4.6 Article

Prevalence, Awareness, and Management of CKD and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Publicly Funded Health Care

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.06550613

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectivesIt is uncertain how many patients with CKD and cardiovascular risk factors in publicly funded universal health care systems are aware of their disease and how to achieve their treatment targets.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThe CARTaGENE study evaluated BP, lipid, and diabetes profiles as well as corresponding treatments in 20,004 random individuals between 40 and 69 years of age. Participants had free access to health care and were recruited from four regions within the province of Quebec, Canada in 2009 and 2010.ResultsCKD (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation; <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)) was present in 4.0% of the respondents, and hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia were reported by 25%, 7.4%, and 28% of participants, respectively. Self-awareness was low: 8% for CKD, 73% for diabetes, and 45% for hypercholesterolemia. Overall, 31% of patients with hypertension did not meet BP goals, and many received fewer antihypertensive drugs than appropriately controlled individuals; 41% of patients with diabetes failed to meet treatment targets. Among those patients with a moderate or high Framingham risk score, 53% of patients had LDL levels above the recommended levels, and many patients were not receiving a statin. Physician checkups were not associated with greater awareness but did increase the achievement of targets.ConclusionIn this population with access to publicly funded health care, CKD and cardiovascular risk factors are common, and self-awareness of these conditions is low. Recommended targets were frequently not achieved, and treatments were less intensive in those patients who failed to reach goals. New strategies to enhance public awareness and reach guideline targets should be developed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据