Eligibility for PCSK-9 inhibitors treatment in acute coronary syndrome, chronic coronary artery disease and outpatient dyslipidemic patients

Real-world data on treatment patterns in at least high cardiovascular risk patients on dual and triple lipid lowering therapy in a Hellenic nationwide e-prescription database

Background

Despite recent guidelines appropriate lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) remains suboptimal in everyday clinical practice.

Aims

We aimed to describe clinical practice of use of LLT for at least high CV risk populations in a Hellenic real-world setting and assess how this relates to the European Society of Cardiology treatment guidelines.

Methods

We analyzed data from a retrospective cohort study of the National Registry of patients with dyslipidemia between 1/7/2017 and 30/6/2019 who were at least of high CV risk and filled a dual or triple lipid-lowering treatment (dLLT, tLLT) prescription. The primary outcomes of interest of this analysis were to report on the patterns of LLT use in at least high CV risk patients.

Results

A total of 994,255 (45.4% of Greeks on LLT) were of at least high CV risk and 120,490 (5.5%) were on dLLT or tLLT. The percentage of patients with reported statin intolerance ranged from 2 to 10%. While persistence was reported to be satisfactory (>85% for both dLLT or tLLT), adherence was low (ranging between 14 and 34% for dLLT). In 6-month intervals, the percentage of patients achieving a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target below 100 md/dL ranged from 20% to 23% for dLLT and 34%-37% for tLLT.

Conclusions

The prevalence of at least high CV risk patients among patients receiving LLT in Greece is substantial. Despite the high persistence and probably due to the low adherence to treatment, LDL-C remains above targets in more than two thirds of patients.

Prognostic role of discordance between quantitative flow ratio and visual estimation in revascularization guidance

Aims

Revascularization guided by functional severity has presented improved outcomes compared with visual angiographic guidance. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a reliable angiography-based method for functional assessment. We sought to investigate the prognostic value of discordance between QFR and visual estimation in coronary revascularization guidance.

Methods and results

We performed offline QFR analysis on all-comers undergoing coronary angiography. Vessels with calculated QFR were divided into four groups based on the decision to perform or defer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and on the QFR result, i.e.: Group A (PCI-, QFR > 0.8); Group B (PCI+, QFR ≤ 0.8); Group C (PCI+, QFR > 0.8); Group D (PCI-, QFR ≤ 0.8). Patients with at least one vessel falling within the disagreement groups formed the discordance group, whereas the remaining patients formed the concordance group. The primary endpoint was the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularization. Overall, 546 patients were included in the study. Discordance between QFR and visual estimation was found in 26.2% of patients. After a median follow-up period of 2.5 years, the discordance group had a significantly higher rate of the composite outcome (hazard ratio: 3.34, 95% confidence interval 1.99-5.60, P < 0.001). Both disagreement vessel Groups C and D were associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared with agreement Groups A and B.

Conclusion

Discordance between QFR and visual estimation in revascularization guidance was associated with a worse long-term prognosis. Our results highlight the importance of proper patient selection for intervention and the need to avoid improper stent implantations when not dictated by a comprehensive functional assessment.

Is it Time for Single-Pill Combinations in Dyslipidemia?

Despite the availability of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) that are safe and effective, the overall rate of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control at a population level in real-life studies is low. Higher-intensity treatment, earlier intervention, and longer-term treatment have all been shown to improve outcomes. However, in clinical practice, actual exposure to LLT is a product of the duration and intensity of, and adherence to, the treatment. To increase exposure to LLTs, the European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommended a stepwise optimization of LLTs by increasing statin intensity to the maximally tolerated dose, with subsequent addition of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. Evidence from randomized controlled trials performed in a range of patients suggested that adding ezetimibe to statins rather than doubling the statin dose resulted in significantly more patients at LDL-C goal and significantly fewer patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events. In addition, data showed that combination treatments effectively increased exposure to LLT. Despite these data and recommendations, optimization of LLT is often limited to increasing statin dose. Therapeutic inertia and poor treatment adherence are significant and prevalent barriers to increasing treatment exposure. They are known to be influenced by pill burden and complexity of treatment. Single-pill combinations provide a strategic approach that supports the intensification of treatment without increasing pill burden or treatment complexity. Single-pill combinations, compared with free associations, have been shown to increase the adherence to LLT and the percentage of patients at LDL-C goal.

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.