Key result
Medical treatment for metabolic risk factors achieved effective coverage of 76.2% for hypertension, 74.7% for diabetes, and 94.6% for dyslipidaemia in 2013-2017, significantly increasing from 2003-2007.
Why the study?
To examine trends in effective medical treatment coverage for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidaemia in Japan using a health system performance assessment metric.
Has the effective coverage of medical treatment for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidaemia improved in Japan between 2003 and 2017?
Cross-Sectional (n=96,863)
Yes
Has the effective coverage of medical treatment for hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidaemia improved in Japan between 2003 and 2017?
Mean Difference: 14.8 (95% CI 14.2–15.4)
Effective coverage of medical treatment for metabolic risk factors in Japan has significantly increased from 2003 to 2017, though further improvements are needed for antihypertensive and antidiabetic therapies.
Supports sustained access efforts for metabolic care in Japan; leaves open outcome benefits in observational data.
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in effective medical treatment coverage for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia in Japan, using a metric to assess effective coverage of health interventions derived from a health system performance assessment framework. METHODS: We obtained cross-sectional data for 96,863 individuals aged 40-74 years from the 15 annual Japanese National Health and Nutrition Surveys (2003-2017). We defined treatment need for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia as biomarkers equal to or greater than diagnostic thresholds or medication use. For individuals needing treatment, we conducted nearest-neighbour matching to estimate treatment effects and effective coverage, defined as the fraction of potential reductions in biomarkers actually achieved in treated individuals by medications. RESULTS: The age-standardized prevalence of treatment need for hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia remained around 40%, 7% and 33%, respectively, in 2003-2017. Average treatment effects for those treated in 2013-2017 were 14.8 mmHg (95% confidence interval: 14.2-15.4) for systolic blood pressure, 1.2 percentage points (0.8-1.6) for haemoglobin A1c and 57.9 mg/dl (56.6-59.2) for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Effective coverage significantly increased between 2003-2007 (hypertension: 48.4% [44.7-52.0], diabetes: 43.8% [35.7-51.8], dyslipidaemia: 86.3% [83.1-89.5]) and 2013-2017 (hypertension: 76.2% [74.2-78.2], diabetes: 74.7% [71.0-78.5], dyslipidaemia: 94.6% [93.3-95.9]). CONCLUSIONS: Effective coverage of medical treatment for metabolic risk factors has increased. Most of the potential reductions in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol have been achieved by statins. Further efforts are necessary to improve the effectiveness of antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ikeda et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia (n=96,863). Medical treatment vs. Untreated individuals (nearest-neighbour matching) was evaluated on Average treatment effect for systolic blood pressure (2013-2017) (14.8 mmHg, 95% CI 14.2-15.4). Medical treatment for metabolic risk factors achieved effective coverage of 76.2% for hypertension, 74.7% for diabetes, and 94.6% for dyslipidaemia in 2013-2017, significantly increasing from 2003-2007.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: