Prevalence of Post COVID-19 Condition in Primary Care: A Cross Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a major challenge for health systems, citizens and policymakers worldwide. It is not known how many people are affected with longer term sequelae after acute COVID-19 and a wide range of prevalence estimates have been reported with a high heterogeneity between studies. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional study to estimate the prevalence of post COVID-19 conditions in a community setting. We selected a random sample of 579 individuals from three different primary health care centers and collected information on symptoms through a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: Our main study finding was an overall population prevalence of 14.34% (95% CI 11.58-17.46%) of post COVID-19. Only 9% of patients were hospitalized in our study. Prevalence was higher in women than men (15.63% versus 13.06%) and the most frequent persistent symptoms were fatigue (44.6%), smell impairment (27.7%) and dyspnea (24.09%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of post COVID-19 condition was lower than expected according to other studies published in the literature. The prevalence was higher in women than men, and the most frequent persistent symptoms were fatigue, smell impairment, and dyspnea.

Effectiveness of an Intervention Aimed at Improving Information for Patients with High Cardiovascular Risk: INFORISK Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The concept of global cardiovascular risk is not usually well understood by patients in consultation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open clinical trial of one-year duration to evaluate the effectiveness in reducing global cardiovascular risk with an intervention aimed at high-risk patients to improve information on the cardiovascular risk compared to the usual care. The intervention was focused on providing information about cardiovascular risk in a more understandable way, explaining the best practices to reduce cardiovascular risk, and tailoring information to the individual. RESULTS: Four-hundred and sixty-four subjects participated in the study; 59.3% were men, and the mean age was 61.0 (SD 8.0) years. Significant reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-3.12 mmHg), body mass index (BMI) (-0.34 kg/m2), abdominal circumference (-1.24 cm), and REGICOR cardiovascular risk (-0.63) were observed in the intervention group. Overall, no differences in cardiovascular risk score were observed between groups at the end of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Providing an easy-to-understand assessment of the cardiovascular risk motivated high-risk patients to adopt a healthier lifestyle and improved cardiovascular risk after one year in the intervention group. Clinicians should assess a patient's baseline understanding of their CV risk using tools other than absolute risk before making treatment recommendations.

Consecuencias clínicas de la utilización de las nuevas tablas de riesgo cardiovascular SCORE OP para pacientes mayores de 65 años / Clinical consequences of using the new cardiovascular risk tables SCORE OP in patients aged over 65 years

Antecedentes y objetivo: Una de las limitaciones del SCORE es que no permite calcular el riesgo en mayores de 65 años. Recientemente, los investigadores del SCORE han publicado unas tablas específicas para mayores (SCORE Older Persons [SCORE OP]). El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar el impacto de la utilización de las tablas SCORE OP en una población española de pacientes mayores de 64 años y su comparación con las tablas SCORE en el grupo entre 65 y 69 años. Pacientes y método: Estudio transversal realizado en 2 centros de salud urbanos. Se seleccionaron individuos de entre 65 y 85 años sin antecedentes de diabetes mellitus o enfermedad cardiovascular. Se calculó el riesgo utilizando las tablas para países de bajo riesgo SCORE y las nuevas OP. Resultados: Se calculó el riesgo cardiovascular a 3.425 pacientes. En el grupo de entre 65-69 años (n = 974, 22,44%) la media de riesgo según el SCORE fue de 4,08, y según el SCORE OP, de 3,83 (p < 0,001). El porcentaje de pacientes de riesgo alto fue de un 25,46% con SCORE y de 22,90% con SCORE OP (p < 0,001). Utilizando el SCORE deberíamos tratar con hipolipidemiantes al 16,43% de los pacientes, mientras que con el SCORE OP deberíamos tratar al 13,45%. Utilizando SCORE OP en pacientes mayores de 69 años deberíamos tratar con hipolipidemiantes al 61,49% de los pacientes. Conclusiones: Las tablas SCORE OP para mayores de 64 años identifican menos pacientes de alto riesgo que las tablas SCORE, lo que implicaría tratar potencialmente menos pacientes de esas edades con hipolipidemiantes (AU)

Background and objective: Estimating cardiovascular risk with SCORE is not recommended in persons over 65 years. SCORE investigators have recently published specific tables for older people (SCORE Older Persons [SCORE OP]). The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using SCORE OP tables on a Spanish population aged over 64 years, and compare it with the use of SCORE in patients aged 65-69 years. Patients and method: Cross-sectional study carried out in 2 urban primary health care centres. Individuals between 65 and 85 years old without diabetes or established cardiovascular diseases were included. Cardiovascular risk using SCORE and the new SCORE OP tables for low risk countries was calculated. Results: Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3,425 patients. Mean values of the original SCORE and SCORE OP were 4.08 and 3.83, respectively in the group of patients aged 65-69 years old (n = 974, 22.44%) (P < .001). The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 25.46% and 22.90% with the original SCORE and the SCORE OP, respectively (P < .001). Using the original SCORE, 16.43% of the total patients should potentially be treated with lipid lowering drugs, while using the SCORE OP, 13.45% of the patients aged 65-69 years should potentially be treated. Using SCORE OP in patients older than 69 years, 61.49% patients should potentially be treated with lipid lowering drugs. Conclusions: SCORE OP identifies fewer patients at high or very high risk than the original SCORE, therefore, its utilization would imply treating fewer patients of this age with lipid lowering drugs (AU)

Evaluación de las nuevas tablas de riesgo cardiovascular SCORE OP para pacientes mayores de 65 años / Assessment of the new SCORE OP cardiovascular risk charts in patients older than 65 years

No disponible

[Clinical consequences of using the new cardiovascular risk tables SCORE OP in patients aged over 65 years]. / Consecuencias clínicas de la utilización de las nuevas tablas de riesgo cardiovascular SCORE OP para pacientes mayores de 65 años.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Estimating cardiovascular risk with SCORE is not recommended in persons over 65 years. SCORE investigators have recently published specific tables for older people (SCORE Older Persons [SCORE OP]). The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using SCORE OP tables on a Spanish population aged over 64 years, and compare it with the use of SCORE in patients aged 65-69 years. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Cross-sectional study carried out in 2 urban primary health care centres. Individuals between 65 and 85 years old without diabetes or established cardiovascular diseases were included. Cardiovascular risk using SCORE and the new SCORE OP tables for low risk countries was calculated. RESULTS: Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3,425 patients. Mean values of the original SCORE and SCORE OP were 4.08 and 3.83, respectively in the group of patients aged 65-69 years old (n=974, 22.44%) (P< .001). The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 25.46% and 22.90% with the original SCORE and the SCORE OP, respectively (P<.001). Using the original SCORE, 16.43% of the total patients should potentially be treated with lipid lowering drugs, while using the SCORE OP, 13.45% of the patients aged 65-69 years should potentially be treated. Using SCORE OP in patients older than 69 years, 61.49% patients should potentially be treated with lipid lowering drugs. CONCLUSIONS: SCORE OP identifies fewer patients at high or very high risk than the original SCORE, therefore, its utilization would imply treating fewer patients of this age with lipid lowering drugs.

Impact of using different SCORE tables for estimating cardiovascular risk.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In Spain, various SCORE tables are available to estimate cardiovascular risk: tables for low-risk countries, tables calibrated for the Spanish population, and tables that include high-density lipoprotein values. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using one or another SCORE table in clinical practice. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study carried out in two primary health care centers, individuals aged 40 to 65 years in whom blood pressure and total cholesterol levels were recorded between March 2010 and March 2012 were selected. Patients with diabetes or a history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using SCORE for low-risk countries, SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the calibrated SCORE. RESULTS: Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3716 patients. The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 1.24% with SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 4.73% with the low-risk SCORE, and 15.44% with the calibrated SCORE (P<.01). Treatment with lipid-lowering drugs would be recommended in 10.23% of patients using the calibrated SCORE, 3.12% of patients using the low-risk SCORE, and 0.67% of patients using SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: The calibrated SCORE table classifies a larger number of patients at high or very high risk than the SCORE for low-risk countries or the SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Therefore, its use would imply treating more patients with lipid-lowering medication. Validation studies are needed to assess the most appropriate SCORE table for use in our setting.

Impacto de la utilización de las diferentes tablas SCORE en el cálculo del riesgo cardiovascular / Impact of using different SCORE tables for estimating cardiovascular risk

Introducción y objetivos. En España disponemos de tablas SCORE para el cálculo del riesgo cardiovascular en países de bajo riesgo, tablas calibradas para la población española, y unas tablas que permiten incluir el colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad. Este estudio pretende evaluar el impacto de la utilización de una u otra tabla de riesgo en la práctica clínica. Métodos. Estudio transversal realizado en dos centros de salud. Se seleccionó a sujetos de entre 40 y 65 años de edad que contaran con un registro de presión arterial y colesterol total entre marzo de 2010 y marzo de 2012. Se excluyó a los sujetos con antecedente de diabetes mellitus o enfermedad cardiovascular. Se calculó el riesgo utilizando las tablas SCORE para países de bajo riesgo, tablas SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad y tablas SCORE calibrado. Resultados. Se calculó el riesgo cardiovascular a 3.716 pacientes. Los pacientes de alto o muy alto riesgo fueron el 1,24% con SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad, el 4,73% con SCORE para países de bajo riesgo y el 15,44% con SCORE calibrado (p < 0,01). Utilizando el SCORE calibrado, deberíamos tratar con hipolipemiantes al 10,23% de los pacientes; con el SCORE para países de bajo riesgo, al 3,12%, y con el SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad, al 0,67%. Conclusiones. La tabla SCORE calibrado identifica a más pacientes de alto riesgo que las del SCORE de bajo riesgo y el SCORE con colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad, por lo que su utilización implicaría tratar a más pacientes con estatinas. Son necesarios estudios de validación del SCORE para valorar la tabla más adecuada en nuestro medio (AU)

Introduction and objectives. In Spain, various SCORE tables are available to estimate cardiovascular risk: tables for low-risk countries, tables calibrated for the Spanish population, and tables that include high-density lipoprotein values. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of using one or another SCORE table in clinical practice. Methods. In a cross-sectional study carried out in two primary health care centers, individuals aged 40 to 65 years in whom blood pressure and total cholesterol levels were recorded between March 2010 and March 2012 were selected. Patients with diabetes or a history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Cardiovascular risk was calculated using SCORE for low-risk countries, SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and the calibrated SCORE. Results. Cardiovascular risk was estimated in 3716 patients. The percentage of patients at high or very high risk was 1.24% with SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 4.73% with the low-risk SCORE, and 15.44% with the calibrated SCORE (P<.01). Treatment with lipid-lowering drugs would be recommended in 10.23% of patients using the calibrated SCORE, 3.12% of patients using the low-risk SCORE, and 0.67% of patients using SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Conclusions. The calibrated SCORE table classifies a larger number of patients at high or very high risk than the SCORE for low-risk countries or the SCORE with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Therefore, its use would imply treating more patients with lipid-lowering medication. Validation studies are needed to assess the most appropriate SCORE table for use in our setting (AU)