Comparison of ACC/AHA and ESC Guideline Recommendations Following Trial Evidence for Statin Use in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Results From the Population-Based Rotterdam Study

Handlungsempfehlungen zur Risikominimierung beim Einsatz von Januskinase-Inhibitoren zur Therapie chronisch-entzündlicher Hauterkrankungen

Der Ausschuss für Risikobewertung (PRAC) der Europäischen Arzneimittelagentur (EMA) hat gemäß Artikel 20 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 726/2004 die Sicherheit für Januskinase‐Inhibitoren für die Behandlung von Entzündungserkrankungen neu bewertet und von den bisherigen Hinweisen in den jeweiligen Fachinformationen der betreffenden Präparate abweichende Sicherheitsangaben formuliert. Diese beziehen sich arzneistoff‐ und indikationsübergreifend auf die Beachtung eines möglicherweise erhöhten Risikos für venöse thromboembolische oder schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse, eine erhöhte Infektionsrate sowie eine Erhöhung der Prävalenz von Hautkrebs. Deshalb wird empfohlen, bei Patienten mit unabhängigen Risikofaktoren (Alter ab 65 Jahre, Raucher oder ehemalige Raucher, Patientinnen mit oraler Kontrazeption beziehungsweise Hormonersatztherapie sowie anderen Risikofaktoren) Januskinase‐Inhibitoren nur dann therapeutisch einzusetzen, wenn es keine geeigneten Behandlungsalternativen gibt. Um im klinischen Alltag eine pragmatische und sorgfältige Erfassung von Risikopatienten zu ermöglichen, wurde interdisziplinär eine Checkliste erarbeitet, die aus der Perspektive des Dermatologen als Arbeitsmittel geeignet ist.

Recommendations for risk minimization when using Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of chronic inflammatory skin diseases

In accordance with article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has re-evaluated the safety of Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory diseases and formulated safety information deviating from the previous indications in the respective summary of product characteristics of the products concerned. These refer to the consideration of a possibly increased risk of venous thromboembolic or severe cardiovascular events, an increased infection rate and an increase in the prevalence of skin cancer across drugs and indications. Therefore, in patients with independent risk factors (age 65 years and older, smokers or former smokers, patients with oral contraception or hormone replacement therapy and other risk factors), it is recommended to use Janus kinase inhibitors therapeutically only if there are no suitable treatment alternatives. To facilitate a pragmatic and thorough detection of high-risk patients in everyday clinical practice, an interdisciplinary checklist was developed that is suitable as a working tool from the perspective of the dermatologist.

Guidelines versus trial-evidence for statin use in primary prevention: The Copenhagen General Population Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guideline-recommended use of risk calculators to select for statin therapy in primary prevention has never been tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We determined the extent to which guideline-based statin recommendations from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), Canadian Cardiovascular Society(CCS), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) is supported by available evidence from RCTs.

METHODS

79,171 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study who were free of ASCVD and statin use at baseline were included. RCT evidence supporting guideline-recommended statin allocation and the estimated number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one ASCVD event were assessed.

RESULTS

During 8.2 years of follow-up, 4031 ASCVD events occurred. Of individuals eligible for statin therapy with the ACC/AHA, CCS, NICE and ESC/EAS guidelines, 86%, 88%, 88% and 84% had direct RCT evidence of statin efficacy, respectively (guideline-positive&RCT-positive). This group represented 26-37% of all 79,171 individuals, while guideline-positive&RCT-negative individuals represented 5-7%, guideline-negative&RCT-positive individuals 28-39%, and guideline-negative&RCT-negative individuals represented 30-31%. The ASCVD events per 1000 person-years were 11.4-12.7 (guideline-positive&RCT-positive), 6.3-8.0 (guideline-positive&RCT-negative), 4.2-5.2 (guideline-negative&RCT-positive), and 2.3-2.5 (guideline-negative&RCT-negative), respectively, while the corresponding NNT to prevent one event in 10 years using high-intensity statin were 19-21, 30-32, 48-60, and 105-125, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The far majority of individuals eligible for guideline-recommended primary prevention with statins have direct RCT evidence supporting statin use. Allocating statins based on guideline-criteria is more efficient with lower NNT for preventing ASCVD events than allocating statin therapy based solely on RCT evidence.

Recommendations and Associated Levels of Evidence for Statin Use in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Comparison at Population Level of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, US Preventive Services Task Force, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Despite using identical evidence to support practice guidelines for lipid-lowering treatment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), it is unclear to what extent the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines differ in grading and assigning levels of evidence and classes of recommendations (LOE/class) at a population level.

METHODS

We included 7262 participants, aged 45 to 75 years, without history of CVD from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. Per guideline, proportions of the population recommended statin therapy by LOE/class, sensitivity and specificity for CVD events, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years were calculated.

RESULTS

Mean age was 61.1 (SD 6.9) years; 58.2% were women. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, USPSTF, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society strongly recommended statin initiation in respective 59.4%, 40.2%, 45.2%, 73.7%, and 42.1% of the eligible population based on high-quality evidence. Sensitivity for CVD events for treatment recommendations supported with strong LOE/class was 86.3% for American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (IA or IB), 69.4% for USPSTF (USPSTF-B), 74.5% for Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (strong for), 93.3% for Canadian Cardiovascular Society (strong), and 66.6% for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (IA). Specificity was highest for the USPSTF at 45.3% and lowest for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society at 10.0%. Estimated numbers needed to treat at 10 years for those with the strongest LOE/class were ranging from 20 to 26 for moderate-intensity and 12 to 16 for high-intensity statins.

CONCLUSIONS

Sensitivity, specificity, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years for assigned LOE/class varied greatly among 5 CVD prevention guidelines. The level of variability seems to be driven by differences in how the evidence is graded and translated into LOE/class underlying the treatment recommendations by different professional societies. Efforts towards harmonizing evidence grading systems for clinical guidelines in primary prevention of CVD may reduce ambiguity and reinforce updated evidence-based recommendations.

Objectives, design and main findings until 2020 from the Rotterdam Study

The Rotterdam Study is an ongoing prospective cohort study that started in 1990 in the city of Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The study aims to unravel etiology, preclinical course, natural history and potential targets for intervention for chronic diseases in mid-life and late-life. The study focuses on cardiovascular, endocrine, hepatic, neurological, ophthalmic, psychiatric, dermatological, otolaryngological, locomotor, and respiratory diseases. As of 2008, 14,926 subjects aged 45 years or over comprise the Rotterdam Study cohort. Since 2016, the cohort is being expanded by persons aged 40 years and over. The findings of the Rotterdam Study have been presented in over 1700 research articles and reports. This article provides an update on the rationale and design of the study. It also presents a summary of the major findings from the preceding 3 years and outlines developments for the coming period.

Improving statin prescription through the involvement of nurses in the provision of ASCVD score: a quality improvement initiative in primary care

OBJECTIVES

This study compares two methods of providing CVD risk score on the percentage of appropriate statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD in family medicine clinics, according to the American Heart Association guidelines.

METHODS

Participants were non-diabetic patients aged 40 to 75 with a recently ordered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, not on statin therapy and free of CVD. The first intervention is passive with a display of the score on the EMR in the vital signs section and lasted for three months. The second intervention is collaborative where the nurses calculate the risk score and displayed it to the physician along with therapy recommendations. Electronic health records were reviewed to randomly select medical charts of eligible patients.

RESULTS

162 charts were randomly selected out of 547 eligible charts and included in the analysis, including 60 charts for the baseline group. Among moderate-risk patients, the percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 0% at baseline and after intervention 1; yet it increased to (33.3% [7.5-70.1, 95% CI]) after intervention 2. Among high risk patients, percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 9.1% [0.1-41.3, 95% CI], 11.1% [1.4, 34.7, 95% CI] and 28.6% [8.4, 58.1, 95% CI] during baseline, intervention 1 and intervention 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The provision of the CVD risk score alone as clinical decision support is not enough to improve statin initiation for primary prevention. The nurse collaboration can improve guideline-concordant statin initiation.

Statin Use in Primary Prevention: A Simple Trial-Based Approach Compared With Guideline-Recommended Risk Algorithms for Selection of Eligible Patients

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease risk assessment tools help identify individuals likely to benefit from preventative therapies. In this study we compared outcomes using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk algorithm and the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) tool in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 study.

METHODS

We compared outcomes using the ACC/AHA algorithm and the FRS with those seen in HOPE-3, which randomized participants to 10 mg rosuvastatin or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, and revascularization.

RESULTS

Relative risks using risk scores were similar to those observed in the HOPE-3. Hazards ratios for the first coprimary outcome according to risk categories of ≤ 10%, 10%-20%, and ≥ 20% using the ACC/AHA algorithm were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.28), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.53-0.96), and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.55-0.93), and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.18%, 1.33%, and 1.85%, respectively, over a median of 5.6 years. Corresponding results using the FRS were 0.69 (95% CI, 0.36-1.35), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.52-1.01), and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.60- 0.94); and ARR of 1.32%, 0.61%, and 1.43%. Hazard ratios for the second coprimary outcome were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.51-1.14), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.56-0.95), and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94); and ARR of 0.36%, 1.49%, and 1.85%, using the ACC/AHA algorithm and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.41-1.41), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52-0.95), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62-0.94); and ARR of 1.08%, 0.83%, and 1.56% using the FRS.

CONCLUSIONS

The pragmatic HOPE-3 trial approach identifies in an ethnically diverse primary prevention population individuals at intermediate risk who benefit from statin therapy using simple clinical characteristics without the need for complex, currently used risk assessment tools.

Primary Prevention Using Cholesterol-Lowering Medications in Patients Meeting New Treatment Guidelines: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) issued new cholesterol treatment guidelines in 2013. Two of the groups designated for primary prevention were analyzed: patients with a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 190 mg per dL and diabetic patients aged 40-75 years.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effects of primary prevention as specified in the 2013 guidelines on cardiovascular event risk and cost.

METHODS

Primary prevention patients were identified using laboratory and diagnostic data for Humana members from 2007 to 2013. Potential study patients were classified into 3 risk groups: elevated LDL-C, diabetes, and elevated LDL-C and diabetes. Patients receiving cholesterol-lowering medications before their index date were excluded. Eligible patients were divided into 2 treatment groups: (1) primary prevention patients who initiated treatment before experiencing any cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related event, and (2) patients who either did not initiate treatment until after experiencing a CVD event or never initiated treatment. The associations between initiating cholesterol-lowering medications for primary prevention and the risk for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. The effect of primary prevention on health care costs was estimated using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

91,066 patients met study selection criteria. Primary prevention rates were the lowest in diabetic patients (35%), who were newly designated for treatment in the 2013 guidelines. Primary prevention rates were higher for patients designated for treatment under earlier guidelines: 65% for patients with elevated LDL-C and 78% for the combined LDL-C and diabetes group. Primary prevention treatment was associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular event risk (up to 37%) and lower total all-cause costs (by $673) in the first post-index year.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating cholesterol-lowering medications for primary prevention, as specified in the ACC/AHA 2013 guidelines, for patients with high LDL-C and diabetes is associated with reduced CVD event risks and lower health care costs.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Han received fellowship support from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association Foundation (PhRMA) during the conduct of this study. Dougherty is employed by PhRMA. The authors have nothing to disclose.

Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: The past, present, and future of blood pressure- and cholesterol-lowering treatments

In a Perspective, M. Afran Ikram and Maarten Leening discuss the evolving approaches to determining cardiovascular risk.

Statin Trials, Cardiovascular Events, and Coronary Artery Calcification: Implications for a Trial-Based Approach to Statin Therapy in MESA

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine whether coronary artery calcium (CAC) could be used to optimize statin allocation among individuals for whom trial-based evidence supports efficacy of statin therapy.

BACKGROUND

Recently, allocation of statins was proposed for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) based on proven efficacy from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statin therapy, a so-called trial-based approach.

METHODS

The study used data from MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) with 5,600 men and women, 45 to 84 years of age, and free of clinical ASCVD, lipid-lowering therapy, or missing information for risk factors at baseline examination.

RESULTS

During 10 years' follow-up, 354 ASCVD and 219 hard coronary heart disease (CHD) events occurred. Based on enrollment criteria for 7 RCTs of statin therapy in primary prevention, 73% of MESA participants (91% of those >55 years of age) were eligible for statin therapy according to a trial-based approach. Among those individuals, CAC = 0 was common (44%) and was associated with low rates of ASCVD and CHD (3.9 and 1.7, respectively, per 1,000 person-years). There was a graded increase in event rates with increasing CAC score, and in individuals with CAC >100 (27% of participants) the rates of ASCVD and CHD were 18.9 and 12.7, respectively. Consequently, the estimated number needed to treat (NNT) in 10 years to prevent 1 event varied greatly according to CAC score. For ASCVD events, the NNT was 87 for CAC = 0 and 19 for CAC >100. For CHD events, the NNT was 197 for CAC = 0 and 28 for CAC >100.

CONCLUSIONS

Most MESA participants qualified for trial-based primary prevention with statins. Among the individuals for whom trial-based evidence supports efficacy of statin therapy, CAC = 0 and CAC >100 were common and associated with low and high cardiovascular risks, respectively. This information may guide shared decision making aimed at targeting evidence-based statins to those who are likely to benefit the most.

Assessing gaps in cholesterol treatment guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease based on available randomised clinical trial evidence: The Rotterdam Study

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine how American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2013 and European Society of Cardiology 2016 guidelines for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) compare in reflecting the totality of accrued randomised clinical trial evidence for statin treatment at population level.

Methods

From 1997–2008, 7279 participants aged 45–75 years, free of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, from the population-based Rotterdam Study were included. For each participant, we compared eligibility for each one of 11 randomised clinical trials on statin use in primary prevention of CVD, with recommendations on lipid-lowering therapy from the ACC/AHA and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease incidence and cardiovascular disease mortality rates were calculated.

Results

The proportion of participants eligible for each trial ranged from 0.4% for ALLHAT-LLT to 30.8% for MEGA. The likelihood of being recommended for lipid-lowering treatment was lowest for those eligible for low-to-intermediate risk RCTs (HOPE-3, MEGA, and JUPITER), and highest for high-risk individuals with diabetes (MRC/BHF HPS, CARDS, and ASPEN) or elderly PROSPER. Eligibility for an increasing number of randomised clinical trials correlated with a greater likelihood of being recommended lipid-lowering treatment by either guideline (p < 0.001 for both guidelines).

Conclusion

Compared to RCTs done in high risk populations, randomised clinical trials targeting low-to-intermediate risk populations are less well-reflected in the ACC/AHA, and even less so in the ESC guideline recommendations. Importantly, the low-to-intermediate risk population targeted by HOPE-3, the most recent randomised clinical trial in this field, is not well-captured by the current European prevention guidelines and should be specifically considered in future iterations of the guidelines.

Treatment of Dyslipidemias to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current preventive and treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes have failed to decrease the incidence of comorbidities, such as dyslipidemia and ultimately heart disease. The goal of this review is to describe the physiological and metabolic lipid alterations that develop in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Questions addressed include the differences in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism that characterize the dyslipidemia of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We also examine the relevance of the new AHA/ADA treatment guidelines to dyslipidemic individuals.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we provide an update on the pathophysiology of diabetic dyslipidemia, including the role of several apolipoproteins such as apoC-III. We also point to new studies and new agents for the treatment of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus who need lipid therapies. Type 2 diabetes mellitus causes cardiovascular disease via several pathways, including dyslipidemia characterized by increased plasma levels of apoB-lipoproteins and triglycerides, and low plasma concentrations of HDL cholesterol. Treatments to normalize the dyslipidemia and reduce the risk for cardiovascular events include the following: lifestyle and medication, particularly statins, and if necessary, ezetimibe, to significantly lower LDL cholesterol. Other treatments, more focused on triglycerides and HDL cholesterol, are less well supported by randomized clinical trials and should be used on an individual basis. Newer agents, particularly the PCSK9 inhibitors, show a great promise for even greater lowering of LDL cholesterol, but we await the results of ongoing clinical trials.