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

Evolocumab-Based LDL-C Management in High and Very High Cardiovascular Risk Patients in German Clinical Practice: The HEYMANS Study

INTRODUCTION

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is among the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. In very high-risk patients, the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines recommend attaining LDL-C < 55 mg/dL. In the German cohort of the observational HEYMANS study, we aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and LDL-C control among patients initiating evolocumab.

METHODS

Data was collected between 09/2016 and 05/2021 for ≤ 6 months before (retrospectively) and ≤ 30 months after evolocumab initiation (prospectively). Patient characteristics, lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), lipid values, evolocumab use, and safety were collected.

RESULTS

Of 380 enrolled patients, 93% received evolocumab in secondary prevention and 69% had a history of statin intolerance. At study baseline, 49% did not receive any statins and LDL-C was very high (145 mg/dL). Use of evolocumab decreased LDL-C by a median of 53% within 3 months and remained stable thereafter, despite mainly unchanged background LLT. Overall, 59% attained an LDL-C level < 55 mg/dL (69% with, 49% without LLT). Persistence to evolocumab was 90.6% in months 1-12 and 93.5% in months 13-30. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Data from the German HEYMANS cohort corroborate previous reports on evolocumab effectiveness and safety in clinical practice. Evolocumab initiation was associated with a rapid and sustained LDL-C reduction. Persistence with evolocumab was high. Our finding that patients receiving an evolocumab/LLT combination are more likely to attain the LDL-C goal than those receiving evolocumab alone corroborates previous data showing the importance of using highly intensive therapy. Graphical abstract available for this article.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02770131 (registration date 27 April 2016).

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.

[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.