Proportion of High-Risk/Very High-Risk Patients in Europe with Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol at Target According to European Guidelines: A Systematic Review

Therapeutic inertia

Therapeutic inertia, sometimes referred to as clinical inertia, has been defined as failure to initiate or intensify therapy when therapeutic goals are not reached. Lack of initiation or intensification of treatment according to clinical guidelines has been linked to suboptimal control of a range of chronic conditions. Clinician factors contributing to therapeutic inertia include knowledge gaps; discomfort with uncertainty about the diagnosis, therapeutic target, or evidence; concerns about the safety of treatment intensification; and time constraints. Patient characteristics that may be associated with therapeutic inertia include male sex, older age, lower life expectancy, multiple comorbidities and clinical parameters that are close to target. There may be reasons other than therapeutic inertia that explain apparent undertreatment. Apparent inertia in prescribing may be accompanied by appropriate actions, such as provision of lifestyle advice or interventions to promote adherence to existing medication. Some patients choose not to intensify treatment. Interventions to reduce therapeutic inertia include access to evidence-based treatment guidelines and point-of-care tools, preferably integrated with clinical record systems; clinician education including educational visits; reminders; clinical audits with feedback and reflection on practice; shared decision-making; prompting by patients; and ambulatory or home monitoring (e.g. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring).

LOGAN-CV: A Prospective Study of a Multifaceted Intervention Targeting United States Clinicians to Improve Guideline-Based Management of Lipid-Lowering Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/Multisociety blood cholesterol guidelines recommend clinicians consider adding non-statin therapy for patients with very high-risk (VHR) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 70 mg/dl while receiving maximally tolerated statins. However, according to a recent study, only 17.1% of patients with established ASCVD received appropriate lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) intensification. Here, we describe the design of a prospective, 12-month study (LOGAN-CV) evaluating a multifaceted site-level intervention to enhance clinicians' adherence to guidelines to improve LDL-C levels for patients with VHR ASCVD.

METHODS

Clinicians from up to ten research sites are eligible if they care for adult patients with ASCVD. Interventions include educational modules, a cloud-based performance platform providing clinicians a tailored summary of their LDL-C management performance, newsletters, periodic peer-to-peer calls, and pre- and post-intervention surveys evaluating knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs around LDL-C management, with additional interventions for clinicians demonstrating a lower readiness to make treatment decisions based on guideline recommendations. Patients with VHR ASCVD, defined as having recent myocardial infarction and LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl despite statin treatment, will be included in the study. Patient data will be collected from electronic medical records from baseline (clinician enrollment) through the 12-month intervention. The study started in October 2022, with anticipated completion in March 2024.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The change in proportion of patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dl achieved at any time during the 12-month intervention (primary); LLT intensification, changes in guideline-aligned LDL-C testing and LLT titration over 12 months, and change in overall clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs are key outcomes of interest. The LOGAN-CV study addresses a critical unmet need in LDL-C control in patients with VHR ASCVD and evaluates the effect of a multifaceted intervention targeting clinicians to improve their adherence to guidelines and consequently improve clinical outcomes for patients.

Longitudinal Control of Lipid Levels in Patients With Premature Coronary Artery Disease

Background

Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is a central aspect of the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and the benefits of LLT accrue over time. However, there are limited real-world data on longitudinal lipid control in patients with premature CAD.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess longitudinal attainment of guideline-recommended lipid goals and outcomes in a contemporary cohort of patients with premature CAD.

Methods

We enrolled males younger than 50 years and females younger than 55 years with coronary stenosis of >50% and examined achievement of lipid goals, LLT characteristics, and cardiovascular outcomes (major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]).

Results

Of 476 patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, unstable angina) (68%), stable angina (28%), or other symptoms, 73.2% achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <1.8 mmol/L on at least 1 occasion, but only 27.3% consistently stayed in the target range for 3 years after diagnosis. Although 73.9% of patients received high-intensity LLT at the time of diagnosis, only 43.5% had good adherence over the following 3 years. In multivariable analysis, 1 mmol/L increase in time-weighted average exposure to LDL-C, but not the lowest achieved LDL-C, was associated with a higher risk of MACE, hazard ratio 2.02 (95% CI: 1.48-2.76), when adjusted for sex, age, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking.

Conclusions

We found low rates of longitudinal lipid target achievement in patients with premature CAD. Cumulative LDL-C exposure, but not lowest achieved LDL-C, was associated with risk of MACE. This highlights the critical importance of longitudinal control of lipids levels and identifies opportunities to improve LLT and maximize the time-dependent benefits of lipid-lowering.

Achievement Rates for Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goals in Patients at High Risk of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in a Real-World Setting in Japan

AIMS

The study aimed to investigate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement rates in patients receiving LDL-C-lowering therapy using recent real-world data, following the 2017 revision of the Japan Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines for Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases (JAS GL2017).

METHODS

Patients with documented LDL-C test results were extracted from the Medical Data Vision claims database between July 2018 and June 2021 and divided into three groups according to JAS GL2017: primary prevention high risk (Group I, LDL-C goal ＜120 mg/dL), secondary prevention (Group II, LDL-C goal ＜100 mg/dL), and secondary prevention high risk (Group III, LDL-C goal ＜70 mg/dL).

RESULTS

The mean LDL-C value was 108.7 mg/dL (n=125,235), 94.4 mg/dL (n=57,910), and 90.6 mg/dL (n=33,850) in Groups I, II, and III, respectively. Intensive statin monotherapy (pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, or atorvastatin) was the most frequently prescribed lipid-lowering treatment (21.6%, 30.8%, and 42.7% in Groups I, II, and III, respectively), followed by ezetimibe (2.5%, 7.1%, and 8.5% in Groups I, II, and III, respectively). LDL-C goals were achieved by 65.5%, 60.6%, and 25.4% of patients overall in Groups I, II, and III, respectively. Achievement rates were 83.9%, 75.3%, and 29.5% in patients prescribed intensive statin monotherapy and 82.3%, 86.4%, and 46.4% in those prescribed statin and ezetimibe combinations in Groups I, II, and III, respectively. In Group III, the proportion of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia prescribed statin and ezetimibe combinations achieving LDL-C goals was low (32.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients achieving LDL-C goals for secondary prevention in the high-risk group remains low even with statin and ezetimibe combination therapy.

Trends and determinants of prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of dyslipidaemia in canton of Geneva, 2005-2019: Potent statins are underused

We assessed 1) trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment and control rates of dyslipidaemia and associated factors, 2) the effect of statin generation/potency on control levels and 3) the effect of ESC lipid guidelines, on lipid management. Data from multiple cross-sectional, population-based surveys conducted between 2005 and 2019 in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, were used. Prevalence, awareness, treatment and control rates of dyslipidaemia were 46.0% and 34.9% (p < 0.001), 67.0% and 77.3% (p = 0.124), 40.0% and 19.9% (p < 0.001), and 68.0% and 84.0% (p = 0.255), in 2005 and 2019, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, only the decrease in treatment rates was significant. Increasing age, higher BMI, history of hypertension or diabetes were positively associated with prevalence, while female sex was negatively associated. Female sex, history of diabetes or CVD were positively associated with awareness, while increasing age was negatively associated. Increasing age, smoking, higher BMI, history of hypertension, diabetes or CVD were positively associated with treatment, while female sex was negatively associated. Female sex was positively associated with control, while increasing age was negatively associated. Highly potent statins increased from 50.0% to 87.5% and third generation statins from 0% to 47.5% in 2009 and 2015, respectively. Increased statin potency was borderline (p = 0.059) associated with dyslipidaemia control. ESC guidelines had no effect regarding the prescription of more potent or higher generation statins. We conclude that in the canton of Geneva, treatment of diagnosed dyslipidaemia is low, but control is adequate. Women are undertreated but better controlled than men. The most potent hypolipidemic drugs are underused.

Differences in treatment strategies for LDL-cholesterol reduction in a university lipid clinic vs. standard care apart from the use of PCSK9 inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is insufficient despite clear guideline recommendations. Lipid clinics have specialized in patients with dyslipidemia, but the magnitude and reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in lipid clinics has not yet been studied in depth.

OBJECTIVE

To assess LDL-C reduction in very high-risk CVD patients achieved in a lipid clinic through different forms of LLT in comparison to standard care without the initiation of PSCK9 inhibitors.

METHODS

Data from 96 lipid clinic patients were analyzed retrospectively and compared to 84 standard care patients. Very high-risk patients were defined according to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Different combinations of LLT focusing on statins and ezetimibe were investigated. Achievement of LDL-C treatment goals according to ESC guidelines as well as LDL-C reduction were assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline and follow-up data of 180 very high-risk CVD patients (mean age 67.7 (±9.8) y; 60.6% male) were used. Achievement of the LDL-C goal in lipid clinic patients increased significantly from 14.6% at baseline to 41.7% at the latest visit (p<0.001) while standard care patients improved from 21.4% to 33.3% (p=0.08). The largest relative LDL-C reduction via an adjustment in LLT was achieved by initiation of high-intensity statins (50.8 ± 4.9%, n = 5, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Treatment in a lipid clinic leads to a superior LDL-C goal achievement in very high-risk CVD patients as compared to standard care with the highest reduction under LLT with high-intensity statins and ezetimibe. Referral algorithms have to be established for high-risk patients.

Inclisiran: A Review in Hypercholesterolemia

Inclisiran (Leqvio^®) is a first-in-class, subcutaneously administered, small interfering RNA (siRNA) that prevents hepatic synthesis of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), thereby decreasing circulating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). In the EU, inclisiran is indicated in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia, as an adjunct to diet. It is intended for use in patients unable to reach LDL-C goals on maximally tolerated statin therapy, with or without other lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs). In patients who are statin intolerant or for whom a statin is contraindicated, it can be used with or without other LLTs. In clinical trials, twice-yearly injections of inclisiran (after initial doses at days 1 and 90) approximately halved LDL-C levels in patients with, or at high risk of developing, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who had hypercholesterolemia, irrespective of whether or not their existing treatment included a statin. The safety and tolerability profile of the drug was similar to placebo, although mild to moderate, transient injection-site adverse reactions were more frequent with inclisiran. Pending confirmation of the expected reduction in cardiovascular (CV) events with inclisiran, it is a valuable additional/alternative antihyperlipidemic agent to a statin, as its infrequent maintenance dosing regimen confers a convenience advantage over other non-statin LLTs.

Association of clinical and genetic risk factors with management of dyslipidaemia: analysis of repeated cross-sectional studies in the general population of Lausanne, Switzerland

OBJECTIVES

To assess the importance of clinical and genetic factors in management of dyslipidaemia in the general population.

DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional studies (2003-2006; 2009-2012 and 2014-2017) from a population-based cohort.

SETTING

Single centre in Lausanne, Switzerland.

PARTICIPANTS

617 (42.6% women, mean±SD: 61.6±8.5 years), 844 (48.5% women, 64.5±8.8 years) and 798 (50.3% women, 68.1±9.2) participants of the baseline, first and second follow-ups receiving any type of lipid-lowering drug. Participants were excluded if they had missing information regarding lipid levels, covariates or genetic data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Management of dyslipidaemia was assessed according to European or Swiss guidelines. Genetic risk scores (GRSs) for lipid levels were computed based on the existing literature.

RESULTS

Prevalence of adequately controlled dyslipidaemia was 52%, 45% and 46% at baseline, first and second follow-ups, respectively. On multivariable analysis, when compared with intermediate or low-risk individuals, participants at very high cardiovascular risk had an OR for dyslipidaemia control of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.18), 0.12 (0.08 to 0.19) and 0.38 (0.25 to 0.59) at baseline, first and second follow-ups, respectively. Use of newer generation or higher potency statins was associated with better control: OR of 1.90 (1.18 to 3.05) and 3.62 (1.65 to 7.92) for second and third generations compared with first in the first follow-up, with the corresponding values in the second follow-up being 1.90 (1.08 to 3.36) and 2.18 (1.05 to 4.51). No differences in GRSs were found between controlled and inadequately controlled subjects. Similar findings were obtained using Swiss guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Management of dyslipidaemia is suboptimal in Switzerland. The effectiveness of high potency statins is hampered by low posology. The use of GRSs in the management of dyslipidaemia is not recommended.

Ten-Year Evolution of Statin Eligibility and Use in a Population-Based Cohort

Studies showing that the management of dyslipidemia is suboptimal are hampered by their cross-sectional design or short follow-up. Using recent data from a population-based cohort with a 10-year follow-up, we assessed the use of statins, including their intensity. We used data from the CoLaus|PsyColaus study, involving 4,655 participants at baseline (2003 to 2006) and 3,587 at 10-year follow-up (2014 to 2017). We assessed the cardiovascular risk of participants according to established guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology and estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk using corresponding risk scores, Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation risk prediction model and Pooled Cohort Equations. We first determined eligibility for statins and adherence to recommendations at 2 time periods. Additionally, we assessed the prevalence of statin users from 2014 to 2017 in persons without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at baseline and who developed it during the follow-up (secondary prevention). A total of 219 participants developed a first atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease during follow-up. Statin use in eligible subjects was 25.9% and 24.0% from 2003 to 2006 and 35.9% and 26.3% from 2014 to 2017, according to ESC and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines, respectively. Per ESC guidelines, only 28.2% of treated persons achieved low-density lipoproteins cholesterol target levels from 2014 to 2017 (15.8% from 2003 to 2006), and women less frequently attained goals. Only 18% of subjects used high-intensity statins from 2014 to 2017, with women less often receiving them (14% vs 22%). In secondary prevention, only 74% of eligible subjects were using statins. In conclusion, based on contemporaneous data, management of dyslipidemia is suboptimal, including in secondary prevention, especially in women who are less frequently treated and, if treated, less frequently receive high-intensity treatment.

Different Perspectives of Patients and Physicians on LDL-C Target Achievement in the Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia: Results on Secondary Prevention from the German PROCYON Survey

AIMS

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction in hypercholesterolemia patients at very high cardiovascular (CV) risk is essential in preventing future CV events. The objective was to assess the perception on hypercholesterolemia management in secondary prevention in Germany.

METHODS

PROCYON was a two-part online survey, including a patient questionnaire as well as a physician questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 109 general practitioners, internists, and cardiologists participated. The current ESC/EAS recommendation for high-risk patients is followed by 19.3% of the physicians. The majority (80.7%) reported an LDL-C target failure rate of at least 30%. More than two thirds (71.6%) have stated treating less than half of their patients with the maximum approved statin dose. The survey included 1696 secondary prevention patients. The majority (86.7%) consult their general practitioner for hypercholesterolemia; 54.0% consult a cardiologist (multiple answers allowed). Most patients (87.0%) were receiving lipid-lowering medication. Among these, 800 (54.2%) reported improved LDL-C levels since diagnosis, 569 (38.6%) reported no improvement, and 106 (7.2%) had no information. Of the treated patients with (N' = 800) and without (N' = 569) improvement, 34.3% vs. 37.3% were on their initial drug and dose, 24.8% vs. 23.7% received multiple drug therapy, 48.9% vs. 48.9% reported a dose change, and 16.1% vs. 14.2% had discontinued at least one drug (multiple answers). Disease knowledge was rated as good or very good by 29.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

PROCYON demonstrated insufficient ESC/EAS guideline implementation regarding target levels and therapeutic escalation strategies. Furthermore, a lack of specialist involvement and patient education was identified.

Factors Associated With Achievement of Blood Pressure, Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C), and Glycemic Targets for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases Among High Cardiovascular Risk Malaysians in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain the world's leading cause of death. About half of Malaysian adults have at least 2 risk factors; thus, rigorous primary preventions are crucial to prevent the first cardiovascular (CV) event. This study aimed to determine the achievement of treatment targets and factors associated with it among high CV risk individuals.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 390 participants from a primary care clinic in Selangor, Malaysia, between February and June 2022. The inclusion criteria were high-CV risk individuals, that is, Framingham risk score >20%, diabetes without target organ damage, stage 3 kidney disease, and very high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >4.9 mmol/L or blood pressure (BP) >180/110 mmHg. Individuals with existing CVD were excluded. The treatment targets were BP <140/90 mmHg (≤135/75 for diabetics), LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L, and HbA1c ≤6.5%. Multiple logistic regressions determined the association between sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, health literacy, and medication adherence with the achievements of each target.

RESULTS

About 7.2% achieved all treatment targets. Of these, 35.1% reached systolic and diastolic (46.7%) BP targets. About 60.2% and 28.2% achieved optimal LDL-C and HbA1c, respectively. Working participants had lower odds of having optimal systolic (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.90) and diastolic (aOR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.17-0.96) BP. Those who adhered to treatments were more likely to achieve LDL-C and HbA1c targets; (aOR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.10-2.69) and (aOR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.25-4.83), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The control of risk factors among high CV risk patients in this study was suboptimal. Urgent measures such as improving medication adherence are warranted.

Undertreatment and Underachievement of LDL-C Target among Individuals with High and Very High Cardiovascular Risk in the Malaysian Community

Dyslipidaemia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. The aims of this study are to determine the prevalence of dyslipidaemia subtypes, the proportions of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) use, and the achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets for high-risk (HR) and very high-risk (VHR) Malaysians. This cross-sectional study involves 5279 participants across 11 states in Malaysia. The data were obtained through a standardised questionnaire, anthropometric measurements, venous glucose and lipid profile. The participants with existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) or diabetes with at least one of the other major risk factors (smoking, hypertension or dyslipidaemia) were grouped into the VHR category. Other participants were risk-categorised using the Framingham General CVD Risk Score (FRS-CVD). The prevalence of elevated LDL-C, LLT use and LDL-C target were set according to respective risk categories. Pearson's chi-squared test was used to test the difference in the proportions. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 41.1 ± 14.8 years, and 62.2% (3283/5279) of the group were females. Within the participant group, 51.5% were found to have elevated total cholesterol, 28.8% had low HDL-C, and 33.8% had high triglyceride. As for elevated LDL-C, 9.8% were in VHR, 8.6% in HR, 5.8% in MR and 34.9% in LR categories. Among the VHR group, 75.8% were not on LLT, and only 15.9% achieved the LDL-C target. As for the HR category, 87.7% were not on LLT, and only 16.1% achieved the LDL-C target. Dyslipidaemia is highly prevalent among Malaysians. The majority of VHR and HR participants were not on LLT and did not achieve LDL-C treatment targets. Proactive programs are warranted to combat dyslipidaemia-associated CVD events in these groups.

Medication non-adherence and therapeutic inertia independently contribute to poor disease control for cardiometabolic diseases

Poorly controlled cardiometabolic biometric health gap measures [e.g.,uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), HbA1c, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)] are mediated by medication adherence and clinician-level therapeutic inertia (TI). The study of comparing relative contribution of these two factors to disease control is lacking. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using 7 years of longitudinal electronic health records (EHR) from primary care cardiometabolic patients who were 35 years or older. Cox-regression modeling was applied to estimate how baseline proportion of days covered (PDC) and TI were associated with cardiometabolic related health gap closure. 92,766 patients were included in the analysis, among which 89.9%, 85.8%, and 73.3% closed a BP, HbA1c, or LDL-C gap, respectively, with median days to gap closure ranging from 223 to 408 days. Patients who did not retrieve a medication were the least likely to achieve biometric control, particularly for LDL-C (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.55-0.60). TI or uncertainty of TI was associated with a high risk of health gap persistence, particularly for LDL-C (HR ranges 0.46-0.48). Both poor medication adherence and TI are independently associated with persistent health gaps, and TI has a much higher impact on disease control compared to medication adherence, implying disease management strategies should prioritize reducing TI.

Joint Genetic Inhibition of PCSK9 and CETP and the Association With Coronary Artery Disease: A Factorial Mendelian Randomization Study

Importance

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition (CETP) has been shown to increase levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Current LDL-C target attainment is low, and novel phase 3 trials are underway to investigate whether CETP inhibitors result in reduction of cardiovascular disease risk in high-risk patients who may be treated with PCSK9-inhibiting agents.

Objective

To explore the associations of combined reduction of CETP and PCSK9 concentrations with risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) and other clinical and safety outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two-sample 2 × 2 factorial Mendelian randomization study in a general population sample that includes data for UK Biobank participants of European ancestry.

Exposures

Separate genetic scores were constructed for CETP and PCSK9 plasma protein concentrations, which were combined to determine the associations of combined genetically reduced CETP and PCSK9 concentrations with disease.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Blood lipid and lipoprotein concentrations, blood pressure, CAD, age-related macular degeneration, type 2 diabetes, any stroke and ischemic stroke, Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, asthma, and multiple sclerosis.

Results

Data for 425 354 UKB participants were included; the median (IQR) age was 59 years (51-64), and 229 399 (53.9%) were female. The associations of lower CETP and lower PCSK9 concentrations with CAD are similar when scaled per 10-mg/dL reduction in LDL-C concentrations (CETP: odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.81; PCSK9: OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.79). Combined exposure to lower CETP and PCSK9 concentrations was associated with an additive magnitude with lipids and all outcomes, and we did not observe any nonadditive interactions, most notably for LDL-C (CETP: effect size, -1.11 mg/dL; 95% CI, -1.40 to -0.82; PCSK9: effect size, -2.13 mg/dL; 95% CI, -2.43 to -1.84; combined: effect size, -3.47 mg/dL; 95% CI, -3.76 to -3.18; P = .34 for interaction) and CAD (CETP: OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.00; PCSK9: OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97; combined: OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.93; P = .83 for interaction). In addition, when corrected for multiple testing, lower CETP concentrations were associated with increased age-related macular degeneration (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.19).

Conclusions and Relevance

Our results suggest that joint inhibition of CETP and PCSK9 has additive effects on lipid traits and disease risk, including a lower risk of CAD. Further research may explore whether a combination of CETP- and PCSK9-related therapeutics can benefit high-risk patients who are unable to reach treatment targets with existing options.

LDL-C target attainment in secondary prevention of ASCVD in the United States: barriers, consequences of nonachievement, and strategies to reach goals

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major causal risk factor for ASCVD. Current evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that lowering LDL-C reduces the risk of secondary cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke. There is no lower limit for LDL-C: large, randomized studies and meta-analyses have found continuous benefit and no safety concerns in patients achieving LDL-C levels <25 mg/dL. As 'Time is plaque' in patients with ASCVD, early, sustained reductions in LDL-C are critical to slow or halt disease progression. However, despite use of lipid-lowering medications, <30% of patients with ASCVD achieve guideline-recommended reductions in LDL-C, resulting in a substantial societal burden of preventable cardiovascular events and early mortality. LDL-C goals are not met due to several factors: lipid-lowering therapy is not initiated and intensified as directed by clinical guidelines (clinical inertia); most patients do not adhere to prescribed medications; and high-risk patients are frequently denied access to add-on therapies by their insurance providers. Promoting patient and clinician education, multidisciplinary collaboration, and other interventions may help to overcome these barriers. Ultimately, achieving population-level guideline-recommended reductions in LDL-C will require a collaborative effort from patients, clinicians, relevant professional societies, drug manufacturers, and payers.

Evaluation of the Therapeutic Pattern and Pharmaco-Utilization in Hypercholesterolemic Patients Treated with Statins: A Retrospective Study on Italian Real-World Data

Purpose

The study aimed to analyze, in hypercholesterolemic patients under statin medication, patient characteristics and their lipid profile at baseline, the therapeutic pathway, and the pharmaco-utilization, using real-world data in Italy.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted using administrative databases of a sample of entities covering 6.5 million health-assisted individuals. Between January 2010 and June 2019, patients with non-familial hypercholesterolemia (nFH) were identified by 1) ≥1 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement (LDL-C assessment date was the index-date) and 2) statin prescription during 6 months before the index-date (pharmaco-utilization period). FH patients were defined by LDL-C evaluation, statin treatment during the pharmaco-utilization period, and a score ≥6 according to the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria. nFH patients were divided into four exclusive cohorts based on CV-risk class: 1) with previous CV disease (CVD); 2) with diabetes mellitus; 3) with mixed-dyslipidemia diagnosis; 4) in primary-prevention. Based on LDL-C index values, patient was defined with LDL-C “controlled” if its levels were ≤70mg/dl (CVD), ≤100mg/dl (diabetes, FH), ≤130mg/dl (mixed-dyslipidemia, primary-prevention).

Results

Overall 164,161 nFH patients were included (mean age 72 years, 51% male); of these, 46,782 (28.5%) were CVD (mean age 74 years, 66% male), 34,803 (21.2%) were diabetic (mean age 72 years, 51% male), 1617 (1%) were with mixed-dyslipidemia (mean age 71 years, 48% male) and 80,959 (49.3%) were in primary-prevention (mean age 71 years, 42% male). The proportion of nFH patients with controlled LDL-C was 41.2% for CVD, 73.6% for diabetic, 80.7% for mixed-dyslipidemia, and 79.5% for primary-prevention patients; 49% of nFH patients were adherent to therapy. Overall, 1287 FH patients (mean age 64 years, 42% male) were included; in 39.2% of the patients, LDL-C was controlled, and 44% of the patients were adherent to therapy.

Conclusion

The results of this study highlighted non-optimal therapeutic management of hypercholesterolemic patients in Italian clinical practice, with a notable quote of patients non-adherent to therapy.

Physicians' misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia as determinants of low LDL-cholesterol targets achievement in diabetes

Background

Greater efforts are needed to overcome the worldwide reported low achievement of LDL-c targets. This survey aimed to dissect whether and how the physician-based evaluation of patients with diabetes is associated with the achievement of LDL-c targets.

Methods

This cross-sectional self-reported survey interviewed physicians working in 67 outpatient services in Italy, collecting records on 2844 patients with diabetes. Each physician reported a median of 47 records (IQR 42–49) and, for each of them, the physician specified its perceived cardiovascular risk, LDL-c targets, and the suggested refinement in lipid-lowering-treatment (LLT). These physician-based evaluations were then compared to recommendations from EAS/EASD guidelines.

Results

Collected records were mostly from patients with type 2 diabetes (94%), at very-high (72%) or high-cardiovascular risk (27%). Physician-based assessments of cardiovascular risk and of LDL-c targets, as compared to guidelines recommendation, were misclassified in 34.7% of the records. The misperceived assessment was significantly higher among females and those on primary prevention and was associated with 67% lower odds of achieving guidelines-recommended LDL-c targets (OR 0.33, p < 0.0001). Peripheral artery disease, target organ damage and LLT-initiated by primary-care-physicians were all factors associated with therapeutic-inertia (i.e., lower than expected probability of receiving high-intensity LLT). Physician-suggested LLT refinement was inadequate in 24% of overall records and increased to 38% among subjects on primary prevention and with misclassified cardiovascular risk.

Conclusions

This survey highlights the need to improve the physicians’ misperceived cardiovascular risk and therapeutic inertia in patients with diabetes to successfully implement guidelines recommendations into everyday clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12933-022-01495-8.

Effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in outpatients with coronary artery disease living in a large industrial center of Eastern Siberia

Aim. To study the prescription rate of lipid-lowering therapy and achieving the target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values in outpatients with coronary artery disease (CAD) living in Krasnoyarsk.

Material and methods. The study included all patients with CAD hospitalized in the cardiology department of the clinic of the Research Institute of Medical Problems of the North (Krasnoyarsk) in 2018-2019. The analysis included data from 1671 patients (men, 770; women, 901). During hospitalization, an in-depth survey of patients was carried out on the subject of prescribing and taking lipid-lowering drugs. On admission, lipid profile was assessed in all patients.

Results. At the time of admission, only 51,4% of patients received lipidlowering therapy. The majority received statin monotherapy (99,2%). Only 0,8% of patients received combination therapy (statin+ezetimibe). The most frequently prescribed statin in the study was atorvastatin — 74,6%. Rosuvastatin was received by 17,1% of patients. In most cases, the doses of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin corresponded to the moderate-intensity statin therapy regimen. The frequently prescribed dose of atorvastatin was 20 mg/day — 54,4%, rosuvastatin — 10 mg/day — 68,7%. The target level of LDL-C <1,8 mmol/L was reached by 16,3%, <1,5 mmol/L — by 9,0%, <1,4 mmol/L — only 6,5% of patients. Most often, the target LDL-C levels were achieved by patients receiving high-intensity statin (HIS) therapy. The target level of LDL-C <1,8 mmol/L was reached by 37,5%, <1,5 mmol/L — 23,9%, LDL cholesterol <1,4 mmol/L — 20,7% of patients, receiving HIS.

Conclusion. In patients with CAD living in Krasnoyarsk, the most commonly prescribed statins were atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, but only 32% of patients received HIS. Combination lipid-lowering therapy has been used extremely rarely. Among the surveyed patients, the current target level of LDL-C for patients with CAD (<1,4 mmol/L) was achieved only in 6,5% of patients. In the group of patients receiving high-intensity statin therapy, this target level was achieved in 20,7% of patients, which indicates the need for strict adherence to current clinical guidelines.

PCSK9 inhibitors revisited: Effectiveness and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors in a real-life Spanish cohort

INTRODUCTION

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have emerged as a therapeutic option for patients with hypercholesterolemia who do not attain low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals and/or are intolerant to other lipid-lowering drugs. Our aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of PCSK9i in routine clinical practice and factors related to poor outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an ambispective study in 115 patients who recieved alirocumab or evolocumab, in a tertiary level hospital. From February 2017 to April 2020, patients were recruited and followed up for a median of 20.4 months. The main outcomes were relative reduction in LDL-C, percentage of patients achieving the therapeutic goals established by 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines, incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and drug-related adverse events (ADRs).

RESULTS

The median LDL-C achieved was 57.0 mg/dL (relative reduction of 59.9% from baseline, p< 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, smaller LDL-C reductions were related to female sex, absence of concomitant lipid-lowering therapy and treatment with alirocumab. Overall, 84.6% of the patients achieved the therapeutic goals. During follow-up, 7 MACEs were detected. ADRs, generally considered mild, affected 38.1% of the participants (mainly mialgias and arthralgias) and triggered discontinuations in 8.7% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PCSK9i are effective and safe, although certain factors may influence their effectiveness. Interestingly, our results suggest that alirocumab and evolocumab may not be therapeutic equivalents, as initially suggested.

LDL cholesterol target achievement in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients according to 2019 ESC/EAS lipid guidelines: Implications for newer lipid-lowering treatments

BACKGROUND

The 2019 European guidelines (ESC/EAS) for the treatment of dyslipidaemias recommend more aggressive targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Current lipid-lowering treatment is often inadequate to achieve these targets.

METHODS

Data from the HELLAS-FH registry were analysed to assess achievement of LDL-C targets in adults with FH based on the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. In patients who had not achieved LDL-C target, the maximally reduced LDL-C value was calculated after theoretical switch to rosuvastatin/ezetimibe 40/10 mg/day. The percentage of patients who remained candidates for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) was then calculated.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 1694, mean age 50.8 ± 14.7 years) had LDL-C levels 242 ± 71 mg/dL (6.3 ± 1.8 mmol/L) at diagnosis. Most treated patients were receiving statins (97.5%) and about half were on additional ezetimibe (47.5%). Based on the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines the percentage of patients achieving LDL-C goals was only 2.7%. Following theoretical up titration to rosuvastatin/ezetimibe 40/10 mg, LDL-C target achievement rate would increase to 5.9%. In this scenario, most patients (55.9%) would be eligible for PCSK9i treatment. Following theoretical administration of a PCSK9i, LDL-C target achievement rate would rise to 57.6%. However, 42.4% of patients would still be eligible for further LDL-C lowering treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Most FH patients do not reach new LDL-C targets even if on maximum intensity statin/ezetimibe treatment. In this case, more than half of FH patients are candidates for PCSK9i therapy and a considerable proportion may still require additional LDL-C lowering.

Lipid management across Europe in the real-world setting: a rapid evidence review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a contemporary overview of recent real-world lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) practices and outcomes in patients with hypercholesterolemia/dyslipidemia at high/very high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Europe.

METHODS

A structured literature review of recent (July 2015-July 2020) real-world studies reporting lipid management and outcomes was conducted using a rapid evidence synthesis. Outcomes included patient characteristics, LLT treatment practices, adherence and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment.

RESULTS

Fifty-three real-world observational studies in high/very high risk patients were selected after screening 5664 records (n = 50 national [sample size range 38-237,279] and n = 3 multinational studies [sample size range 6648-8456]). Mean age ranged from 33 to 77 years; hypertension, diabetes and obesity were commonly reported comorbidities. Statins were the most common LLT; patients without familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) mostly received high or moderate intensity statins/LLT, while patients with FH mostly received high intensity statins/LLT. The proportion of patients receiving ezetimibe was low overall (ezetimibe + statin use in those with and without familial hypercholesterolemia [FH] range 5%-59% and 1%-22%, respectively). Overall, the use of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) therapy was limited. Adherence to LLT therapies was defined variably and ranged from 46%-92%. LDL-C goal attainment was suboptimal, irrespective of LLT (overall range in goal attainment with oral LLT was 2%-73% [FH: 2%-23%] and with PCSK9i was 20%-65%).

CONCLUSIONS

LDL-C control is suboptimal and the available LLT armamentarium, most importantly combination therapy, is being underutilized in high/very high risk patients leading to inadequate management of cardiovascular risk.

Improving statin treatment strategies to reduce LDL-cholesterol: factors associated with targets' attainment in subjects with and without type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study aimed to identify actionable factors to improve LDL-cholesterol target achievement and overcome underuse of lipid-lowering treatments in high- or very-high-cardiovascular risk patients.

METHODS

We evaluated healthcare records of 934,332 subjects from North-Italy, including subjects with available lipid profile and being on statin treatments up to December 2018. A 6-month-period defined adherence with proportion-of-days-covered ≥ 80%. Treatment was classified as high-intensity-statin (HIS) + ezetimibe, HIS-alone, non-HIS (NHIS) + ezetimibe or NHIS alone.

RESULTS

We included 27,374 subjects without and 10,459 with diabetes. Among these, 30% and 36% were on secondary prevention, respectively. Adherence was high (78-100%) and increased with treatment intensity and in secondary prevention. Treatment intensity increased in secondary prevention, but only 42% were on HIS. 2019-guidelines LDL-cholesterol targets were achieved in few patients and more often among those with diabetes (7.4% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001). Patients in secondary prevention had mean LDL-cholesterol levels aligned slightly above 70 mg/dl (range between 68 and 73 mg/dl and between 73 and 85 mg/dl in patients with and without diabetes, respectively). Moreover, the differences in mean LDL-cholesterol levels observed across patients using treatments with well-stablished different LDL-lowering effect were null or much smaller than expected (HIS vs. NHIS from - 3 to - 11%, p < 0.001, HIS + ezetimibe vs. HIS-from - 4 to + 5% n.s.). These findings, given the observational design of the study, might suggest that a "treat to absolute LDL-cholesterol levels" approach (e.g., targeting LDLc of 70 mg/dl) was mainly used by physicians rather than an approach to also achieve the recommended 50% reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels. Our analyses suggested that female sex, younger age, higher HDL-c, and elevated triglycerides are those factors delaying prescription of statin treatments, both in patients with and without diabetes and in those on secondary prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients on statin treatment and high adherence, only a small proportion of patients achieved LDL-cholesterol targets. Late initiation of high-intensity treatments, particularly among those with misperceived low-risk (e.g., female subjects or those with high HDL-cholesterol), appears as pivotal factors needing to be modified to improve CVD prevention.

Evaluating pharmacokinetics of bempedoic acid in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia

Introduction: Bempedoic acid is a first-in-class low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering agent which offers an important opportunity for further LDL-C lowering in statin-intolerant patients or in patients requiring further LDL-C reduction despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.Areas covered: In this review, we examined the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety of bempedoic acid, based on randomized clinical phase III clinical studies and their meta-analyses.Expert opinion: Unlike statins, bempedoic acid is administered as a prodrug and is converted to active form by a liver-specific enzyme. For the liver-specific mechanism of action, bempedoic acid has the potential to reduce the risk of muscle-related adverse events which can limit the utilization and effectiveness of statin therapy.

Therapeutic inertia in the management of dyslipidaemia and hypertension in incident type 2 diabetes and the resulting risk factor burden: Real-world evidence from primary care

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trends in the prevalence of hypertension and dyslipidaemia in incident type 2 diabetes (T2DM), time to antihypertensive (AHT) and lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), and the association with systolic blood pressure (SBP) and lipid control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using The Health Improvement Network UK primary care database, 254 925 people with incident T2DM and existing dyslipidaemia or hypertension were identified. Among those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) history and not on AHT or LLT at diagnosis, the adjusted median months to initiating an AHT or an LLT, and the probabilities of high SBP or lipid levels over 2 years in people initiating therapy within or after 1 year were evaluated according to high and low ASCVD risk status.

RESULTS

At diabetes diagnosis, 66% and 66% had dyslipidaemia and hypertension, respectively. During 2005 to 2016, dyslipidaemia prevalence increased by 10% in people aged <60 years, while hypertension prevalence remained stable in all age groups. Among those with high ASCVD risk status in the age groups 18 to 39, 40 to 49, and 50 to 59 years, the median number of months to initiation of therapy were 20.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.3-20.5), 10.9 (95% CI 10.8-11.0), and 9.5 (95% CI 9.4-9.6) in the dyslipidaemia subcohort, and 28.1 (95% CI 28.0-28.2), 19.2 (95% CI 19.1-19.3), and 19.9 (95% CI 19.8-20.0) in the hypertension subcohort. Among people with high and low ASCVD risk status, respectively, compared to early LLT initiators, those who initiated LLT after 1 year had a 65.3% to 85.3% and a 65.0% to 85.3% significantly higher probability of failing lipid control at 2 years of follow-up, while late AHT initiators had a 46.5% to 57.9% and a 40.0% to 58.7% significantly higher probability of failing SBP control.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant delay in initiating cardioprotective therapies was observed, and time to first prescription was similar in the primary prevention setting, irrespective of ASCVD risk status across all T2DM diagnosis age groups, resulting in poor risk factor control at 2 years of follow-up.

Implementation of clinical practice guidelines: Wishful thinking or reality. Decision algorithm

The clinical practice guidelines (CPG) have contributed to the dissemination of scientific information that supports decision-making in different clinical situations. CPGs have become more necessary as scientific information has grown, sometimes offering contradictory data, which makes it difficult for the clinician to easily make the most appropriate decision. In this context, the CPGs summarize and simplify the available scientific information, making it available to the doctor who must make the decisions. The publication of a CPG does not mean that it is applied in practice, much less that it is adopted quickly. In fact, despite the improvement in the quality of the CPGs, it is observed that they have not been fully implemented in a large number of cases, which prevents relevant information from ending up being transferred to clinical practice, with the consequent impact on the quality of care. In this article we will briefly review the strategies adopted to ensure that the scientific recommendations contained in the CPGs end up being transferred to patients and, asa consequence, achieving a reduction in the impact of cardiovascular diseases.

Main barriers in the management of dyslipidaemias: Intolerants

The lack of achieving the LDL-cholesterol goal observed in epidemiological studies, highlights the difficulty of transferring the benefit of the hypolipidaemic treatment noted in clinical trials, to current clinical practice. Although the reasons for not reaching LDL targets are probably multiple, i.e. treatment non-adherence, or therapeutic inertia, or treatment discontinuation as a consequence of statin intolerance, is frequently described. Statins are safe medications. However, 10 to 20% of the population refer to myalgias associated with their use, and 1 to 3% abandon treatment for this cause. In these subjects, it is necessary to change to a different statin, to use lower doses of statins, or to use irregular prescription regimes. If these actions are not useful, emphasis should be placed on the importance of hygienic and dietary recommendations and, when needed and depending on the cholesterol goal to achieve, the need of other lipid lowering treatments, like ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants, bempedoic acid, or PCSK9i, often in combination.

Advances in the management of statin myopathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Statins are highly effective therapies for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and preventing cardiovascular events. However, many patients taking statins experience statin-associated muscle symptoms. In the current manuscript, we review algorithms to define statin intolerance and approaches to optimize cardiovascular risk reduction and reduce the nocebo effect among individuals reporting statin-associated muscle pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with statin intolerance have a higher cardiovascular event risk. These data underscore the need to apply clinical strategies that improve treatment utilization and adherence of patients experiencing statin-related side effects. Recent data have shown that the nocebo effect is frequent with statin therapy. This may be explained by the high frequency of muscle symptoms in the general population and media misinformation. When statins even at a low dosage are not tolerated other therapies can be used such as fibrate, ezetimibe nutraceuticals and antiPCSK9 antibodies. Recent data have identified other alternative therapeutic strategies such as bempedoic acid.

SUMMARY

There are multiple strategies for the management of statin-intolerance, both pharmacological and nonpharmacological. Patient involvement in the justification of statin treatment indication and therapeutic choice is the first step to overcome misbelief and reduce nocebo effect.

Nursing Teleconsultation for the Outpatient Management of Patients with Cardiovascular Disease during COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction: During the COVID-19 outbreak, non-urgent clinic visits or cardiac interventional procedures were postponed to a later date, and the implementation of telemedicine has guaranteed continuity of care for patients with chronic diseases. The aim of our study was to describe the medical interventions following nursing teleconsultation for the outpatient management of patients with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: All patients who did not attend the follow-up visit from 4 to 15 April 2020 at our institution and who were re-scheduled due to the COVID-19 lockdown were selected to be enrolled in the study. Each patient was followed by a semi-structured telephonic interview performed by a nurse. The outcomes of our study were to assess the patients' adherence to nursing teleconsultation and the usefulness of nursing teleconsultation to detect clinical conditions in need of medical intervention. Results: In total, 203 patients (81%) underwent nursing teleconsultation in a mean time of 7 ± 3 days from the outpatient visit lost due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Furthermore, 53 patients (26%) showed poor adherence to nursing teleconsultation. Among the 150 patients (mean age 67 ± 10 years; 68% male) who completed the telephonic interview, the nursing teleconsultation revealed the need of medical intervention in 69 patients (46%), who were more likely at very high cardiovascular risk (77% vs. 48%; p < 0.0003) and who showed a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia (97% vs. 64%; p < 0.0001) and coronary artery disease (75% vs. 48%, p < 0.0008) compared to those not in need of any intervention. The up-titration of the lipid-lowering drugs (n: 32, 74%) was the most frequent medical intervention following the nursing teleconsultation. The mean time between the nursing teleconsultation and the date of the rescheduled in-person follow-up visit was 164 ± 36 days. Conclusions: Nursing teleconsultation is a simple and well-tolerated strategy that ensures the continuity of care and outpatient management for patients with cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.