptitration/initiation/switching was only recorded for 56% of the patient cohort. Furthermore, the last two A1C measurements were 5 (3–7) months apart; only 21% had a≥0.5% A1C decrease while 34% had a≥0.5% increase. Suboptimal glycemic control was most commonly attributed to non-adherence.