Aims To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement. Methods and results An 18 country, cross-sectional, observational study of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care across Europe. Between June 2017 and November 2018, data were collected at a single visit, including LLT in the preceding 12 months and most recent LDL-C. Primary outcome was the achievement of risk-based 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C goal while receiving stabilized LLT; 2019 goal achievement was also assessed. Overall, 5888 patients (3000 primary and 2888 secondary prevention patients) were enrolled; 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52–56] achieved their risk-based 2016 goal and 33% (95% CI 32–35) achieved their risk-based 2019 goal. High-intensity statin monotherapy was used in 20% and 38% of very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Corresponding 2016 goal attainment was 22% and 45% (17% and 22% for 2019 goals) for very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Use of moderate–high-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe (9%), or any LLT with PCSK9 inhibitors (1%), was low; corresponding 2016 and 2019 goal attainment was 53% and 20% (ezetimibe combination), and 67% and 58% (PCSK9i combination). Conclusion Gaps between clinical guidelines and clinical practice for lipid management across Europe persist, which will be exacerbated by the 2019 guidelines. Even with optimized statins, greater utilization of non-statin LLT is likely needed to reduce these gaps for patients at highest risk.

No abstract

These findings could be used to inform research and role development within the critical care.

Background: Within the United Kingdom's National Health System (NHS), patients suffering from obesity may be provided with bariatric surgery. After receiving surgery many of these patients require further support to continue to lose more weight or to maintain a healthy weight. Remotely monitoring such patients' physical activity and other healthrelated variables could provide healthworkers with a more 'ecologically valid' picture of these patients' behaviours to then provide more personalised support. The current study assesses the feasibility of two smartphone apps to do so. In addition, the study looks at the barriers and facilitators patients experience to using these apps effectively. Methods: Participants with a BMI > 35 kg/m 2 being considered for and who had previously undergone bariatric surgery were recruited. Participants were asked to install two mobile phone apps. The 'Moves' app automatically tracked participants' physical activity and the 'WLCompanion' app prompted participants to set goals and input other healthrelated information. Then, to learn about participants' facilitators and barriers to using the apps, some participants were asked to complete a survey informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. The data were analysed using regressions and descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 494 participants originally enrolled, 274 participants data were included in the analyses about their activity pre-and/or post-bariatric surgery (ages 18-65, M = 44.02, SD ± 11.29). Further analyses were performed on those 36 participants whose activity was tracked both pre-and post-surgery. Participants' activity levels pre-and post-surgery did not differ. In addition, 54 participants' survey responses suggested that the main facilitator to their continued use of the Moves app was its automatic nature, and the main barrier was its battery drain. Conclusions: The current study tracked physical activity in patients considered for and who had previously undergone bariatric surgery. The results should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of participants whose data meet the inclusion criteria and the barriers participants encountered to using the apps. Future studies should take note of the barriers to develop more user-friendly apps. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT01365416 on the 3rd of June 2011.

Using the PAST seems to improve the identification of patients with palliative needs, leading to better management of symptoms. The PAST is also likely useful in facilitating the completion of advance directives, but this requires further study.