Key result
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown significantly reduced lipid profile evaluations (56.5% vs. 100.0%, p<0.01) and healthcare consultations among subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia.
Why the study?
The impact of direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia was unknown.
Does the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown reduce healthcare utilization and worsen lipid profiles in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia?
Observational (n=260)
No
Does the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown reduce healthcare utilization and worsen lipid profiles in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia?
Absolute Event Rate: 56.5% vs 100%
p-value: p=< 0.01
The SARS-CoV-2 lockdown significantly reduced healthcare utilization and worsened lipid profiles in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, primarily due to fear of contagion.
Pandemic care disruptions worsened lipids in FH; leaves open long-term ASCVD impact and needs prospective confirmation.
We evaluated the impact of direct and indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). In this observational, retrospective study, 260 FH subjects participated in a telephone survey concerning lipid profile values, lipidologist and cardiologist consultations and vascular imaging evaluation during the 12 months before and after the Italian lockdown. The direct effect was defined as SARS-CoV-2 infection; the indirect effect was defined as the difference in one of the parameters evaluated by the telephone survey before and after lockdown. Among FH subjects, the percentage of the lipid profile evaluation was lower after lockdown than before lockdown (56.5% vs. 100.0%, p < 0.01), HDL-C was significantly reduced (47.78 ± 10.12 vs. 53.2 ± 10.38 mg/dL, p < 0.05) and a significant increase in non-HDL-C was found (117.24 ± 18.83 vs. 133.09 ± 19.01 mg/dL, p < 0.05). The proportions of lipidologist and/or cardiologist consultations and/or vascular imaging were lower after lockdown than before lockdown (for lipidologist consultation 33.5% vs. 100.0%, p < 0.001; for cardiologist consultation 22.3% vs. 60.8%, p < 0.01; for vascular imaging 19.6% vs. 100.0%, p < 0.001); the main cause of missed lipid profile analysis and/or healthcare consultation was the fear of SARS-CoV-2 contagion. The percentage of FH subjects affected by SARS-CoV-2 was 7.3%. In conclusion, a lower percentage of FH subjects underwent a lipid profile analysis, lipidologist and cardiologist consultations and vascular imaging evaluation after SARS-CoV-2 Italian lockdown.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scicali et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Familial hypercholesterolemia (n=260). SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown vs. Before lockdown was evaluated on Lipid profile evaluation (p=< 0.01). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown significantly reduced lipid profile evaluations (56.5% vs. 100.0%, p<0.01) and healthcare consultations among subjects with familial hypercholesterolemia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: