A contemporary cross-sectional study on dyslipidemia management, cardiovascular risk status, and patients' quality of life in Greece: The CHALLENGE study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies conducted in Greece consistently indicate that dyslipidemia is suboptimally managed, while the burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and related risk factors is rising. METHODS: CHALLENGE was a multicenter, cross-sectional study carried out following the publication of guidelines advocating stricter low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. It primarily aimed to depict LDL-C target attainment, and to assess the cardiovascular risk status and quality of life (QoL) of patients treated in a primary or secondary CVD prevention setting who had received any medical intervention for cardiovascular risk modification within 6months of enrollment. RESULTS: Between December 2012 and April 2013, 500 patients (55% males) aged (mean±SD) 62.0±11.7years, participated in the study. Cardiovascular risk according to the 2011 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines was 'very high', 'high', and 'moderate' in 61.2%, 23.4%, and 15.4%, respectively. Overall, 92.0% of patients were on lipid-lowering treatment, yet only 23.3% had attained their ESC/EAS-defined LDL-C target. LDL-C target attainment was more likely among 'moderate' versus 'very high' cardiovascular risk patients (odds ratio: 4.04; 95% confidence interval: 2.32-7.06; p<0.001). QoL improved as cardiovascular risk decreased (EQ-VAS 71.8±16.2 in the 'very high' versus 78.3±15.1 and 80.3±15.7 in the 'high' and 'moderate' risk groups; p<0.001). Time constraints and difficulties in implementation in daily practice were the investigator's main barriers for guideline utilization. CONCLUSIONS: During contemporary management of dyslipidemia in Greece, LDL-C target attainment is suboptimal. There is an undoubted need for improvement and implementation of cardiovascular risk assessment in routine clinical practice.

Effects of benchmarking on the quality of type 2 diabetes care: results of the OPTIMISE (Optimal Type 2 Diabetes Management Including Benchmarking and Standard Treatment) study in Greece.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of benchmarking on the quality of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) care in Greece. METHODS: The OPTIMISE (Optimal Type 2 Diabetes Management Including Benchmarking and Standard Treatment) study [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00681850] was an international multicenter, prospective cohort study. It included physicians randomized 3:1 to either receive benchmarking for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets (benchmarking group) or not (control group). The proportions of patients achieving the targets of the above-mentioned parameters were compared between groups after 12 months of treatment. Also, the proportions of patients achieving those targets at 12 months were compared with baseline in the benchmarking group. RESULTS: In the Greek region, the OPTIMISE study included 797 adults with T2DM (570 in the benchmarking group). At month 12 the proportion of patients within the predefined targets for SBP and LDL-C was greater in the benchmarking compared with the control group (50.6 versus 35.8%, and 45.3 versus 36.1%, respectively). However, these differences were not statistically significant. No difference between groups was noted in the percentage of patients achieving the predefined target for HbA1c. At month 12 the increase in the percentage of patients achieving all three targets was greater in the benchmarking (5.9-15.0%) than in the control group (2.7-8.1%). In the benchmarking group more patients were on target regarding SBP (50.6% versus 29.8%), LDL-C (45.3% versus 31.3%) and HbA1c (63.8% versus 51.2%) at 12 months compared with baseline (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Benchmarking may comprise a promising tool for improving the quality of T2DM care. Nevertheless, target achievement rates of each, and of all three, quality indicators were suboptimal, indicating there are still unmet needs in the management of T2DM.

Glycaemic control, treatment satisfaction and quality of life in type 2 diabetes patients in Greece: The PANORAMA study Greek results.

AIM: To provide an update on glycaemic control in European patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We present the Greek population data of the study. METHODS: An observational multicenter, cross-sectional study evaluating glycaemic control and a range of other clinical and biological measures as well as quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction in 375 patients with T2DM enrolled by 25 primary care sites from Greece. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 63.5 years and the male/female ratio 48.9%/51.1%. 79.7% of the patients exerted none or light physical activity, 82.4% were overweight or obese and 32.9% did not meet HbA1c target of less than 7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Patients reported high satisfaction to continue with treatment, high satisfaction with administered treatment and increased willingness to recommend treatment to others (mean Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score 29.1 ± 5.6). However, 80% of the patients reported that their QoL would be better without diabetes. Finally, the most challenging parameter reported was the lack of freedom to eat and drink. CONCLUSION: This analysis of the Greek Panorama study results showed that a considerable percentage of T2DM patients in Greece do not achieve glycaemic target levels, despite the favourably reported patient satisfaction from administered therapy. Additionally, the majority of primary care T2DM patients in Greece depict the negative effect of the disease in their QoL.

EGFR mutation testing in lung cancer: a review of available methods and their use for analysis of tumour tissue and cytology samples.

AIMS: Activating mutations in the gene encoding epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can confer sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Testing for mutations in EGFR is therefore an important step in the treatment-decision pathway. We reviewed reported methods for EGFR mutation testing in patients with lung cancer, initially focusing on studies involving standard tumour tissue samples. We also evaluated data on the use of cytology samples in order to determine their suitability for EGFR mutation analysis. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database for studies reporting on EGFR mutation testing methods in patients with lung cancer. RESULTS: Various methods have been investigated as potential alternatives to the historical standard for EGFR mutation testing, direct DNA sequencing. Many of these are targeted methods that specifically detect the most common EGFR mutations. The development of targeted mutation testing methods and commercially available test kits has enabled sensitive, rapid and robust analysis of clinical samples. The use of screening methods, subsequent to sample micro dissection, has also ensured that identification of more rare, uncommon mutations is now feasible. Cytology samples including fine needle aspirate and pleural effusion can be used successfully to determine EGFR mutation status provided that sensitive testing methods are employed. CONCLUSIONS: Several different testing methods offer a more sensitive alternative to direct sequencing for the detection of common EGFR mutations. Evidence published to date suggests cytology samples are viable alternatives for mutation testing when tumour tissue samples are not available.