Cardiovascular risk estimation and eligibility for statins in primary prevention comparing different strategies

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.

No association between grip strength and cardiovascular risk: The CoLaus population-based study

BACKGROUND

Decreased grip strength (GS) is predictive of cardiovascular (CV) disease but whether it improves CV risk prediction has not been evaluated. We assessed the predictive value of low GS on incident CV events and overall mortality taking into account CV risk equations in a population-based study from Switzerland.

METHODS

2707 adults (54.8% women, age range 50-75years) were followed for a median time of 5.4years. GS was assessed using a hydraulic hand dynamometer. CV absolute risk at baseline was assessed using recalibrated SCORE, Framingham and PROCAM risk equations. Incident CV events were adjudicated by an independent committee.

RESULTS

160 deaths and 188 incident CV events occurred during follow-up. On bivariate analysis, low GS was associated with increased incident CV events: hazard ratio (HR) and (95% confidence interval) 1.76 (1.13-2.76), p<0.01 but not with overall mortality: HR=1.51 (0.94-2.45), p=0.09. The association between low GS and incident CV events disappeared after adjusting for baseline CV risk: HR=1.23 (0.79-1.94), p=0.36; 1.34 (0.86-2.10), p=0.20 and 1.47 (0.94-2.31), p=0.09 after adjusting for SCORE, Framingham and PROCAM scores, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Low GS is not predictive of incident CV events when taking into account CV absolute risk.

Low statin use in adults hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To assess recommended and actual use of statins in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) based on clinical prediction scores in adults who develop their first acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHOD

Cross-sectional study of 3172 adults without previous CVD hospitalized with ACS at 4 university centers in Switzerland. The number of participants eligible for statins before hospitalization was estimated based on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines and compared to the observed number of participants on statins at hospital entry.

RESULTS

Overall, 1171 (37%) participants were classified as high-risk (10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality ≥5% or diabetes); 1025 (32%) as intermediate risk (10-year risk <5% but ≥1%); and 976 (31%) as low risk (10-year risk <1%). Before hospitalization, 516 (16%) were on statins; among high-risk participants, only 236 of 1171 (20%) were on statins. If ESC primary prevention guidelines had been fully implemented, an additional 845 high-risk adults (27% of the whole sample) would have been eligible for statins before hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Although statins are recommended for primary prevention in high-risk adults, only one-fifth of them are on statins when hospitalized for a first ACS.

Statin eligibility and cardiovascular risk burden assessed by coronary artery calcium score: comparing the two guidelines in a large Korean cohort

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the statin eligibility and the predictabilities for cardiovascular disease between AHA/ACC and ATPIII guidelines, comparing those results to concomitant coronary artery calcium scores (CACS) in a large cohort of Korean individuals who met statin-eligibility criteria.

METHODS

Among 19,920 participants in a health screening program, eligibility for statin treatment was assessed by the two guidelines. The presence and extent of coronary artery calcification (CAC) was measured by multi-detector computed tomography and compared among the various groups defined by the two guidelines.

RESULTS

Applying the new ACC/AHA guideline to the health screening cohort increased the statin-eligible population from 18.7% (as defined by ATP III) to 21.7%. Statin-eligible subjects as defined only by ACC/AHA guideline manifested a higher proportion of subjects with CAC compared with those meeting only ATP-III criteria even after adjustment for age and sex (47.1 vs. 33.8%, p<0.01). Statin-eligible subjects as defined by ACC/AHA guideline showed higher odds ratio for the presence of CACS>0 compared with those meeting ATP-III criteria {3.493 (3.245∼3.759) vs. 2.865 (2.653∼3.094)}, which was attenuated after adjusted for age and sex.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large Korean cohort, more subjects would have qualified for statin initiation under the new ACC/AHA guideline as compared with the proportion recommended for statin treatment by ATP III guideline. Among statin-eligible Korean health screening subjects, the new ACC/AHA guideline identified a greater extent of atherosclerosis as assessed by CACS as compared to ATP III guideline assessment.

A comparative analysis of three widely used lipid management guidelines in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort

AIMS

To compare the impact of three major guidelines for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

21,263 men and women aged 39-79 years from the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation of Cancer) Norfolk cohort were retrospectively classified at baseline by statin therapy recommendations according to the NICE, ESC and ATPIII CVD prevention guidelines. Recommendations based on baseline data were related to 10-year follow-up to calculate number of new CVD events that could be prevented by statins, number-needed-to-treat (NNT) and CVD incidence decrease. Statin therapy was recommended to 34% by the NICE guideline, 29% by ESC and 32% by ATPIII. A total of 263 events could potentially have been prevented by application of the NICE guideline, 219 by ESC and 199 by ATPIII. The NNT with statins over 10 years was 27 with the NICE guideline, 28 with ESC and 34 with ATPIII. Application of the NICE guideline could have decreased CVD incidence by 13%; using ESC guidelines the figure is 11% and with ATPIII it is 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The NICE guideline selected greater percentages of elderly and subjects with prevalent CVD risk factors. It performed best in recommending statins and could have prevented the greatest number of CVD events. With all guidelines, nearly half the subjects who developed a CVD event were not considered eligible for statins at baseline. Less selective prevention strategies need to be explored.

Statins utilisation pattern: a retrospective evaluation in a tertiary care hospital in Thailand

OBJECTIVES

To determine statin usage pattern and evaluate whether new generation statins are actually needed by the patients receiving them.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort included patients receiving first-time statins at a tertiary care hospital in Thailand. Using electronic medical records from 2005, its indication was determined based on history of coronary heart disease (CHD) and CHD-risk equivalents. The lipid profiles tested within 30 days prior to the first date of statins prescription were analysed. Each patient was assessed as to whether statin was needed based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction capacity and lipid goals.

RESULTS

A total of 2479 first-time statin users was included. Ninety percent of the users received simvastatin, while 8% and 2% received atorvastatin and pravastatin respectively. More than half (58.0%) used statins for primary prevention, although all usage of atorvastatin was considered not needed. Considering the use of statin for secondary prevention to achieve the LDL-C goal of <130mg/dl (3.37mmol/l), more than 80% of atorvastatin users could be switched to simvastatin. Only 8% of simvastatin usage would not be able to achieve this target. When the LDL-C goal was <70mg/dl (1.81mmol/l), 40.2% simvastatin users was considered appropriate, while 58.6% needed atorvastatin to be prescribed.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of patients did not need statins therapy, particularly for primary prevention. In addition, atorvastatin use is mostly not needed except in patients requiring statins for secondary prevention to achieve the LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl (1.81mmol/l). The findings should prompt hospital policy makers to develop measures to ensure the proper use of statins in their clinical settings.

Public health impact of statin prescribing strategies based on JUPITER

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the public health impact of statin prescribing strategies based on the Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin Study (JUPITER).

METHODS

We studied 2268 adults aged 35-75 without cardiovascular disease in a population-based study in Switzerland in 2003-2006. We assessed the eligibility for statins according to the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATPIII) guidelines, and by adding "strict" (hs-CRP≥2.0 mg/L and LDL-cholesterol <3.4 mmol/L), and "extended" (hs-CRP≥2.0 mg/L alone) JUPITER-like criteria. We estimated the proportion of CHD deaths potentially prevented over 10 years in the Swiss population.

RESULTS

Fifteen percent were already taking statins, 42% were eligible by ATPIII guidelines, 53% by adding "strict," and 62% by adding "extended" criteria, with a total of 19% newly eligible. The number needed to treat with statins to avoid one CHD death over 10 years was 38 for ATPIII, 84 for "strict" and 92 for "extended" JUPITER-like criteria. ATPIII would prevent 17% of CHD deaths, compared with 20% for ATPIII+"strict" and 23% for ATPIII + "extended" criteria (+6%).

CONCLUSION

Implementing JUPITER-like strategies would make statin prescribing for primary prevention more common and less efficient than it is with current guidelines.