Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  25 / 48 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 25 / 48 Next Page
Page Background

VOLUME 12 NUMBER 1 • JULY 2015

23

SA JOURNAL OF DIABETES & VASCULAR DISEASE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

and 160 mg/day), with potency scores ranging from 1 (5 mg/day

simvastatin) to 6 (160 mg/day simvastatin).

23,27

The 2011 ESC guidelines were used to classify CV risk, LDL-C level

treatment goals, and sub-optimal HDL-C and triglyceride levels.

21,28

Variables independently associatedwith dyslipidaemiawere evaluated

with logistic regressionmodelling using the following variables: age (≥

70 years), female gender, family history of premature coronary heart

disease (CHD), current tobacco smoker, sedentary lifestyle, alcohol

consumption (> 2 units/week), body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m

2

,

large waist circumference (> 102 cm in men, > 88 cm in women

29

),

hypertension, DM, coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease,

heart failure, peripheral artery disease, systolic/diastolic blood

pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg, simvastatin equivalent dose of either 20

to 40 versus 10 mg/day, or > 40 mg versus 10 mg/day, ezetimibe use,

and physician’s specialty (cardiologist, endocrinologist, diabetologist,

internal medicine or other).

Statistical analysis

To estimate the sample size needed for South Africa we assumed a

prevalence of residual lipid abnormalities between 20 and 60% in

patients fulfilling the entry criteria for this study and a design effect

of 20% (variance inflation due to cluster sampling design). We

calculated that, within this range, a sample size of 1 000 would be

sufficient to estimate the prevalence of residual dyslipidaemia with

a given precision of ± 3.4% (range of 95% confidence interval:

6.8%). Furthermore we determined that this size guaranteed

enough information for estimating the prevalence in smaller

subgroups (representing one-quarter or more of the population)

with a precision of ± 6.8% (95% CI: 13.6%).

Following data collection, patient information was entered into a

central web-based database housed and managed at the Institut für

Herzinfarktforschung, Ludwigshafen, Germany. Real-time quality

control (internal logic checks) occurred during web-based data

entry. Continuous variables are presented as means with standard

deviations or medians with 25th and 75th percentiles [interquartile

range (IQR)] as indicated, and categorical variables are reported as

absolute numbers and percentages.

Kernel density estimation was used to analyse the distribution

of total cholesterol, LDL-C, HDL-C and triglyceride levels. The value

of a kernel density and its slope at the lipid value equal to the ESC

goal provides a crude indicator of the change in the proportions of

patients meeting the goal froma small improvement or deterioration

in lipid level starting from the ESC goal. This approach thus provides

a sensitivity analysis for either changes in the ESC goals or changes

in lipid levels for people whose levels are near the goals.

Multiple logistic regression analyses with backward selection (

α

= 0.05) were used to identify variables independently associated

with LDL-C, HDL-C and triglyceride irregularities. Two-tailed

statistical comparisons were used (

p

< 0.05 was significant) and

patients lacking the appropriate lipid parameters were not included

within the analyses. All analyses were performed using SAS v 9.1

(SAS Institute Inc, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics, risk categories and lipid parameters are

presented in Table 1. The study enrolled 1 029 patients (429 men,

600 women). The mean age of patients was 65.4 years, and 58.3%

were female. The study population was of mixed ethnic (multi-

racial) origin, including Caucasians (56.6%), blacks (22.0%), Asians

(9.5%) and patients of mixed ancestry (12.0%).

Fig. 1.

Statin dose potency overall (A), according to patients’ risk status (B), and

by ethnicity (C) calculated according to references 22, 23. *Statin dose potency

1 is equivalent to simvastatin 5 mg/day, potency 2 is equivalent to simvastatin

10 mg/day, potency 3 is equivalent to simvastatin 20 mg/day, potency 4 is

equivalent to simvastatin 40 mg/day, potency 5 is equivalent to simvastatin 80

mg/day, and potency 6 is equivalent to simvastatin ≥ 160 mg/day.