Our study confirms a strong association between the use of some drugs (antidepressants, antiparkinson drugs, drugs for COPD) and the risk of hip fracture, but drug use is globally less common than in controls. Hip fracture is associated with a significant increase in drug use, suggesting a global deterioration of health conditions.

To evaluate and compare the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events in a large contemporary cohort of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) and in treatment with GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists. Patients and Methods: An Italian observational retrospective cohort study based on administrative databases of three local health units and two Regions was performed. PCa patients treated with GnRH agonists or antagonist were included between January 01, 2013 and December 31, 2016. Index date (ID) was the date of first GnRH agonist/antagonist prescription during inclusion period. Follow-up was from ID to December 31, 2017. Patients were excluded if they were under abiraterone treatment or combination therapy with antiandrogens during follow-up. The incidence rate of CV events (acute myocardial infarction, ischemic heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, cardiac dysrhythmias, heart failure, atherosclerosis, aneurism, other CV-related conditions) was calculated among patients not switching to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the overall cohort and in a sub-cohort of patients without previous CV events. Results: In total, 9785 (mean age 76.8 ± 8.5) patients were included: 9158 (93.6%) were treated with a GnRH agonist and 627 (6.4%) with a GnRH antagonist. Of them, 9627 did not switch to ADT and were considered in the analyses. The incidence of CV events was significantly higher in patients treated with GnRH agonists rather than antagonists (8.8 vs 6.2, p=0.002). Mean time to CV event was beyond 1 year of treatment in both groups. In the multivariable regression analysis, the risk of experiencing CV events was significantly lower in patients treated with GnRH antagonist rather than those treated with GnRH agonists [HR (95% CI): 0.76 (0.60-0.95), p=0.018]. These findings were confirmed in the subcohort of patients without previous CV events. Conclusion:This Italian observational study shows that most patients received a GnRH agonist rather than a GnRH antagonist prescription. GnRH antagonist seems to have a better CV risk profile than GnRH agonist, both in patients with and without a history of CV events.

Background Evidence regarding the relationships among high plasma triglycerides (TG), all‐cause mortality, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in low‐to‐moderate risk individuals is limited. The aim of this study was to determine whether the presence of high TG levels influences the risk of all‐cause mortality and ASCVD events in a population cohort followed in the real‐world clinical setting. Methods and Results A retrospective longitudinal cohort analysis using administrative databases of 3 Italian Local Health Units was performed. All individuals with at least one TG measurement between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015 were followed through December 2016. Outcome measures included incident ASCVD events and all‐cause mortality. Individuals with normal TG levels (<150 mg/dL) were compared with those with high (150–500 mg/dL) and very high TG (>500 mg/dL). 158 042 individuals (142 289 with normal, 15 558 with high, and 195 with very high TG) were considered. In the whole cohort, the overall incidence rates of ASCVD and all‐cause mortality were 7.2 and 17.1 per 1000 person‐years, respectively. After multivariate adjustment for potential confounders, individuals with high and very high TG showed a significantly increased risk of all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.49 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36–1.63], P <0.001, and HR=3.08 [95% CI 1.46–6.50], P <0.01, respectively) and incident ASCVD events (HR=1.61 [95% CI 1.43–1.82], P <0.001, and HR=2.30 [95% CI 1.02–5.18], P <0.05, respectively) as compared to those with normal TG. Conclusions Moderate‐to‐severe elevation of TG is associated with a significantly increased risk of all‐cause mortality and ASCVD events in a large cohort of low‐to‐moderate cardiovascular risk individuals in a real‐world clinical setting.

The results show that perindopril/amlodipine FDC increases the rate of stay-on-therapy and reduces the number of concomitant anti-hypertensive drugs in subjects previously treated with the same drugs as a two-pill combination or as SPT.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), the drug use in patients with AF in terms of antithrombotic (AT) strategies used and the compliance with treatment, and to describe the characteristics of patients affected by AF in relation to treatment.MethodsThe data collected were provided from databases of general practitioners (GPs) of the Local Health Unit of Bologna in Italy. From January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012, all subjects aged ≥18 years followed by the 44 GPs enrolled in the study were evaluated, and the subjects with a diagnosis of AF were included in the analysis.ResultsFrom 2009 to 2012, we identified 1,413 patients with a diagnosis of AF (2.09% of 67,517 patients of the 44 GPs). A total of 1,413 patients with a diagnosis of AF (2.09% of 67,517 patients of the 44 GPs) were enrolled in the study. During the study, 14% of the enrolled patients did not receive any prescription of ATs, 30% and 39.56% were treated only with antiplatelet (AP) agents and oral anticoagulants (OACs), respectively, and 16.28% of the patients received prescriptions for both an OAC and an AP agent; of the patients receiving prescriptions for both, only 4.17% received these therapies at the same time. Among the OAC users, the percentage of patients still on treatment with the index drug during the last 3 months of observation was 76.9%.ConclusionOur findings emphasize that in an Italian real-world setting, the burden of AF in general population from a public health point of view underscores the need for improvement in utilization of appropriate ATs in patients with known AF.

Background This cross-sectional study aimed to identify actionable factors to improve LDL-cholesterol target achievement and overcome underuse of lipid-lowering treatments in high- or very-high-cardiovascular risk patients. Methods We evaluated healthcare records of 934,332 subjects from North-Italy, including subjects with available lipid profile and being on statin treatments up to December 2018. A 6-month-period defined adherence with proportion-of-days-covered ≥ 80%. Treatment was classified as high-intensity-statin (HIS) + ezetimibe, HIS-alone, non-HIS (NHIS) + ezetimibe or NHIS alone. Results We included 27,374 subjects without and 10,459 with diabetes. Among these, 30% and 36% were on secondary prevention, respectively. Adherence was high (78–100%) and increased with treatment intensity and in secondary prevention. Treatment intensity increased in secondary prevention, but only 42% were on HIS. 2019-guidelines LDL-cholesterol targets were achieved in few patients and more often among those with diabetes (7.4% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001). Patients in secondary prevention had mean LDL-cholesterol levels aligned slightly above 70 mg/dl (range between 68 and 73 mg/dl and between 73 and 85 mg/dl in patients with and without diabetes, respectively). Moreover, the differences in mean LDL-cholesterol levels observed across patients using treatments with well-stablished different LDL-lowering effect were null or much smaller than expected (HIS vs. NHIS from − 3 to − 11%, p < 0.001, HIS + ezetimibe vs. HIS—from − 4 to + 5% n.s.). These findings, given the observational design of the study, might suggest that a “treat to absolute LDL-cholesterol levels” approach (e.g., targeting LDLc of 70 mg/dl) was mainly used by physicians rather than an approach to also achieve the recommended 50% reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels. Our analyses suggested that female sex, younger age, higher HDL-c, and elevated triglycerides are those factors delaying prescription of statin treatments, both in patients with and without diabetes and in those on secondary prevention. Conclusions Among patients on statin treatment and high adherence, only a small proportion of patients achieved LDL-cholesterol targets. Late initiation of high-intensity treatments, particularly among those with misperceived low-risk (e.g., female subjects or those with high HDL-cholesterol), appears as pivotal factors needing to be modified to improve CVD prevention.