Cargando…

Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives

Modern medicine is characterized by a continuous genesis of evidence making it very difficult to translate the latest findings into a better clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) emerge to provide clinicians evidence-based recommendations for their daily clinical practice. However, t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Giner-Galvañ, Vicente, Esteban-Giner, María José, Pallarés-Carratalá, Vicente
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27660458
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S89038
_version_ 1782453058991554560
author Giner-Galvañ, Vicente
Esteban-Giner, María José
Pallarés-Carratalá, Vicente
author_facet Giner-Galvañ, Vicente
Esteban-Giner, María José
Pallarés-Carratalá, Vicente
author_sort Giner-Galvañ, Vicente
collection PubMed
description Modern medicine is characterized by a continuous genesis of evidence making it very difficult to translate the latest findings into a better clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) emerge to provide clinicians evidence-based recommendations for their daily clinical practice. However, the high number of existing CPG as well as the usual differences in the given recommendations usually increases the clinician’s confusion and doubts. It has apparently been the case for the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol. These CPG proposed new and controversial concepts that have usually been considered an antagonist shift respective to European CPG. The most controversial published proposals are: 1) to consider evidence just from randomized clinical trials, 2) creation of a new cardiovascular (CV) risk calculator, 3) to consider reducing CV risk instead of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) as the target of the treatment, and 4) consideration of statins as the only drugs for treatment. A deep analysis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association CPG and comparison with the European ones show that from a practical and clinical point of view, there are more similarities than differences. To further help clinicians in their daily work, in the present globalized world, it is time to discuss and adopt a mutually agreed upon document created by both sides of the Atlantic. Probably it is not a short-term solution. Meanwhile, taking advantage of the similarities, the recommended practical attitude for the daily clinical practice should be based on 1) early detection of people with increased CV risk promoting the use of validated local scales, 2) reinforce the mainstream importance of nonpharmacological treatment, and 3) need for periodically monitoring response with analytical parameters (LDL or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and global CV risk estimation. Technological solutions such as the big data technology could help to obtain high-quality evidence in an intermediate term.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5019442
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50194422016-09-22 Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives Giner-Galvañ, Vicente Esteban-Giner, María José Pallarés-Carratalá, Vicente Vasc Health Risk Manag Review Modern medicine is characterized by a continuous genesis of evidence making it very difficult to translate the latest findings into a better clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) emerge to provide clinicians evidence-based recommendations for their daily clinical practice. However, the high number of existing CPG as well as the usual differences in the given recommendations usually increases the clinician’s confusion and doubts. It has apparently been the case for the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol. These CPG proposed new and controversial concepts that have usually been considered an antagonist shift respective to European CPG. The most controversial published proposals are: 1) to consider evidence just from randomized clinical trials, 2) creation of a new cardiovascular (CV) risk calculator, 3) to consider reducing CV risk instead of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) as the target of the treatment, and 4) consideration of statins as the only drugs for treatment. A deep analysis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association CPG and comparison with the European ones show that from a practical and clinical point of view, there are more similarities than differences. To further help clinicians in their daily work, in the present globalized world, it is time to discuss and adopt a mutually agreed upon document created by both sides of the Atlantic. Probably it is not a short-term solution. Meanwhile, taking advantage of the similarities, the recommended practical attitude for the daily clinical practice should be based on 1) early detection of people with increased CV risk promoting the use of validated local scales, 2) reinforce the mainstream importance of nonpharmacological treatment, and 3) need for periodically monitoring response with analytical parameters (LDL or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and global CV risk estimation. Technological solutions such as the big data technology could help to obtain high-quality evidence in an intermediate term. Dove Medical Press 2016-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5019442/ /pubmed/27660458 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S89038 Text en © 2016 Giner-Galvañ et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Giner-Galvañ, Vicente
Esteban-Giner, María José
Pallarés-Carratalá, Vicente
Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives
title Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives
title_full Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives
title_fullStr Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives
title_full_unstemmed Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives
title_short Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives
title_sort overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: eu perspectives
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5019442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27660458
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S89038
work_keys_str_mv AT ginergalvanvicente overviewofguidelinesforthemanagementofdyslipidemiaeuperspectives
AT estebanginermariajose overviewofguidelinesforthemanagementofdyslipidemiaeuperspectives
AT pallarescarratalavicente overviewofguidelinesforthemanagementofdyslipidemiaeuperspectives