Optimising Secondary Prevention in Patients Undergoing Carotid Surgery: A Cohort Study Assessing Lipid Lowering and Antithrombotic Therapy.

DA VINCI study: Change in approach to cholesterol management will be needed to reduce the implementation gap between guidelines and clinical practice in Europe

Introduction: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is associated with heightened risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Strategies that lower LDL-C levels reduce this risk. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that real-world PAD patients are overall undertreated with lipid lowering therapies (LLT) but that LLT use and achieved LDL-C are improved in high risk patients with ischemic events. Methods: Patients with PAD in the MarketScan database linked to PROGNOS lab data from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2018 were examined. Outcomes included use of LLT, defined as high intensity (HI) (high intensity statin, any statin plus ezetimibe, or any use of a PCSK9 inhibitor), low intensity (LI) (any other lipid regimen), or no therapy, and follow up LDL-C level. Goal LDL-C was defined as <70 mg/dl. Results: Among 18,747 PAD patients, 25% were on HI LLT, 43% were on LI LLT, and 32% were on no therapy at baseline (Figure A). The median LDL-C was 91 mg/dl (IQR 70, 118), and 25% of patients were at goal (Figure B). After a median follow up of 18 months, use of HI LLT increased by 4%, the median LDL-C decreased by 5 mg/dl, and an additional 3% of patients were at goal LDL-C. Greater use of HI LLT was observed among patients with a MACE (55%) or MALE (41%) event during follow up compared with patients without an ischemic event (26%) during follow up (Figure C). Follow up LDL-C levels remained above goal for most patients (post-MACE: median LDL-C 77 mg/dl, 42% patients at goal; post-MALE: median LDL-C 80 mg/dl, 36% patients at goal). Conclusions: In PAD patients, use of LLT is suboptimal, and LDL-C levels remain elevated. After an ischemic event, LLT use is intensified, with greater use of HI LLT observed after MACE than MALE. Despite this, LLT remains underutilized, with >50% of patients not at goal LDL-C. Strategies to better implement proven therapies to reduce risk in this high risk population are needed.

AimsDespite the evidence, lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) in secondary prevention remains insufficient, and a low percentage of patients achieve the recommended LDL cholesterol (LDLc) levels by the guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an intensive, mobile devices-based healthcare lipid-lowering intervention after hospital discharge in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Methods and resultsAmbiespective register in which a mobile devices-based healthcare intervention including periodic follow-up, serial lipid level controls, and optimization of lipid-lowering therapy, if appropriate, was assessed in terms of serum lipid-level control at 12 weeks after discharge. A total of 497 patients, of which 462 (93%) correctly adhered to the optimization protocol, were included in the analysis. At the end of the optimization period, 327 (70.7%) patients had LDLc levels ≤ 70 mg/dL. 40% of patients in the LDLc ≤ 70 mg/dL group were upgraded to very-high intensity lipid-lowering ability therapy vs. 60.7% in the LDLc > 70 mg/dL group, p < 0.001. Overall, 38.5% of patients had at least a change in their LLT. Side effects were relatively infrequent (10.7%). At 1-year follow-up, LDLc levels were measured by the primary care physician in 342 (68.8%) of the whole cohort of 497 patients. In this group, 71.1% of patients had LDLc levels ≤ 70 mg/dL.ConclusionAn intensive, structured, mobile devices-based healthcare intervention after an ACS is associated with more than 70% of patients reaching the LDLc levels recommended by the clinical guidelines. In patients with LDLc measured at 1-year follow-up, 71.1% had LDLc levels ≤ 70 mg/dL.

Guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend intensive statin therapy and adding nonstatin therapy if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are 70 mg/dL or more. Compliance with guidelines is often low. To track LDL-C treatment patterns in the US over 2 years. GOULD is a prospective observational registry study involving multiple centers. Patients with ASCVD receiving any lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were eligible. Between December 2016 and July 2018, patients were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts: (1) those currently receiving proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) and 2 groups not receiving PCSK9i drugs, with (2) LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more or (3) LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL. Patients had medical record reviews and telephone interviews every 6 months. Analysis was done on data collected as of October 5, 2020. The primary outcome was the change in LLT use in 2 years. Secondary outcomes included the number of LDL-C measurements, LDL-C levels, and responses to structured physician and patient questionnaires over 2 years. A total of 5006 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 67.8 [9.9] years; 1985 women [39.7%]; 4312 White individuals [86.1%]). At 2 years, 885 (17.1%) had LLT intensification. In the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, LLT intensification occurred in 403 (22.4%) and 383 (14.4%), respectively; statins were intensified in 115 (6.4%) and 168 (6.3%), ezetimibe added in 123 (6.8%) and 118 (4.5%), and PCSK9i added in 114 (6.3%) and 58 (2.2%), respectively. In the PCSK9i cohort, 508 of 554 (91.7%) were still taking PCSK9i at 2 years. Lipid panels were measured at least once over 2 years in 3768 patients (88.5%; PCSK9i cohort, 492 [96.1%]; LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL or more, 1294 [85.9%]; 70-99 mg/dL, 1982 [88.6%]). Levels of LDL-C fell from medians (interquartile ranges) of 120 (108-141) mg/dL to 95 (73-118) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more, 82 (75-89) to 77 (65-90) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL, and 67 (42-104) mg/dL to 67 (42-96) mg/dL in the PCSK9i cohort. Levels of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL at 2 years were achieved by 308 patients (21.0%) and 758 patients (33.9%) in the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, respectively, and 272 patients (52.4%) in the PCSK9i cohort. At 2 years, practice characteristics were associated with more LLT intensification (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 148 of 589 [25.1%] vs 600 of 3607 [16.6%]; lipid protocols or none, 359 of 1612 [22.3%] vs 389 of 2584 [15.1%]; cardiology, 452 of 2087 [21.7%] vs internal or family medicine, 204 of 1745 [11.7%] and other, 92 of 364 [25.3%]; all P < .001) and achievement of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 173 of 488 [35.5%] vs 823 of 2986 [27.6%]; lipid protocols vs none, 451 of 1411 [32.0%] vs 545 of 2063 [26.4%]; both P < .001; cardiology, 523 of 1686 [30.1%] vs internal or family medicine, 377 of 1472 [25.6%] and other, 96 of 316 [30.4%]; P = .003). Of patients with ASCVD, most with suboptimal LDL-C levels at baseline, only 17.1% had LLT intensification after 2 years, and two-thirds remained at an LDL-C level greater than 70 mg/dL. Further intensive efforts are needed to achieve optimal LDL-C management in patients with ASCVD.

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and dyslipidemia is the major risk factor for CVD. Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the real-world treatment patterns associated with the use of rosuvastatin + ezetimibe combination therapy for lipid management. Methods: This retrospective multicentric, noncomparative, nonrandomized, observational real-world study was conducted at multiple healthcare centers in India. Patients aged ≥18 years (either sex), with uncontrolled dyslipidemia, familial hypercholesteremia, and mixed dyslipidemias, with persistently elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) despite receiving statin therapy were included. Fasting blood LDL-C was monitored in high, very high, and extreme-risk patients. Results: A total of 1465 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 60.87 years and men predominance (67.49%). Median (range) duration of hypercholesteremia of patients was 4.00 (0.40–19.50) years. The majority of patients were on moderate-intensity statin therapy (54.68%), followed by high-intensity statin (27.37%) and low-intensity statin (17.95%). The majority of patients taking moderate-intensity statins (47.38%) had LDL-C levels between 151 and 200 mg/dL, compared to those taking low (36.50%). Combination rosuvastatin + ezetimibe therapy showed a significant reduction in mean LDL-C levels of patients using low, moderate, and high-intensity statins with a mean difference of 100.63 mg/dL, 94.24 mg/dL, and 92.00 mg/dL ( P &lt; 0.001 each) as well as a significant reduction in LDL-C levels, total cholesterol levels, and triglycerides levels ( P &lt; 0.001 each). Conclusion: Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe therapy was an effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering agent, offering higher efficacy, especially in the reduction of LDL-C levels.

Background— Mutations of PCSK9 are associated cross-sectionally with plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, but little is known about their longitudinal association with LDL-C levels from young adulthood to middle age. Methods and Results— We investigated the associations of 6 PCSK9 variants with LDL-C over 20 years in 1750 blacks and 1828 whites from the Coronary Artery Risk Development In Young Adults study. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess longitudinal differences in LDL-C levels between genotype categories. For blacks, LDL-C levels at age 18 were significantly lower ( P &lt;0.001) among those with 3 genetic variants (L253F, C679X, and Y142X; 81.5 mg/dL) and A443T (95.5 mg/dL) compared with noncarriers (109.6 mg/dL). The difference in LDL-C levels from noncarriers tended to widen for those with the 3 variants only, by 0.24 mg/dL per year of age ( P =0.14). For whites with the R46L variant, compared with noncarriers, LDL-C levels at age 18 were significantly lower (84.4 mg/dL versus 100.9 mg/dL; P &lt;0.001), and the increase in LDL-C with age was similar to noncarriers. The 3 genetic variants and the A443T variant in black men were associated with lower carotid intima-media thickness and lower prevalence of coronary calcification measured at ages 38 to 50. Conclusions— Our results suggest that participants with several genetic variants of PCSK9 have persistently lower serum LDL-C levels than noncarriers from ages 18 to 50. Such long-term reduction in LDL-C levels is associated with reduced subclinical atherosclerosis burden in black men.

Statins — Newer hope for atherosclerosis associated diseases

The comparative clinical benefit of nonstatin therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains uncertain. To evaluate the association between lowering LDL-C and relative cardiovascular risk reduction across different statin and nonstatin therapies. The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched (1966-July 2016). The key inclusion criteria were that the study was a randomized clinical trial and the reported clinical outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI). Studies were excluded if the duration was less than 6 months or had fewer than 50 clinical events. Studies of 9 different types of LDL-C reduction approaches were included. Two authors independently extracted and entered data into standardized data sheets and data were analyzed using meta-regression. The relative risk (RR) of major vascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, acute MI or other acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, or stroke) associated with the absolute reduction in LDL-C level; 5-year rate of major coronary events (coronary death or MI) associated with achieved LDL-C level. A total of 312 175 participants (mean age, 62 years; 24% women; mean baseline LDL-C level of 3.16 mmol/L [122.3 mg/dL]) from 49 trials with 39 645 major vascular events were included. The RR for major vascular events per 1-mmol/L (38.7-mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C level was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.84; P < .001) for statins and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86; P = .002) for established nonstatin interventions that work primarily via upregulation of LDL receptor expression (ie, diet, bile acid sequestrants, ileal bypass, and ezetimibe) (between-group difference, P = .72). For these 5 therapies combined, the RR was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.79, P < .001) for major vascular events per 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL-C level. For other interventions, the observed RRs vs the expected RRs based on the degree of LDL-C reduction in the trials were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92) for niacin (P = .24); 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92) vs 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.94) for fibrates (P = .02), which was lower than expected (ie, greater risk reduction); 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94-1.09) vs 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.91) for cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors (P = .002), which was higher than expected (ie, less risk reduction); and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.34-0.71) vs 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.65) for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (P = .25). The achieved absolute LDL-C level was significantly associated with the absolute rate of major coronary events (11 301 events, including coronary death or MI) for primary prevention trials (1.5% lower event rate [95% CI, 0.5%-2.6%] per each 1-mmol/L lower LDL-C level; P = .008) and secondary prevention trials (4.6% lower event rate [95% CI, 2.9%-6.4%] per each 1-mmol/L lower LDL-C level; P < .001). In this meta-regression analysis, the use of statin and nonstatin therapies that act via upregulation of LDL receptor expression to reduce LDL-C were associated with similar RRs of major vascular events per change in LDL-C. Lower achieved LDL-C levels were associated with lower rates of major coronary events.

Effect of pharmacist interventions on reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is key to preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. However, many high-risk cardiovascular patients still experience poor LDL-C goal attainment and receive suboptimal lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) prescriptions. Herein, we evaluated LLT prescription patterns, LDL-C goal attainment and cardiovascular mortality among this population group in Singapore. This prospective observational cohort study included 555 patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) admitted to the hospital in 2020. The LLT prescriptions, corresponding LDL-C levels and cardiovascular outcomes were assessed over a 24-month period. Most participants were male (82.3%), with 48.5% identified as Chinese. High-intensity statin prescriptions increased from 45.4% at hospital admission to 87.1% at discharge and remained stable at approximately 80% at 6, 12, and 24 months post-discharge. Combination LLT prescriptions increased from 12.3% at discharge to 33.8% by 24 months. Ezetimibe was the most commonly prescribed second-line LLT (40.8%), followed by inclisiran (1.09%) and anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibody therapies (0.87%). Over 24 months, LDL-C goal attainment rates were 22.1% for LDL-C < 1.4 mmol/L and 47.2% for LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression indicated that achieving LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L goal was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality at 24 months (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.94, P = 0.030). Treatment gaps in lipid management persist in 80% of the study population, indicating that statin monotherapy alone is insufficient to achieve LDL-C goals. Greater efforts to improve LDL-C goal attainment rates in high-risk cardiovascular patients are imperative.

We evaluated data on blacks and whites with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with either fibrinolysis or primary percutaneous coronary intervention from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-4 and -5 participating centers between July 2000 and December 2006 to determine race-related differences in bleeding and outcomes. We found that among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction receiving fibrinolysis, the bleeding rates were higher for blacks (n2283) than whites (n42 243; 10.9% versus 10.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.43). Similarly, in patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the bleeding rates were higher in blacks (n2826) than whites (n46 332; 10.3% versus 7.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). Bleeding was associated with a higher risk of death in both ethnic groups. However, there was no overall racial difference in in-hospital mortality among those with bleeding or without bleeding treated with either fibrinolysis or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We concluded that race-related differences existed in bleeding risk among patients with ST-segmentelevation myocardial infarction receiving reperfusion therapy that portend poor prognosis. Thus, the efficacy and safety of many new drugs or treatment strategies for any disease observed in clinical trials that enroll predominantly white patients may not be similar in other ethnic groups that are underrepresented in these trials.

Characteristics and lipid lowering treatment patterns in patients tested for lipoprotein(a): A real-world US study

Many factors contribute to the development of clinical atherosclerotic disease in adults. Observational studies conducted from the late 1940s onward have helped us to identify cigarette smoking, cholesterol levels, diabetes, blood pressure, and other factors as important determinants of cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes.1,2 The effects are multiplicative. For example, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes each double the risk of a heart attack, and having all 3 factors can lead to a risk that was ≈8 times that of an adult of similar age and sex who did not have any of the factors.3 A major focus in the earlier population and clinical studies was identification of persons at increased risk before the clinical atherosclerotic event. Less attention has been directed toward other types of events, such as occurrence of a myocardial infarction in persons presenting with chest pain, recurrent CVD events, and long-term vascular disease complications such as cardiac failure. The determinants of these vascular events are likely to include some of the classical risk factors, but new factors will no doubt be important as well. Improvements in outpatient and inpatient care, diagnosis, and biomarker discovery have reshaped the landscape. It is possible to visualize subclinical CVD with modern atherosclerotic imaging techniques such as carotid intima-media thickness and arterial calcification assessments. Clinical chemists and geneticists identify new biomarkers that promise to help refine assessments of CVD risk, but it is not clear how such tests should be used for research or for clinical care. This article addresses several of the questions posed above and takes the perspective of research and care for clinical atherosclerotic disease, emphasizing the progress we have made from traditional risk factor assessment to the present time that includes newer assessment methods such as genomics, metabolomics, and predictive medicine. ### Traditional Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease The traditional risk factors include cholesterol, blood …

Cost-Effectiveness of 3-Hydroxy-3-Methylglutaryl-Coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) Reductase Inhibitor Therapy in the Managed Care Era

BackgroundAlirocumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin type 9 (PCSK9), has been shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in patients who are receiving statin therapy. Larger and longer-term studies are needed to establish safety and efficacy.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial involving 2341 patients at high risk for cardiovascular events who had LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) or more and were receiving treatment with statins at the maximum tolerated dose (the highest dose associated with an acceptable side-effect profile), with or without other lipid-lowering therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive alirocumab (150 mg) or placebo as a 1-ml subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for 78 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage change in calculated LDL cholesterol level from baseline to week 24.ResultsAt week 24, the difference between the alirocumab and placebo groups in the mean percentage change from baseline in calculated LDL cholesterol level was −62 percentage points (P<0.001); the treatment effect remained consistent over a period of 78 weeks. The alirocumab group, as compared with the placebo group, had higher rates of injection-site reactions (5.9% vs. 4.2%), myalgia (5.4% vs. 2.9%), neurocognitive events (1.2% vs. 0.5%), and ophthalmologic events (2.9% vs. 1.9%). In a post hoc analysis, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization) was lower with alirocumab than with placebo (1.7% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.90; nominal P=0.02).ConclusionsOver a period of 78 weeks, alirocumab, when added to statin therapy at the maximum tolerated dose, significantly reduced LDL cholesterol levels. In a post hoc analysis, there was evidence of a reduction in the rate of cardiovascular events with alirocumab. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; ODYSSEY LONG TERM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01507831.)