If the study variables contribute to CHD risk factors and prognosis, the present project may be important for the development of prevention programs by tailoring these to the patients perceived needs and behaviour profiles.

BackgroundRisk factor control after a coronary event in a recent European multi-centre study was inadequate. Patient selection from academic centres and low participation rate, however, may underscore failing risk factor control in routine clinical practice. Improved understanding of the patient factors that influence risk factor control is needed to improve secondary preventive strategies. The objective of the present paper was to determine control of the major risk factors in a coronary population from routine clinical practice, and how risk factor control was influenced by the study factors age, gender, number of coronary events, and time since the index event.MethodsA cross-sectional study determined risk factor control and its association with study factors in 1127 patients (83% participated) aged 18-80 years with acute myocardial infarction and/or revascularization identified from medical records. Study data were collected from a self-report questionnaire, clinical examination, and blood samples after 2-36 months (median 16) follow-up.ResultsTwenty-one percent were current smokers at follow-up. Of those smoking at the index event 56% continued smoking. Obesity was found in 34%, and 60% were physically inactive. Although 93% were taking blood-pressure lowering agents and statins, 46% were still hypertensive and 57% had LDL cholesterol >1.8 mmol/L at follow-up. Suboptimal control of diabetes was found in 59%. The patients failed on average to control three of the six major risk factors, and patients with >1 coronary events (p < 0.001) showed the poorest overall control. A linear increase in smoking (p < 0.01) and obesity (p < 0.05) with increasing time since the event was observed.ConclusionsThe majority of coronary patients in a representative Norwegian population did not achieve risk factor control, and the poorest overall control was found in patients with several coronary events. New strategies for secondary prevention are clearly needed to improve risk factor control. Even modest advances will provide major health benefits.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02309255).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0387-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract Aims To estimate the effect of atorvastatin on muscle symptom intensity in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients with self-perceived statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) and to determine the relationship to blood levels of atorvastatin and/or metabolites. Methods and results A randomized multi-center trial consecutively identified 982 patients with previous or ongoing atorvastatin treatment after a CHD event. Of these, 97 (9.9%) reported SAMS and 77 were randomized to 7-weeks double-blinded treatment with atorvastatin 40 mg/day and placebo in a crossover design. The primary outcome was the individual mean difference in muscle symptom intensity between the treatment periods, measured by visual-analogue scale (VAS) scores. Atorvastatin did not affect the intensity of muscle symptoms among 71 patients who completed the trial. Mean VAS difference [statin-placebo] was 0.31 (95% CI -0.24-0.86). The proportion with more muscle symptoms during placebo than atorvastatin was 17% (n = 12), 55% (n = 39) had the same muscle symptom intensity during both treatment periods whereas 28% (n = 20) had more symptoms during atorvastatin than placebo (confirmed SAMS). There were no differences in clinical or pharmacogenetic characteristics between these groups. The levels of atorvastatin and/or metabolites did not correlate to muscle symptom intensity among patients with confirmed SAMS (Spearmans rho ≤0.40, for all variables). Conclusion Re-challenge with high-intensity atorvastatin did not affect the intensity of muscle symptoms in CHD patients with self-perceived SAMS during previous atorvastatin therapy. There was no relationship between muscle symptoms and the systemic exposure to atorvastatin and/or its metabolites. The findings encourage an informed discussion to elucidate other causes of muscle complaints and continued statin use.