Lipid/Metabolic
First-ever survey finds awareness of PAD woeful
September 20, 2007 | Lisa Nainggolan

Minnesota, MN - The first-ever national survey about awareness of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has shown that the US public is very poorly informed about this disease [1]. Dr Alan T Hirsch (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis) and colleagues for the PAD Coalition report their findings online September 17, 2007 in Circulation.

"PAD is barely known to one in four people," Hirsch told heartwire. "I think most healthcare professionals have always suspected a lack of awareness of PAD, and these data now quantify that lack of awareness in startling terms." Most worryingly, Hirsch and colleagues found that knowledge gaps about PAD were most prominent among individuals at the highest risk for the disease. They now hope to emulate the successes of past education campaigns in hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and raise awareness of PAD. "We have a perfect opportunity to avert tragedy. In 2007, are we able to learn from the lessons of the past and offer information directly to African Americans, the poor, the less well-educated, and those who are exposed to risk factors for PAD?" Hirsch wonders.

We have a perfect opportunity to avert tragedy.

Dr Valentin Fuster (Mt Sinai Medical Center, NY), who was not involved with the survey, told heartwire he was not at all shocked by the data. "I'm not surprised about the data obtained when in fact there is also a lack of knowledge at the physician level about patients who have PAD." But there is a simple solution, says Fuster, which is to educate doctors to use simple screening of the ankle/brachial pressure ratio to identify patients with PAD. "However," he says, "I've been around the world and asked doctors about who is using this test, and it's no more than 5%." But Fuster is optimistic that things can change: "I think we need more time, but it will not take too long until everyone is aware of this huge problem."


Survey designed to establish a baseline to work from

Hirsch and colleagues explain that lower-extremity PAD is common, affecting as many as eight million Americans and resulting in a fivefold increased relative risk of MI and a two- to threefold greater risk of stroke and total mortality than those without PAD. PAD has been recognized as a coronary heart disease risk equivalent in national guidelines, yet current data suggest that PAD detection and treatment are lower than for other forms of atherosclerotic arterial disease.

Thus, the PAD Coalition—a scientifically based consensus-driven group that works in partnership with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to foster increased awareness of PAD—has begun a national effort in the US to improve access to PAD-related health information. The current survey was conducted to establish a population-based baseline.

They surveyed 2500 people >50 years of age by telephone, with oversampling of blacks and Hispanics, measuring the demographic, risk-factor, and cardiovascular disease characteristics of the study population. They also assessed prevalent leg symptoms, PAD awareness relative to atherosclerosis risk factors (recognized as any positive response to either PAD or peripheral vascular disease), and other cardiovascular and noncardiovascular diseases, perceived causes of PAD, and perceived systemic and limb consequences of PAD.

They found that only 25% of respondents were familiar with PAD, "a rate significantly lower than for any other cardiovascular disease or atherosclerosis risk factor." And even within the "PAD-aware" cohort, knowledge was poor. Half of these people were not aware that diabetes and smoking increase the risk for PAD, and fewer than one in four knew that PAD is associated with an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. And only 14% knew that PAD could lead to amputation.

"These findings show that awareness of a disease does not necessarily translate to knowledge," says coauthor of the survey Dr Timothy Murphy (Brown University, Providence, RI). "If the public is uninformed about the devastating consequences and causes of PAD, they will be less likely to take steps to avoid it."


ABI underused; are people too obsessed with coronary events?

The survey also showed that only 18% of adults had ever undergone an ankle/brachial index (ABI) test, "demonstrating that use of the ABI and/or communication of its utility to at-risk populations remain very low," say the researchers.

Strikingly, patients with PAD are more likely to have a new ischemic event than those who have already had a coronary event.

Fuster says everyone at risk should undergo an ABI test "because only about 30% of those affected [by PAD] have clear claudication, and the others have unusual symptoms and no claudication at all. The ABI is extremely sensitive and extremely specific for peripheral vascular disease."

One of the problems, he believes, "is that people have become absolutely obsessed with coronary events, without realizing that when the legs are affected it's already a warning that the coronary event is coming. There is so much effort in trying to identify coronary disease, but not about what are the risks surrounding coronary disease that may be identified in the legs."

Dr Michael Criqui (University of California, San Diego), another coauthor of the survey, agrees. "Data have shown that doctors are much more likely to treat lipid abnormalities and other things in patients who have coronary disease than in those who have PAD. But in fact, strikingly, patients with PAD are more likely to have a new ischemic event than those who have already had a coronary event."


Doctors are not providing information on PAD; media are guilty too

The new survey also asked people where they had obtained their information about PAD. "Perhaps it's no surprise that most learn about it from TV and magazines or from a friend," Hirsch told heartwire. "On the other hand, for a serious medical illness, it would seem that we'd want to live in a world where we link identification of a high-risk group to the healthcare professional discussing it. But so few hear about it from their healthcare professional (less than 20%). In fact, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists were hardly recognized as a source of [PAD] information."

So rarely is there any news on PAD that gets any high-level interest.

The media also has a large role to play, says Hirsch, describing the woeful coverage of a recent PAD trial presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting in Vienna. "So rarely is there any news on PAD that gets any high level interest. Take, for instance, the getABI study reported recently in Europe, but no one knew about it. That seems to tell a story."

GetABI showed that PAD patients have a substantially increased risk of death—dying, on average, 10 years earlier than their peers—and that asymptomatic PAD patients are as much at risk as symptomatic ones, an important fact that was not previously appreciated.


Large public-awareness campaigns do work

Another factor that surprised the authors was that public familiarity of PAD in the survey was lower than that of multiple sclerosis (MS; 42% were aware of this), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS; 36%), or cystic fibrosis (CF; 29%). Hirsch told heartwire that while most people know someone who has MS and knowledge of ALS is gained from celebrities who have suffered from this illness, familiarity with CF is likely due to the success of health-promotion campaigns that have run for this exceedingly rare disease.

The last shows that large public-awareness campaigns can work "and provides hope to the media, governments, and physicians that it really doesn't take a lot of effort to modify awareness and knowledge. We hope there's a positive message in there somewhere," he says.

Hirsch says that they are trying to take their lead from the cholesterol and hypertension public-awareness campaigns. "We want to use data to drive this thing, and we will repeat this survey every two years until we have better grades. It's better not to guess, better to use data to drive messages," he concludes.



Debate on ABI during recent Cardiology Show

In the recent Cardiology Show on theheart.org from the European Society of Cardiology Congress, in Vienna, Austria, there was a discussion of the getABI trial and whether the results, along with prior data, were sufficient to recommend blanket screening of ABI in at-risk patients. Although some argued that trials are needed to see whether those with PAD detected in this way and allocated to more intensive medical therapy have better outcomes, most felt that checking ABI is so simple, quick, and cheap that it should be routinely performed.

One naysayer was Dr Philip Poole-Wilson (Imperial College, London, UK), who maintained that before "anything becomes a screening tool you have to do your homework. You have to find out the incremental gain [of the test] when you've done all the other things you can do very quickly." While Dr Steve Nissen (Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH) said he took this point, he argued: "If your ABI is low, you have a very bad prognosis, and as a physician, while waiting for studies, I'm certainly going to treat such a patient with preventive measures more aggressively." He added that the Cleveland Clinic is trying to perform ABI screening on all at-risk patients.

Criqui told heartwire that he is the lead author of a new review of the literature, to be published in Circulation, that looks at whether ABI will likely show a cost benefit. "We conclude that a cost/benefit analysis of ABI screening would almost certainly be positive." He says a decision by the US Preventive Services Task Force last year not to recommend screening for PAD was misguided. "They did not make their recommendation based on detecting ischemic risk, they made it on detecting who might get leg pain and need amputation. While the latter is important, they missed the major point. They are unwilling to apologize, or say they are wrong. . . . You have this bureaucracy. They are not about to retract anything midstream—even though in my judgment this would be the right thing to do. If they do change [their recommendation], it will be the next time they consider things."


Unrestricted educational grants to the PAD Coalition to support the independent design and performance of this survey were provided by both Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi-Aventis and Cordis Endovascular. Disclosures for the authors appear in the paper.

Source
  1. Hirsch AT, Murphy TP, Lovell MB, et al. Gaps in public knowledge of peripheral arterial disease. The first national PD public awareness survey. Circulation 2007; DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.725101.



Your comments
First-ever survey finds awareness of PAD woeful
# 1 of 3
September 22, 2007 09:13 PM (EDT)
david filips
my goodness
Oh my gosh!
The makers of Plavix have decided to avert a terrible tragedy by forming an umbrella organization to promote the use of Plavix.

Did anyone notice after the failure of Plavix when added to aspirin in stroke prevention/a.fib/stable coronary artery disease, that T.V. and Reader's Digest ads for Plavix switched to PAD?

PAD is controllable.
Walk daily.
Lose weight.
Don't smoke.
Eat a healthy diet.
Don't drink more than one drink of alcohol daily.
Control your blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes.
And take aspirin.

Plavix should be reserved in PAD only for people who cannot take or tolerate aspirin. Case closed.

Plavix does have it's place in our medical bag of tricks, but it is expensive and should be generic by now.

But you can thank the makers of Plavix, who are trying to avert a tragedy, for hiring a fleet of lawyers to keep their drug from becoming affordable. Tragedy averted!
# 2 of 3
September 23, 2007 12:07 PM (EDT)
D Hackam
clopidogrel meta-analyses
1) Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2007;7(4):289-97. Incremental effect of clopidogrel on important outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease : a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the impact of clopidogrel plus aspirin on the individual outcomes of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients with established cardiovascular disease, or in patients with multiple risk factors for vascular disease. BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated a reduction in composite outcomes when clopidogrel is added to aspirin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease; however, the magnitude of benefit on individual outcomes is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis on randomized, controlled trials that compared aspirin plus clopidogrel with aspirin plus placebo for the treatment of coronary artery disease. RESULTS: This analysis included five randomized trials (CURE, CREDO, CLARITY, COMMIT, and CHARISMA) in 79 624 patients. The incidence of all-cause mortality was 6.3% in the aspirin plus clopidogrel group versus 6.7% in the aspirin group (odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% CI 0.89, 0.99; p = 0.026). The incidence of myocardial infarction was 2.7% and 3.3% (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75, 0.89; p < 0.0001), and stroke was 1.2% and 1.4% (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.73, 0.93; p = 0.002). Similarly, the incidence of major bleeding was 1.6% and 1.3% (OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.11, 1.41; p < 0.0001), and fatal bleeding was 0.28% and 0.27% (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.76, 1.43; p = 0.79). CONCLUSION: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin results in a small reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and a modest reduction in myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with cardiovascular disease. The overall incidence of major bleeding however is increased, although there is no excess of fatal bleeds or hemorrhagic strokes.

# 3 of 3
September 23, 2007 12:07 PM (EDT)
D Hackam
cont'd
2) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD005158.

Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone for preventing cardiovascular disease.

Keller T, Squizzato A, Middeldorp S.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is the prophylactic antiplatelet drug of choice for people with cardiovascular disease. However, protection with antiplatelet therapy in people with a high risk of cardiovascular disease is unsatisfactory in absolute terms. Adding a second antiplatelet drug to aspirin may produce additional benefit for those at high risk and those with established cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects (both benefit and harm) of adding clopidogrel to standard long-term aspirin therapy for preventing cardiovascular events in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease and those with established cardiovascular disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL (Issue 2 2006), MEDLINE (2002 to May 2006) and EMBASE (2002 to May 2006) were searched. Online registers of ongoing trials and reference lists from original articles and reviews were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing long term (>30 days) use of aspirin plus clopidogrel with aspirin plus placebo or aspirin alone in patients with coronary disease, ischemic cerebrovascular disease, peripheral arterial disease, or at high risk of atherothrombotic disease (with data for at least one of the outcomes) were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected on the following outcomes and analysed where appropriate: mortality (from myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular causes, all-causes), non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, unstable angina, heart failure, revascularizations, major and minor bleeding, and all adverse events. Quantitative analysis of outcome was based on an intention-to-treat principle. The overall treatment effect was estimated by the pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenszel). MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were found. Patients enrolled in the CHARISMA study were at high risk for cardiovascular events, either with or without an established cardiovascular disease. Patients enrolled in the CURE study had a recent non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. The use of clopidogrel plus aspirin, compared with placebo plus aspirin, was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events (OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P<0.01) and a higher risk of major bleeding (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.57; P<0.01). Overall, we would expect 13 cardiovascular events to be prevented for every 1000 patients treated with the combination, but 6 major bleeds would be caused. Treatment effects differed in the two trials: the CURE trial, confined to people with acute non-ST segment coronary syndromes, showed definite evidence of benefit from treatment. For every 1000 people treated for an average of 9 months, 23 events would be avoided and 10 major bleeds would be caused. In the CHARISMA trial that randomized people at high cardiovascular risk defined either in terms of pre-existing cardiovascular diseases or risk factors, the effects of treatment were less marked and were consistent with the play of chance. For every 1000 people treated for an average of 28 months, 5 cardiovascular events would be avoided and 3 major bleeds would be caused. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence demonstrates that the use of clopidogrel plus aspirin is associated with a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone in patients with acute non-ST coronary syndrome. In patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease but not presenting acutely, there is only weak evidence of benefit and hazards of treatment almost match any benefit obtained.

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Register
Click on "register" to create a account - It is free....
 
button
Previews
Featured CME
Inside: Lipid/Metabolic
Lipid/Metabolic
Jun 27, 2008 10:49 EDT
Ongoing interest exists in developing new pharmacologic approaches to address obesity and its sequelae of metabolic risk. Can intravascular ultrasound help us determine if we are on the right track to decreasing atherosclerotic progression with drug therapies? Join us for an insightful interview with Dr. Nissen on the STRADIVARIUS results, the benefits of IVUS and ongoing research examining CB1 blockade and its potential ability to decrease atherosclerotic progression by impacting more than just LDL reduction.
Lipid/Metabolic
Dec 18, 2007 13:39 EST
Drs Smith, Rader, Nesto, Plutzky, Nemeroff, and Pagotto explore the interrelated role of cardiometabolic risk factors and analyze the mechanism of action and evidence for the effectiveness of cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1) blockade in CVD.
Lipid/Metabolic
1 COMMENT - Jun 9, 2008 17:47 EDT
Join Drs Frank Sacks, Peter Jones and Theodore Mazzone as they discuss how the results of new clinical trials will affect the treatment of mixed dyslipidemia and reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes.
Lipid/Metabolic
47 COMMENTS - Mar 19, 2008 12:51 EDT
Join Drs Christie Ballantyne and Michael Davidson as they discuss the barriers to reaching target levels of all three key lipid components - LDL-C, HDL-C and triglycerides in the reduction of cardiovascular risk.
Lipid/Metabolic
May 30, 2008 15:55 EDT
Review data from recent trials on lipid-lowering agents, and evaluate this data within current lipid-lowering strategies to develop an evidence-based strategy for reducing CV risk in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Join Drs Davidson, Jones, and Radar.
Lipid/Metabolic
May 27, 2008 09:32 EDT
Drs Eckel, Libby, Musselman, Nesto and Nissen review evidence concerning the role of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) in cardiometabolic risk and its management. They also analyze emerging therapies for cardiometabolic risk and obesity, including compounds directed at the ECS.