SETTING: A formal questionnaire was anonymously completed by physicians from different countries/regions in the Asia-Pacific. The survey sought responses relating to general familiarity, awareness of management guidelines, identification (clinical characteristics and lipid profile), prevalence and inheritance, extent of elevation in risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and practice on screening and treatment.
PARTICIPANTS: Practising community physicians from Australia, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Philippines, Hong Kong, China, Vietnam and Taiwan were recruited to complete the questionnaire, with the UK as the international benchmark.
PRIMARY OUTCOME: An assessment and comparison of the knowledge, awareness and preferences of FH among physicians in 10 different countries/regions.
RESULTS: 1078 physicians completed the questionnaire from the Asia-Pacific region; only 34% considered themselves to be familiar with FH. 72% correctly described FH and 65% identified the typical lipid profile, with a higher proportion of physicians from Japan and China selecting the correct FH definition and lipid profile compared with those from Vietnam and Philippines. However, less than half of the physician were aware of national or international management guidelines; this was significantly worse than physicians from the UK (35% vs 61%, p<0.001). Knowledge of prevalence (24%), inheritability (41%) and CVD risk (9%) of FH were also suboptimal. The majority of the physicians considered laboratory interpretative commenting as being useful (81%) and statin therapy as an appropriate cholesterol-lowering therapy (89%) for FH management.
CONCLUSIONS: The study identified important gaps, which are readily addressable, in the awareness and knowledge of FH among physicians in the region. Implementation of country-specific guidelines and extensive work in FH education and awareness programmes are imperative to improve the care of FH in the region.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the health care of FH in countries of the Asia-Pacific region and Southern Hemisphere.
METHODS: A series of questionnaires were completed by key opinion leaders from selected specialist centers in 12 countries concerning aspects of the care of FH, including screening, diagnosis, risk assessment, treatment, teaching/training, and research; the United Kingdom (UK) was used as the international benchmark.
RESULTS: The estimated percentage of patients diagnosed with the condition was low (overall <3%) in all countries, compared with ∼15% in the UK. Underdetection of FH was associated with government expenditure on health care (ϰ = 0.667, P
METHODS: A web-based survey in 13 languages was conducted among non-Japanese residents living in Japan during the COVID-19 situation. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory assessed the level of anxiety-State (STAI-S) scores prorated from its six-item version. The multivariable logistic regression using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) method was performed to identify the associated factors of anxiety among participants.
RESULTS: From January to March 2021, we collected 392 responses. A total of 357 valid responses were analyzed. 54.6% of participants suffered from clinically significant anxiety (CSA). In multivariable logistic model analysis, the CSA status or the high level of anxiety was associated with three factors, including having troubles/difficulties in learning or working, decreased sleep duration, and decreased overall physical health (p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: Our study suggests several possible risk factors of anxiety among non-Japanese residents living in Japan undergoing the COVID-19 pandemic, including the troubles or difficulties in learning or working, the decrease in sleep duration, and the decrease in overall physical health.
METHODS: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management.
RESULTS: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ∼2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ∼60% countries, although access is limited.
CONCLUSIONS: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed.