Prevalence of pediatric dyslipidemia: comparison of a population-based claims database to national surveys.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
To determine the prevalence of pediatric dyslipidemia in a large US medical insurance claims database and to compare the resulting estimate to the prevalence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
PATIENTS AND
METHODS
Children 10-18 years old who had laboratory-defined dyslipidemia were identified from the Integrated Healthcare Information Services (IHCIS) database 2003-2006. For comparison purposes, the corresponding prevalence among the US children of same age was estimated from the NHANES 1999-2004 data.
RESULTS
Among the 273 064 children with at least one laboratory lipid value in the IHCIS database, 22.9% (n = 62 451) had laboratory-defined dyslipidemia. This prevalence was the same as the NHANES estimate (23.9%, 95%CI: 21.6-26.3). Elevated triglyceride (TG) was the most common type of dyslipidemia, detected among 13.2% of the IHCIS children and 14.2% of the US children, followed by elevated total cholesterol (TC), 7.7 and 9.6%, respectively. Among IHCIS dyslipidemic children, older teenage boys had higher rates than younger boys for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) abnormality, but lower rates for elevated TC and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). These age-related trends were also seen among NHANES dyslipidemic children.
CONCLUSIONS
Analyses of a population-based claims database revealed the same prevalence of pediatric dyslipidemia as that among the US children assessed in the NHANES data. Among dyslipidemic children in the claims database, the occurrence of specific dyslipidemias appeared to vary by age and gender, a trend that was also seen among the dyslipidemic children in the US.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.