Time trends of gender-based differences in lipid goal attainments during secondary prevention of coronary artery disease: results of a 5-year survey.

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in both men and women worldwide. Little is known about gender-based differences in lipid goal attainment during secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. We conducted this study to analyze gender differences in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target attainment in secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction over a 5-year period. In this retrospective study, the electronic database of lipid clinic at a single center was used as the data source. Temporal trends and gender differences in demographics, lipid profile, and medication use were determined. Goal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) was defined per National Cholesterol Education Program ATP III guidelines.A total of 1365 patients (823 males, 542 females) constituted the study sample. Patients in 2007 were older than those in 2003 (females 68.6 ± 14 vs. 70.7 ± 11.7 years; males 63.6 ± 12 vs. 65.8 ± 11 years; P < 0.05) and had a higher body mass index (females 27.8 ± 1 vs. 28.6 ± 1 kg/m; males 27.6 ± 1 vs. 28.1 ± 1 kg/m, in 2003 and 2007 respectively, P < 0.05). Mean LDL decreased significantly overtime in both males and females. No gender difference in lipid-lowering therapy was observed. Females had a higher LDL than did males in 2003 (115.3 ± 12.3 vs. 99.7 ± 12.5 mg/dL; P < 0.05), and this difference persisted through 2007 (102.2 ± 11.7 vs. 91.3 ± 11.2 mg/dL; P < 0.05). Overall rate of achieving goal LDL improved from 76.5% (2003) to 83.02% (2007), P < 0.05, but remained lower for females than for males both in 2003 and 2007 [69.8% vs. 80.1% (2003), P < 0.05, and 77.9% vs. 85.6% (2007), P < 0.05].The trend over a recent 5-year period shows that females are less likely to achieve goal LDL than males are, and it indicates the need for more aggressive lipid-lowering strategies in females.

Controlling lipids in a high-risk population with documented coronary artery disease for secondary prevention: are we doing enough?

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in patients who have achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in the current era of universal statin therapy remains unknown. We conducted a study to determine the prevalence of low HDL-C in patients with documented coronary artery disease, and to determine the lipid-lowering treatment patterns in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis, data were obtained from the electronic database of a cardiology clinic. The Joint British Society 2 criteria were used defining low HDL-C as less than 1 mmol/l in males and less than 1.2 mmol/l in females. We compared the prevalence of low HDL-C across the following categories of LDL-C: less than 2, 2-2.5, and greater than 2.5 mmol/l. RESULTS: Two thousand and eighty-seven patients with a mean age of 64.34±11.94 years constituted the study sample. About 36.6% of patients in this study were found to have low HDL-C. Irrespective of sex, low HDL-C was prevalent across all levels of LDL-C, but interestingly this was most prevalent in patients with a LDL-C less than 2 mmol/l (43.06%). HDL-C level of 1.16±0.97 mmol/l in patients with LDL-C less than 2 mmol/l was significantly lower than 1.22±0.33 mmol/l in patients with LDL-C greater than 2 mmol/l, P value less than 0.01. There was a poor correlation between levels of HDL-C and LDL-C in the study population irrespective of sex or statin therapy. CONCLUSION: This study shows widely prevalent low HDL-C levels in high-risk patients across the spectrum of LDL-C levels despite statin therapy. There was no correlation between the LDL-C and HDL-C levels implying their independent relationship and, thus, the need to treat them independently.