Patient and Physician Reported Perception on Hypercholesterolemia Management in Primary Prevention in Germany: Results from a Nationwide Online Survey

Impact of Active vs Passive Statin Selection for Primary Prevention: The CorCal Vanguard Trial

Background

Statins can improve outcomes in high-risk primary prevention populations. However, application in clinical practice has lagged.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare an active vs a passive strategy (ie, usual care) to statin prescription for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods

A total of 3,770 patients ≥50 years of age without a history of ASCVD or statin use were invited to enroll in CorCal, with 601 consenting to participate. These patients were randomized 1:1 to statin initiation guided by the pooled cohort equation or by coronary artery calcium scoring (CACS). Outcomes (2.8-year follow-up) compared patients managed actively vs passively (randomly invited but declined or did not respond).

Results

Patient demographics were well matched. Statin recommendation was common among enrolled patients (41.7%). During follow-up, 25.3% of active patients were taking a statin vs 9.8% managed passively (P < 0.0001). Active patients had more lipid panels (median 2.0 vs 1.0), lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (109 vs 117 mg/dL) (both P < 0.0001), and a low rate of major adverse cardiovascular events during follow-up (0.6% vs 1.0%, P = 0.47). Statistical comparisons included t-tests, chi-squared tests, nonparametric tests, and time-to-event tests as appropriate.

Conclusions

An active approach to statin selection for primary ASCVD prevention identified a large treatment opportunity and led to over twice as many patients on statins compared to passive (usual care) management. A large CorCal Outcomes Trial is underway to more definitively assess the impact on outcomes of active management of statins for primary prevention.

[Primary and secondary prevention in hypercholesterolemia: differences relevant to patient care in the PROCYON trial]

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease accounts for one third of deaths in Germany. Elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are considered a major risk factor. Lowering LDL-C levels is therefore an integral part of the prevention of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

The aim of this work is to identify potential differences between primary prevention (PP) and secondary prevention (SP) by means of a post-hoc comparison of cross-sectional data from the PROCYON survey. Medical history, concomitant diseases, adherence, and disease awareness in relation to hypercholesterolemia were queried.

RESULTS

5,494 patients had participated in the survey (PP: 3,798; SP: 1,696). Comparison of the results showed a numerically higher proportion of women (PP 70.7% vs. SP 42.5%) as well as more frequent comorbidities such as hypertension (PP 45.6% vs. SP 61.0%), obesity (PP 20.9% vs. SP 27.4%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (PP 14.1% vs. SP 23.8%). In primary prevention, hypercholesterolemia was most often diagnosed during screening (PP 74.6%), and in secondary prevention, the diagnosis was most often made during cardiovascular-related hospitalization (SP 58.0%). A cardiologist was consulted by 16.3% (PP) and 54.0% (SP) of patients, respectively. At least semiannual LDL-C checks (PP 46.8% vs. SP 77.9%) and drug intervention (PP 43.0% vs. SP 87.0%) were more frequent in the secondary prevention group. In addition, differences in the implementation of lifestyle changes, improvement of LDL-C levels, adjustment of therapy as well as adherence, treatment satisfaction and patient knowledge were observed.

CONCLUSION

The comparison of primary and secondary prevention from the PROCYON survey shows overall better utilization of treatment options and higher intensity of care in the secondary prevention group. However, there is still great potential for improvement in both groups to ensure efficient prevention of cardiovascular events.

Missed Opportunities in Implementation and Optimization of Lipid-Lowering Therapies in Very-High-Risk Patients Presenting with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

The aim of this retrospective study was to provide real-world data on lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) implementation and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target achievement in an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population, with a focus on very-high-risk patients according to European guidelines criteria.

METHODS

Included were all STEMI patients with available LDL-C and total cholesterol treated at a large tertiary center in Salzburg, Austria, 2018-2020 (n = 910), with stratification into very-high-risk cohorts. Analysis was descriptive, with variables reported as number, percentages, median, and interquartile range.

RESULTS

Among patients with prior LLT use, statin monotherapy predominated, 5.3% were using high-intensity statins, 1.2% were using combined ezetimibe therapy, and none were taking PCSK9 inhibitors at the time of STEMI. In very-high-risk secondary prevention cohorts, LLT optimization was alarmingly low: 8-22% of patients were taking high-intensity statins, just 0-6% combined with ezetimibe. Depending on the very-high-risk cohort, 27-45% of secondary prevention patients and 58-73% of primary prevention patients were not taking any LLTs, although 19-60% were actively taking/prescribed medications for hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus. Corresponding LDL-C target achievement in all very-high-risk cohorts was poor: <22% of patients had LDL-C values < 55 mg/dL at the time of STEMI.

CONCLUSION

Severe shortcomings in LLT implementation and optimization, and LDL-C target achievement, were observed in the total STEMI population and across all very-high-risk cohorts, attributable in part to deficits in care delivery.

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.