Underutilization of Statin Therapy for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Among Older Adults

Secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) clinical trials have demonstrated that higher intensity levels of statin therapy are more effective than lower levels in reducing mortality rates. Despite updated treatment guidelines, statin therapy may be underutilized, with evidence that females are treated less aggressively than males. The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of statin utilization by varying therapy intensity by sex. The secondary objective was to document the benefits of statin therapy intensity levels on all-cause mortality for males and females. A 25% random sample of adults ≥65 years was utilized to identify those with established CVD. Inclusion criteria included: (1) 12-month pre period and (2) up to 30 months post period. Five categories of statin utilization were established: adherent to high-, moderate-, or low-intensity statin therapy, nonadherent, and no statins. Among eligible insureds (N = 49,530 males; N = 44,710 females), 20% of males and 12% of females were identified as high-intensity statin users. Mortality rates significantly increased similarly for males and females as statin therapy intensity decreased. Likewise, mortality hazard ratios indicated the most benefit from high-intensity statin therapy compared to all other categories. Statin therapy for secondary prevention of CVD is beneficial in reducing mortality for males and females but is underutilized, especially among females. Education programs among patients to increase heart health awareness and among physicians to promote the benefits of updated statin guidelines should be encouraged.

Impact of educational outreach intervention on enhancing health care providers' knowledge about statin therapy prescribing in Malaysian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

RATIONALE

Previous research reported underutilization of statin therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Improving health care providers' awareness and understanding of the benefits and risks of statin treatment could be of assistance in optimizing the statin prescribing process.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess health care providers' knowledge related to statin therapy and the impact of educational outreach intervention based on the perceived knowledge.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study based on educational outreach intervention targeting physicians and pharmacists in 1 major tertiary hospital in the state of Pahang, Malaysia. Participants responded to a 12-item, validated questionnaire both prior to and after the outreach educational program. Two sessions were conducted separately for 2 cohorts of pharmacists and physicians. The knowledge scores prior to and after the educational intervention were calculated and compared using a paired-samples t-test.

RESULTS

The response rate to both pre-and post-educational outreach questionnaires was 91% (40/44). Prior to the intervention, around 84% (n37) of the participants decided to initiate statin therapy for both pre-assessment clinical case scenarios; however, only 27% (n12) could state the clinical benefits of statin therapy. Forty-five percent (n20) could state the drug to drug interactions, and 52.3% (n23) could identify the statin therapy that can be given at any time day/evening. The educational outreach program increased participants' knowledge scores of 1.450 (95% CI, 0.918 to 1.982) point, P < .0005, which is statistically significant. Forty respondents (91%) were of the opinion that statin side effects are the most common cause of treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

This work demonstrated the impact of an educational outreach intervention on improving health care providers' knowledge and beliefs about statin therapy. This type of intervention is considered effective for short-term knowledge enhancement. Further research is needed to test the long-term efficacy of such intervention.

Statin Use and Adverse Effects Among Adults >75 Years of Age: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry

Background

Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline.

Methods and Results

We compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline‐recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were >75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high‐dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those >75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high‐dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high‐intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [P<0.0001]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.65 [P=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; P<0.001).

Conclusions

Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged >75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high‐intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adults.

Influence of serum cholesterol level and statin treatment on prostate cancer aggressiveness

Both cholesterol levels and the use of statins have been described to influence the development and prognosis of prostate cancer (PC). In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of consecutive cases from a tertiary referral center we evaluated an association between hypercholesterolemia (≥5.0mmol/l), the use of statins, and advanced/aggressive PC in 767 men with histologically confirmed, clinically localized PC awaiting radical prostatectomy. We found that patients with HCE (n=287, 37.4%) had a significantly higher incidence of poorly differentiated PC (Gleason score ≥7b, 81.1% vs. 4.9%), advanced local tumor stage (≥pT3, 57.7% vs. 22.2%), and nodal involvement (19.8% vs. 1.6%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified hypercholesterolemia as a risk factor for aggressive and/or advanced PC (OR 2.01, p<0.001) whereas statin intake showed an odds ratio of 0.49 (p=0.005) indicating a negative association with high-risk PC. Despite a limited number of patients using statins (~9.5%), adjusted and weighed multivariate logistic regression models revealed that preoperative hypercholesterolemia is associated with a diagnosis of high-risk PC which is negatively influenced by statin intake.

Prognostic Impact of Statin Intensity in Heart Failure Patients With Ischemic Heart Disease: A Report From the CHART-2 (Chronic Heart Failure Registry and Analysis in the Tohoku District 2) Study

Background

The beneficial prognostic impact of statins has been established in patients with ischemic heart disease but not in those with heart failure (HF). In addition, it is still unclear whether patients benefit from statins regardless of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Methods and Results

We examined 2444 consecutive stage C or D HF patients with ischemic heart disease registered in CHART‐2 (Chronic Heart Failure Registry and Analysis in the Tohoku District 2), a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study in Japan. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the Japanese standard doses of statins and statin‐intensity categories defined by the 2013 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines: higher (moderate‐high)‐intensity (n=868), lower (low)‐intensity (n=526), and no statin (n=1050). The median follow‐up period was 6.4 years (13929 person‐years). Analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighted using a propensity score for multiple treatment revealed that both the higher‐intesity group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68; P<0.001) and the lower‐intensity group (HR: 0.82; P<0.001) had significantly lower incidence of the primary end point—a composite of all‐cause death and HF admission—compared with the no statin group. The higher‐intensity statin group had significantly lower incidence of the primary end point (HR: 0.82; P<0.001), all‐cause death (HR: 0.83; P<0.001), and HF admission (HR: 0.78; P<0.001) than the lower‐intensity statin group. Moreover, the use of statins, either higher‐ or lower‐intensity, was associated with reduced incidence of the primary end point, regardless of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Conclusions

These results suggest that statin use, particularly the use of higher‐intensity statins, has a beneficial prognostic impact in HF patients with ischemic heart disease, regardless of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00418041.

Cardiovascular risk reduction in referrals to outpatient vascular clinics

Introduction

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), aneurysmal disease (AD) or carotid atherosclerosis are at high cardiovascular risk, necessitating secondary cardiovascular protection. The aim of this study was to determine compliance with cardiovascular risk reduction guidelines in new patients referred to vascular clinics.

Methods

A multicentre collaborative national observational audit of new patients referred to eight tertiary general vascular clinics over a three-month period in England and Wales was conducted by the Vascular and Endovascular Research Network (VERN). Referral letters, case notes and investigations were reviewed by local investigators, and data analysed by VERN.

Results

A total of 656 patients were included in the study: 73.2% had PAD, 23.2% had AD and 3.7% had carotid atherosclerosis. A third (37.5%) were current smokers, two-thirds (61.7%) were on antiplatelet therapy and two-thirds (61.5%) were on statin therapy. Smoking was more prevalent in the PAD cohort (PAD 41.4%, AD 27.5%, p =0.003). However, more PAD patients were on antiplatelet therapy (PAD 63.9%, AD 53.3%, p =0.024). Both antiplatelet and statin prescription significantly increased with the number of cardiovascular risk factors. Patients with a previous cardiac or cerebrovascular history were more likely to have stopped smoking, and to be on antiplatelet and statin therapy (p <0.0001 for each). Overall, 47.3% of patients were on both antiplatelet and statin therapy, and 28.9% were on antiplatelet and statin therapy and not smoking.

Conclusions

This study highlights deficiencies in cardiovascular risk minimisation in patients with established vascular disease. Patients with concomitant cardiac or cerebrovascular disease were more likely to be on best medical therapy.

Inception and deprescribing of statins in people aged over 80 years: cohort study

Objective

statin use over the age of 80 years is weakly evidence-based. This study aimed to estimate rates of statin inception and deprescribing by frailty level in people aged 80 years or older.

Methods

a cohort of 212,566 participants aged ≥80 years was sampled from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Statin inception was defined as a first-ever prescription in a non-statin user; deprescribing was defined as a last ever statin prescription more than 6 months before the end of participant records. Rates were estimated in a time-to-event framework allowing for mortality as a competing risk. Co-variates were age, gender, frailty category and prevention type.

Results

prevalent statin use increased from 2001-5 (9.9%) to 2011-15 (49.3%). Inception of statins in never-users was low overall at 2.4% per year (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-2.6%) and declined with age. Deprescribing of statins in current users occurred at a rate of 5.6% (95% CI 5.4-5.9%) per year overall and increased with age, reaching 17.8% per year (95% CI 6.7-28.9%) among centenarians. Deprescribing was slightly higher for primary prevention (6.5% per year) than secondary prevention (5.2% per year) indications (P < 0.001). Deprescribing increased with frailty level being 5.0% per year in 'fit' participants and 7.1% in 'severe' frailty (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

statin use has increased in the over 80s but deprescribing is common and increases with age and frailty level. These paradoxical findings highlight a need for better evidence to inform statin use and discontinuation for people aged ≥80 years.

Clinical Predictors for Lack of Favorable Vascular Response to Statin Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Serial Optical Coherence Tomography Study

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that statin therapy improves cardiac outcomes, probably by stabilizing thin‐cap fibroatheroma in patients with coronary artery disease. However, major adverse cardiac events still occur in some patients, despite statin therapy. The aim of this study is to identify clinical predictors for the lack of a favorable vascular response to statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease.

Methods and Results

A total of 140 nonculprit plaques from 84 patients with coronary artery disease who were treated with a statin and had serial optical coherence tomography imaging (median interval, 6.3 months) were included. Thin‐cap area (fibrous cap thickness, <200 μm) was measured using a novel 3‐dimensional computer‐aided algorithm. Overall, the thin‐cap area significantly decreased from baseline (median, 2.852 mm²; 25^th–75^th percentile, 1.023–6.157 mm²) to follow‐up (median, 1.210 mm²; 25^th–75^th percentile, 0.250–3.192 mm²; P<0.001), and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly decreased from baseline (mean±SD, 92.9±30.1 mg/dL) to follow‐up (mean±SD, 76.3±23.3 mg/dL; P<0.001). The general linear model with multiple predictor variables revealed that the thin‐cap area was significantly higher in patients with chronic kidney disease than in those without it (regression coefficient b, 1.691 mm²; 95% confidence interval, 0.350–3.033 mm²; P=0.013) and lower in patients with acute coronary syndrome (regression coefficient b, −1.535 mm²; 95% confidence interval, −2.561 to −0.509 mm²; P=0.003).

Conclusions

Chronic kidney disease is an independent predictor for the lack of a favorable vascular response to statin therapy, whereas acute coronary syndrome is an independent predictor for favorable vascular response to statin therapy. These findings should be further warranted in future prospective studies.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01110538.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Evolocumab and Other Therapies for the Management of Lipid Levels in Hyperlipidemia

Background

The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab substantially reduce low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) when added to statin therapy in patients who need additional LDL‐C reduction.

Methods and Results

We conducted a systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials of lipid‐lowering therapies from database inception through August 2016 (45 058 records retrieved). We found 69 trials of lipid‐lowering therapies that enrolled patients requiring further LDL‐C reduction while on maximally tolerated medium‐ or high‐intensity statin, of which 15 could be relevant for inclusion in LDL‐C reduction networks with evolocumab, alirocumab, ezetimibe, and placebo as treatment arms. PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduced LDL‐C by 54% to 74% versus placebo and 26% to 46% versus ezetimibe. There were significant treatment differences for evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 versus placebo (−74.1%; 95% credible interval −79.81% to −68.58%), alirocumab 75 mg (−20.03%; 95% credible interval −27.32% to −12.96%), and alirocumab 150 mg (−13.63%; 95% credible interval −22.43% to −5.33%) at ≥12 weeks. Treatment differences were similar in direction and magnitude for PCSK9 inhibitor monthly dosing. Adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors and control. Rates of adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors versus placebo or ezetimibe.

Conclusions

PCSK9 inhibitors added to medium‐ to high‐intensity statin therapy significantly reduce LDL‐C in patients requiring further LDL‐C reduction. The network meta‐analysis showed a significant treatment difference in LDL‐C reduction for evolocumab versus alirocumab.

Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Among Men With Primary Elevations of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels of 190 mg/dL or Above: Analyses From the WOSCOPS (West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study) 5-Year Randomized Trial and 20-Year Observational Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Patients with primary elevations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥190 mg/dL are at a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease as a result of long-term exposure to markedly elevated LDL-C levels. Therefore, initiation of statin therapy is recommended for these individuals. However, there is a lack of randomized trial evidence supporting these recommendations in primary prevention. In the present analysis, we provide hitherto unpublished data on the cardiovascular effects of LDL-C lowering among a primary prevention population with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL.

METHODS

We aimed to assess the benefits of LDL-C lowering on cardiovascular outcomes among individuals with primary elevations of LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL without preexisting vascular disease at baseline. We performed post hoc analyses from the WOSCOPS (West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study) randomized, placebo-controlled trial, and observational posttrial long-term follow-up, after excluding individuals with evidence of vascular disease at baseline. WOSCOPS enrolled 6595 men aged 45 to 64 years, who were randomly assigned to pravastatin 40 mg/d or placebo. In the present analyses, 5529 participants without evidence of vascular disease were included, stratified by LDL-C levels into those with LDL-C <190 mg/dL (n=2969; mean LDL-C 178±6 mg/dL) and those with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL (n=2560; mean LDL-C 206±12 mg/dL). The effect of pravastatin versus placebo on coronary heart disease and major adverse cardiovascular events were assessed over the 4.9-year randomized controlled trial phase and on mortality outcomes over a total of 20 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 5529 individuals without vascular disease, pravastatin reduced the risk of coronary heart disease by 27% (P=0.002) and major adverse cardiovascular events by 25% (P=0.004) consistently among those with and without LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL (P-interaction >0.9). Among individuals with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL, pravastatin reduced the risk of coronary heart disease by 27% (P=0.033) and major adverse cardiovascular events by 25% (P=0.037) during the initial trial phase and the risk of coronary heart disease death, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality by 28% (P=0.020), 25% (P=0.009), and 18% (P=0.004), respectively, over a total of 20 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analyses provide robust novel evidence for the short- and long-term benefits of lowering LDL-C for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among individuals with primary elevations of LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL.

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Class I Guidelines for the Treatment of Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk: Implications for US Hispanics/Latinos Based on Findings From the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL)

Background

The prevalence estimates of statin eligibility among Hispanic/Latinos living in the United States under the new 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol treatment guidelines are not known.

Methods and Results

We estimated prevalence of statin eligibility under 2013 ACC/AHA and 3rd National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP/ATP III) guidelines among Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (n=16 415; mean age 41 years, 40% males) by using sampling weights calibrated to the 2010 US census. We examined the characteristics of Hispanic/Latinos treated and not treated with statins under both guidelines. We also redetermined the statin‐therapy eligibility by using black risk estimates for Dominicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Central Americans. Compared with NCEP/ATP III guidelines, statin eligibility increased from 15.9% (95% CI 15.0–16.7%) to 26.9% (95% CI 25.7–28.0%) under the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. This was mainly driven by the ≥7.5% atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk criteria (prevalence 13.9% [95% CI 13.0–14.7%]). Of the participants eligible for statin eligibility under NCEP/ATP III and ACC/AHA guidelines, only 28.2% (95% CI 26.3–30.0%) and 20.6% (95% CI 19.4–21.9%) were taking statins, respectively. Statin‐eligible participants who were not taking statins had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors compared with statin‐eligible participants who were taking statins. There was no significant increase in statin eligibility when atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was calculated by using black estimates instead of recommended white estimates (increase by 1.4%, P=0.12) for Hispanic/Latinos.

Conclusions

The eligibility of statin therapy increased consistently across all Hispanic/Latinos subgroups under the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines and therefore will potentially increase the number of undertreated Hispanic/Latinos in the United States.

Statin Treatment and Clinical Outcomes of Heart Failure Among Africans: An Inverse Probability Treatment Weighted Analysis

Background

Randomized control trials of statins have not demonstrated significant benefits in outcomes of heart failure (HF). However, randomized control trials may not always be generalizable. The aim was to determine whether statin and statin type–lipophilic or –hydrophilic improve long‐term outcomes in Africans with HF.

Methods and Results

This was a retrospective longitudinal study of HF patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized at a tertiary healthcare center between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013 in Ghana. Patients were eligible if they were discharged from first admission for HF (index admission) and followed up to time of all‐cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality or end of study. Multivariable time‐dependent Cox model and inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting of marginal structural model were used to estimate associations between statin treatment and outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios were also estimated for lipophilic and hydrophilic statin compared with no statin use. The study included 1488 patients (mean age 60.3±14.2 years) with 9306 person‐years of observation. Using the time‐dependent Cox model, the 5‐year adjusted hazard ratios with 95% CI for statin treatment on all‐cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality were 0.68 (0.55–0.83), 0.67 (0.54–0.82), and 0.63 (0.51–0.79), respectively. Use of inverse‐probability‐of‐treatment weighting resulted in estimates of 0.79 (0.65–0.96), 0.77 (0.63–0.96), and 0.77 (0.61–0.95) for statin treatment on all‐cause, cardiovascular, and HF mortality, respectively, compared with no statin use.

Conclusions

Among Africans with HF, statin treatment was associated with significant reduction in mortality.

Effect of 2013 ACC/AHA Blood Cholesterol Guidelines on Statin Treatment Patterns and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Patients

Background

Preceding release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) cholesterol guidelines, prescribers aimed for specific low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) goals in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The 2013 guidelines changed this focus to treating patients with appropriate statin intensity given their ASCVD risk. We examined statin use and LDL‐C levels before and after the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in patients with clinical ASCVD as defined in the guidelines.

Methods and Results

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult commercial and Medicare Advantage health plan enrollees in the Optum Research Database. Patients had ≥1 claim with a diagnosis of clinical ASCVD between November 1, 2012 and December 31, 2014 and were continuously enrolled 6 months before (baseline) and 7 months after (follow‐up) the first ASCVD visit. Patients were assigned to monthly cohorts based on ASCVD event month. Statin use and intensity were measured at baseline and first month of follow‐up. LDL‐C changes were assessed using ordinary least squares regression. For 90 287 patients, mean (SD) age was 68 (12) years; 50% were female; and 30% had commercial insurance. Statin use remained consistent before and after guidelines (32% and 31%, respectively). Of patients receiving statins, high‐intensity use increased by 4 percentage points 1 year after guidelines (P<0.001). Mean LDL‐C levels were 2.4 mmol/L (94 mg/dL) both pre‐ and postguidelines.

Conclusions

Statin use and mean monthly LDL‐C before and after the guidelines remained largely unchanged; statin intensity increased modestly. More effort may be needed to increase guideline understanding and adherence to improve treatment of high‐risk patients.

Patterns and Predictors of Adherence to Statin Therapy Among Older Patients: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Background

The benefits of statin therapy are significantly compromised by noncompliance. Although elderly patients may have particular challenges with medication adherence and persistence, previous reviews on statin adherence have not focused on this population. Additionally, comparisons of adherence and persistence specific to statin indication (primary or secondary prevention) have not been thoroughly explored.

Objective

We aim to assess the extent of, and factors associated with, adherence and persistence to statin therapy among older populations (aged ≥65 years).

Methods

A systematic review will be undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Searches will be performed using multiple electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database) to identify relevant randomized trials and observational studies that evaluated statin adherence and/or persistence as an outcome. Eligible studies will include those involving community-living or outpatient elderly individuals. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be assessed via the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklist for RCTs, and the quality assessment of observational studies will be undertaken using a set of questions formulated with resort to the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. When possible, meta-analyses will be conducted using random-effect modeling and generic inverse variance analyses for adjusted-effect estimates. Heterogeneity across studies will be quantified using the I² statistic. The presence of publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis will also be conducted to assess the impact of individual study results on pooled estimates. To explore possible sources of heterogeneity across studies, subgroup analyses will be performed based on covariates such as study design, statin indication, country of study, and length of patient follow-up.

Results

The electronic database searches were completed in December 2016. Retrieved articles are currently being screened and the entire study is expected to be completed by June 2017.

Conclusions

This systematic review will provide further understanding of the patterns of, and barriers to, statin adherence and persistence among older patients. The findings will inform clinical practice and the design of appropriate interventions.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42016053191

Statin therapy reduces the likelihood of suboptimal blood pressure control among Ugandan adult diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is one of the recognized risk factors of cardiovascular diseases in adult diabetic patients. High prevalence of suboptimal blood pressure (BP) control has been well documented in the majority of studies assessing BP control in diabetic patients in sub-Saharan Africa. In Uganda, there is a dearth of similar studies. This study evaluated the prevalence and correlates of suboptimal BP control in an adult diabetic population in Uganda.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that enrolled 425 eligible ambulatory adult diabetic patients attending three urban diabetic outpatient clinics over 11 months. Data about their sociodemographic characteristics and clinical history were collected using pre-tested questionnaires. Suboptimal BP control was defined according to the 2015 American Diabetes Association standards of diabetes care guideline as BP levels ≥140/90 mmHg.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study participants was 52.2±14.4 years, with the majority being females (283, 66.9%). Suboptimal BP control was documented in 192 (45.3%) study participants and was independently associated with the study site (private hospitals; odds ratio 2.01, 95% confidence interval 1.18-3.43, P=0.01) and use of statin therapy (odds ratio 0.5, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.96, P=0.037).

CONCLUSION

Suboptimal BP control was highly prevalent in this study population. Strategies to improve optimal BP control, especially in the private hospitals, and the use of statin therapy should be encouraged in adult diabetic patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Intensifying Lipid-Lowering Therapy With Statins Based on Individual Absolute Benefit in Coronary Artery Disease Patients

BACKGROUND

A validated prediction model estimates the absolute benefit of intensive versus standard lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) with statins on next major cardiovascular events for individual patients with coronary artery disease. We aimed to assess whether targeting intensive LLT therapy to coronary artery disease patients with the highest predicted absolute benefit is cost-effective compared to treating all with standard or all with intensive LLT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A lifetime Markov model was constructed for coronary artery disease patients (n=10 000) with mean age 61 years. Number of major cardiovascular events, (non) vascular death, costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for the following strategies: (1) standard LLT for all (reference strategy); (2) intensive LLT for those with 5-year absolute major cardiovascular events risk reduction (ARR) ≥3%, ≥2.3%, or ≥1.5% (corresponding to ≥20%, ≥15%, or ≥10% 5-year major cardiovascular events risk); and (3) intensive LLT for all. With intensive LLT for those with ≥3% 5-year ARR (13% of patients), 380 QALYs were gained for €2423/QALY. Using a threshold of ≥2.3% ARR (26% of patients), 630 QALYs were gained for €5653/QALY. Using a threshold of ≥1.5% ARR (56% of patients), 1020 QALYs were gained for €10 960/QALY. By treating all intensively, 1410 QALYs were gained (0.14 QALY per patient) for €17 223/QALY. With benefit-based treatment, 0.16 to 0.17 QALY was gained per treated patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive LLT with statins for all coronary artery disease patients results in the highest overall QALY gain against acceptable costs. However, the number of QALYs gained with intensive LLT by statins in individual patients can be increased with selective benefit-based treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00327691 and NCT00159835.

Use of statins offsets insulin-related cancer risk

AIM

There is firm evidence of a relation between type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and increased risks of cancer at various sites, but it is still unclear how different antihyperglycaemic therapies modify site-specific cancer risks. The aim of this study was to provide a complete characterization of all possible associations between individual T2DM therapies, statin use and site-specific cancers in the Austrian population.

METHODS

Medical claims data of 1 847 051 patients with hospital stays during 2006-2007 were used to estimate age- and sex-dependent co-occurrences of site-specific cancer diagnoses and treatment with specific glucose-lowering drugs and statins.

RESULTS

Patients treated with insulin or insulin secretagogues showed up to ninefold increased risks for cancers of the colon [males only (m)], liver (m), pancreas, lung (m) and brain (m), as well as a strongly decreased risk for prostate cancer (m). In patients taking statins, the risks were generally decreased, with a greater risk reduction in patients not receiving antihyperglycaemic therapies. The strongest effects were observed for use of insulin and pancreatic cancer [m: OR 4.5, 95% CI: 3.1-6.6; females (f): OR 4.2, 95% CI: 2.5-7.1], sulfonylureas (m: OR 2.8, 95% CI: 1.7-4.6; f: OR 3.0, 95% CI: 2.1-4.2) or glitazones and skin cancer (f: OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36-0.80), as well as metformin and cancer of the prostate (m: OR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75-0.91) and corpus uteri (f: OR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.4-2.0) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (f: OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.64-0.91).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of statins offsets insulin-related cancer risks in patients with diabetes independently of sex and age. Overall, our data support the hyperglycaemia-cancer hypothesis. A reduction in endogenous or exogenous hyperinsulinaemia may be beneficial for cancer prevention. Therefore, insulin-sparing and insulin-sensitizing drugs should be the preferred treatment choices.

Predictors of Nonuse of a High-Potency Statin After an Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the Stabilization of Plaques Using Darapladib-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 52 (SOLID-TIMI 52) Trial

Background

High‐potency statins reduce cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndromes but remain underused in clinical practice. We examined predictors of nonuse of high‐potency statins after acute coronary syndromes.

Methods and Results

The Stabilization of pLaques usIng Darapladib‐Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SOLID‐TIMI 52) trial enrolled patients after an acute coronary syndrome in 36 countries between 2009 and 2011. Statin use was strongly encouraged throughout the trial, and statin potency was at the discretion of the treating physician. A high‐potency statin was defined as ≥40 mg atorvastatin, ≥20 mg rosuvastatin, or 80 mg simvastatin daily. Predictors of nonuse of high‐potency statins were examined using logistic regression. Of the patients included (n=12 446), 11 850 (95.2%) were treated with a statin at baseline after acute coronary syndrome (median 14 days), but only 5212 (41.9%) were on a high‐potency statin. Selected patient factors associated with nonuse of high‐potency statins included age ≥75 years (odds ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.24–1.56), female sex (odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 1.02–1.22), renal dysfunction (odds ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.03–1.32), and heart failure during hospital admission (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.27–1.62). At 3 months after baseline, only 49% of patients had low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL. Among the 5490 patients (59%) who were not on a high‐potency statin at 3 months, lower low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol was a predictor of nonuse of a high‐potency statin after a median of 2.3 years (odds ratio 1.15 for 10 mg/dL decrease, 95% CI 1.11–1.19).

Conclusion

Despite the widespread use of statins after acute coronary syndromes, most patients are not treated with high‐potency statins early and late after the event, including patients at the highest risk of recurrent cardiovascular events.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01000727.

Effects of preoperative statin use on perioperative outcomes of carotid endarterectomy

OBJECTIVES

Several studies have shown the beneficial role of statins in reducing the risk of major perioperative complications and death associated with noncardiac vascular surgery, but few have focused on their effects in the event of carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study analyzes the effects of preoperative statin use on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing CEA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from all consecutive patients who underwent primary CEA for symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid disease between 2002 and 2014 at a single institution were prospectively stored in a vascular surgery registry, recording risk factors, medication, and indication for surgery. Endpoints of the study were perioperative (30-day) stroke and death.

RESULTS

Overall, 784 patients were on statins (825 CEAs, Group I), while 494 were not (545 CEAs, Group II). There were two perioperative strokes in Group I (0.24%) and four in Group II (0.73%; p = .22), and no deaths. The only nonfatal cardiac complication occurred in Group II (0.18%, p = .39). A neurologist assessed patients at 1, 6, and 12 months after CEA, and every 2 years thereafter. Follow-up (range: 0.1-13 years; mean, 6.3 ± 3.7 years) was obtained for 1,239 patients (1,326 CEAs). Because 165 patients (166 CEAs) crossed over from Group II to Group I during the follow-up time, long-term data were stratified by postoperative statin treatment rather than by preoperative statin use. The 5- and 10-year restenosis/occlusion and survival rates did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking statins prior to CEA did not seem to affect the risk of major perioperative ischemic events and death, most likely due to the extremely low overall incidence of perioperative complications.

Clinical Characteristics and Unmet Need Among Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Stratified by Statin Use

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) 2013 guidelines for blood cholesterol treatment recommend high-intensity statins for adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Currently, little is known about the real-world patient characteristics of ASCVD, as well as the clinical and economic consequences of different treatment options for this disease.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the demographic, clinical, and economic characteristics of patients with clinical ASCVD who started therapy with high-intensity statins, low-/moderate-intensity statins, or no statins in usual-care settings based on data primarily before the release of the ACC/AHA 2013 guidelines.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study used claims data from US commercial health plans from January 2006 to June 2014 to identify patients with ASCVD (ie, acute coronary syndrome, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease). High-intensity, low-/moderate-intensity statin users and non-statin users were selected based on the presence of a corresponding prescription fill. The index date was defined as the first statin fill date for the statin cohorts and the earliest eligibility date for clinical ASCVD for the non-statin users group. The follow-up outcomes, including treatment patterns, cardiovascular (CV) events, and healthcare utilization and costs, were assessed after matching the high-intensity statin and low-/moderate-intensity statin initiators.

RESULTS

A total of 273,308 patients with ASCVD were included in the study; of these, 104,649 were statin initiators and 168,659 non-statin users. Only 8.8% (N = 24,106) of the total population initiated high-intensity statins. Patient adherence (defined as proportion of days covered ≥80%) to statin therapy was low in the matched high-intensity statin and low-/moderate-intensity statin cohorts (27.0% vs 26.4%, respectively). Approximately 16% of the patients in either of the matched cohorts had at least 1 CV event during the available follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The low percentage of patients who initiated high-intensity statin therapy, low adherence to statin therapy, and high rates of CV events during the follow-up period suggest a substantial unmet need among patients with ASCVD in the real-world setting. The demographic and clinical heterogeneity across the cohorts suggests significant variability in physician perception of the appropriate use of statins and may provide an opportunity to improve care and health outcomes in these high-risk patients.

Rooted in risk: genetic predisposition for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level associates with diminished low-density lipoprotein cholesterol response to statin treatment

AIMS

To utilize previously reported lead SNPs for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) levels to find additional loci of importance to statin response, and examine whether genetic predisposition to LDL-c levels associates with differential statin response.

METHODS

We investigated effects on statin response of 59 LDL-c SNPs, by combining summary level statistics from the Global Lipids Genetics and Genomic Investigation of Statin Therapy consortia.

RESULTS

Lead SNPs for APOE, SORT1 and NPC1L1 were associated with a decreased LDL-c response to statin treatment, as was overall genetic predisposition for increased LDL-c levels as quantified with 59 SNPs, with a 5.4% smaller statin response per standard deviation increase in genetically raised LDL-c levels.

CONCLUSION

Genetic predisposition for increased LDL-c level may decrease efficacy of statin therapy.

Statin-induced diabetes: incidence, mechanisms, and implications

Persuasive data from many randomized controlled trials and large, long-term observational studies indicate a modestly increased risk for the emergence of new diabetes after statin initiation. Several meta-analyses of many statin trials as well as longitudinal population-based studies suggest that the risk factors for diabetes in statin-treated persons include underlying risk for diabetes at baseline (specifically features of metabolic syndrome), the intensity of statin therapy, certain genetic traits independent of diabetes risk, and adherence to lifestyle factors. Limited data suggest statins modestly worsen hyperglycemia and A1c levels in those with pre-existing diabetes or glucose intolerance. The precise mechanism(s) of diabetogenesis with statin therapy are unclear, but impaired insulin sensitivity and compromised β cell function via enhanced intracellular cholesterol uptake due to inhibition of intracellular cholesterol synthesis by statins, as well as other mechanisms, may be involved. Furthermore, while statins are known to have anti-inflammatory effects, it is hypothesized that, under dysmetabolic conditions, they might have pro-inflammatory effects via induction of certain inflammasomes. This concept requires further elucidation in the human. Finally, it is clear that the risk–benefit ratio for cardiovascular disease events is strongly in favor of statin therapy in those at risk, despite the emergence of new diabetes. Adherence to lifestyle regimen is critical in the prevention of new diabetes on statins.