Efficacy of high intensity atorvastatin versus moderate intensity atorvastatin for acute coronary syndrome patients with diabetes mellitus

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Associations between statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses of 47 randomized controlled trials

Objectives

To explore the associations between different types and doses of statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials that compared statins with non-statin controls or different types or doses of statins. The primary outcomes included muscle condition, transaminase elevations, renal insufficiency, gastrointestinal discomfort, cancer, new onset or exacerbation of diabetes, cognitive impairment, and eye condition. We also analyzed myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death from cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and all-cause death as the secondary outcomes to compare the potential harms with the benefits of statins. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare the adverse effects of different statins. An Emax model was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.

Results

Forty-seven trials involving 107,752 participants were enrolled and followed up for 4.05 years. Compared with non-statin control, statins were associated with an increased risk of transaminase elevations [OR 1.62 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.18)]. Statins decreased the risk of MI [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.71), P < 0.001], stroke [OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.84), P < 0.001], death from CVD [OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), P < 0.001] and all-cause death [OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.88), P < 0.001]. Atorvastatin showed a higher risk of transaminase elevations than non-statin control [OR 4.0 (95% CI 2.2 to 7.6)], pravastatin [OR 3.49 (95% CI 1.77 to 6.92)] and simvastatin [OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.31 to 5.09)], respectively. Compared with atorvastatin, simvastatin was associated with a lower risk of muscle problems [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.90)], while rosuvastatin showed a higher risk [OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.61)]. An Emax dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on transaminase elevations.

Conclusion

Statins were associated with increased risks of transaminases elevations in secondary prevention. Our study provides the ranking probabilities of statins that can help clinicians make optimal decisions when there is not enough literature to refer to.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021285161].

Improvement of evaluation in Chinese patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease using the very-high-risk refinement: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Continuous refinement of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) stratification has raised the definition of very-high-risk (VHR) recently, which has been underutilized in China. We aimed to identify patients at VHR and evaluate their performances in a Chinese population.

METHODS

A total of 9944 patients with ASCVD was continuously enrolled. Patients at VHR was identified according to 2018 AHA/ACC guideline. Median follow-up was 36.4 months. Clinical characteristics, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) achievements, and the prognostic value of VHR mapping for cardiovascular events (CVEs) were evaluated.

FINDINGS

Overall, 26% (2542/9944) of patients were deemed as VHR, which were subsequently divided into two subgroups of VHR-1 [31% (779/2542)] and VHR-2 [69% (1763/2542)]. The rates of VHR were higher among patients of male (30%,2157/7268), young with age <45 years (46%,518/1130), and low-income regions (27%, 498/1838). Patients at VHR carried higher rates of risk factors than those at non-VHR (all p<0.001). However, only 3% (80/2542) of patients at VHR were prescribed with high-intensity of statins, and just 13% (321/2542) of them reached the LDL-C goal (<1.4mmol/L). Furthermore, of patients with coronary stenosis (n=9806), multiple-diseased vessels (47%, 1192/2523 vs. 36%,2587/7283) and occlusive lesions (36%, 902/2523 vs. 13%, 949/7283) were detected more commonly in those at VHR than non-VHR. The adjusted hazard ratios of VHR-1 and VHR-2 for primary CVEs were 2.58(1.61-4.14) and 2.23(1.55-3.20), respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Our study firstly reported that patients at VHR carried more severe ASCVD burden, lower LDL-C achievement, and higher CVEs risk, suggesting that the refinement of ASCVD might be considered in China to further understand patients at VHR.

FUNDING

Capital Health Development Fund and CAMS Major Collaborative Innovation Project.

Prevalence of the Use of Aspirin and Statins for Preventing Cardiovascular Events in the Colombian Population with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Comparison of 2008 and 2018

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) greatly increases cardiovascular risk. Primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention lead to lower cardiovascular events, improved quality of life and lower costs related to complications.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of patients with T2DM undergoing drug therapy for cardiovascular prevention (aspirin and statins) in Colombia and to describe the change in patterns of use between 2008 and 2018.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study comparing prescriptions for aspirin and statins in 2008 and in 2018 in outpatients diagnosed with T2DM. Records were obtained from a national drug claim database. The proportion of use of cardiovascular prevention drugs and antidiabetic drugs, medications for comorbidities and sociodemographic variables were analyzed for both periods.

RESULTS

In total, 26 742 patients in 2008 and 188 321 in 2018 with a diagnosis of T2DM treated with antidiabetic drugs were identified, among whom 57.5% and 44.2% received aspirin and 44.9% and 60.2% received statins, respectively. The use of high-intensity statins increased from 1.1% in 2008 to 95.2% in 2018. The probabilities of receiving drugs in 2008 and in 2018 were higher for men (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.17 and OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.23-1.28, respectively), for those persons over 75 years of age (OR: 6.5, 95% CI: 5.3-7.9 and OR: 5.8, 95% CI: 5.4-6.2) and for those who also received clopidogrel (OR: 5.8, 95% CI: 4.4-7.6 and OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 2.1-2.4).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of high-intensity statins in patients with T2DM has increased significantly in the last decade, which should reduce cardiovascular events, morbidity and mortality.

Effect of More Intensive LDL-C-Lowering Therapy on Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes in Early-Phase Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The effect of more intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy (ILLT) on long-term cardiovascular outcomes during the early phase of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) remains uncertain. We aimed to explore the influence of more intensive LDL-C-lowering therapyduring the early disease phase on long-term cardiovascular events among patients with ACSs.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials that focused on the effect of more ILLT during early-phase ACSs on long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were searched in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases) from database inception until November 23, 2019. The end points included the incidence of MACEs, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, heart failure, and death events. Study risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tools. Fixed- or random-effects models and meta-regression were performed to evaluate the association between baseline/proportional reduction of LDL-C levels during early-phase disease and the risk of end points using risk ratios with 95% CIs.

FINDINGS

A total of 53,199 participants were involved from 19 studies. The risk of MACEs decreased by 17% (95% CI, 0.76-0.90; P = 0.0012) for more intensive versus control therapy but varied by baseline and proportional reduction of LDL-C levels during early disease phase. The risk reduction of MACEs for more intensive versus control therapy among different subgroups was 26% (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = 0.06) with a baseline level >130 mg/dL, 23% (95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = 0.02) with a baseline level of 100 to 130 mg/dL, and 10% (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = 0.07) with a baseline level <100 mg/dL. A significant difference of risk reduction for MACEs existed between patients treated with statin plus ezetimibe versus statin alone in the subgroup with a baseline level >130 mg/dL and proportional reduction >50%. Patients treated with more intensive therapy benefited from reduced risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and heart failure compared with control therapy.

IMPLICATIONS

More ILLT during early disease phase could significantly reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcome in patients with ACSs. This benefit was most pronounced in patients with higher baseline and larger reduction of LDL-C levels in MACEs.

Formulation of Gelucire®-Based Solid Dispersions of Atorvastatin Calcium: In Vitro Dissolution and In Vivo Bioavailability Study

Atorvastatin (ATV) is a poorly water-soluble drug that exhibits poor oral bioavailability. Therefore, present research was designed to develop ATV solid dispersions (SDs) to enhance the solubility, drug release, and oral bioavailability. Various SDs of ATV were formulated by conventional and microwave-induced melting methods using Gelucire®48/16 as a carrier. The formulated SDs were characterized for different physicochemical characterizations, drug release, and oral bioavailability studies. The results obtained from the different physicochemical characterization indicate the molecular dispersion of ATV within various SDs. The drug polymer interaction results showed no interaction between ATV and used carrier. There was marked enhancement in the solubility (1.95-9.32 folds) was observed for ATV in prepared SDs as compare to pure ATV. The drug content was found to be in the range of 96.19% ± 2.14% to 98.34% ± 1.32%. The drug release results revealed significant enhancement in ATV release from prepared SDs compared to the pure drug and the marketed tablets. The formulation F8 showed high dissolution performance (% DE₃₀ value of 80.65 ± 3.05) among the other formulations. Optimized Gelucire®48/16-based SDs formulation suggested improved oral absorption of atorvastatin as evidenced with improved pharmacokinetic parameters (C_max 2864.33 ± 573.86 ng/ml; AUC_0-t 5594.95 ± 623.3 ng/h ml) as compared to ATV suspension (C_max 317.82 ± 63.56 ng/ml; AUC_0-t 573.94 ± 398.9 ng/h ml) and marketed tablets (C_max 852.72 ± 42.63 ng/ml; 4837.4 ± 174.7 ng/h ml). Conclusively, solid dispersion-based oral formulation of atorvastatin could be a promising approach for enhanced drug solubilization, dissolution, and subsequently improved absorption.

High-intensity statin therapy yields better outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients: a meta-analysis involving 26,497 patients

Background

Whether high-intensity statin treatment provides more clinical benefits compared with standard statin regimens in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to comparatively assess high-intensity and standard statin regimens for efficacy and safety in patients with ACS.

Methods

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies assessing high-intensity vs. standard statin regimens for ACS treatment from inception to April 2020. The publication language was limited to English, and 16 randomized controlled trials were finally included in this study, with a total of 26,497 patients.

Results

Compared to the standard statin regimens, the relative ratio (RR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in ACS patients treated by high-intensity statin was 0.77 (95%CI, 0.68–0.86; P < 0.00001; prediction interval, 0.56–1.07). In subgroup analysis, high-intensity statin therapy resulted in more clinical benefits regarding MACE compared with standard statin treatment in both Asian (RR = 0.77; 95%CI, 0.61–0.98; P = 0.03) and non-Asian (RR = 0.79; 95%CI, 0.71–0.89; P < 0.0001) patients. Although adverse events were acceptable in patients with ACS administered high-intensity statin therapy, this treatment was associated with a higher rate of adverse events (4.99% vs. 2.98%), including myopathy/myalgia and elevated liver enzymes, as reflected by elevated serum aminotransferase or aminotransferase amounts.

Conclusion

The current findings indicated that high-intensity statin therapy might be beneficial in patients with ACS, and close monitoring for adverse effects should be performed.

Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) Goal Achievement in High-Cardiovascular-Risk Patients in Fuzhou, China

PURPOSE

This study aims to analyze the treatment patterns and goal attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) in the real-world setting in Fuzhou, China.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥20 years with a valid LDL-C measurement (index date) in 2016 were selected from National Healthcare Big Data in Fuzhou, China. Patients were stratified into mutually exclusive cardiovascular risk categories: ASCVD (including recent acute coronary syndrome [ACS], chronic coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, and peripheral arterial disease [PAD]), and DM alone (without ASCVD). Lipid-modifying medication and LDL-C attainment at the index date were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 21 989 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 17 320 (78.8%) with ASCVD and 4669 (21.2%) with DM alone; 47.7% of patients received current statin therapy in the overall cohort (53.5% in ASCVD, 26.5% for DM); 20.5% ASCVD population achieved LDL-C target with the highest in patients with recent ACS (33.8%), followed by chronic CHD (21.2%), PAD (20.9%), and ischemic stroke (17.3%); 49.0% of patients with DM achieved LDL-C target. Higher LDL-C attainment was observed in high-intensity statin and a combination of statin and nonstatin groups. Atorvastatin was the most commonly used statin with the highest LDL-C attainment, followed by rosuvastatin.

CONCLUSION

Compared with previous studies in China, our study found a relatively low statin use and LDL-C target attainment, but higher than similar studies in Europe. Guidelines should be well complied and more prescription of high-intensity statin or statin and nonstatin combination should be advocated.

Benefit of Early Statin Initiation within 48 Hours after Admission in Statin-Naïve Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background and Objectives

Although current guidelines recommend early initiation of statin in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), there is no consensus for optimal timing of statin initiation.

Methods

A total of 3,921 statin-naïve patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were analyzed, and divided into 3 groups according to statin initiation time: group 1 (statin initiation <24 hours after admission), group 2 (24–48 hours) and group 3 (≥48 hours). We also made 3 stratified models to reduce bias: model 1 (<24 hours vs. ≥24 hours), model 2 (<48 hours vs. ≥48 hours) and model 3 (<24 hours vs. 24–48 hours). The endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE; composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization) during median 3.8 years.

Results

During follow-up, incidence of MACE was lower in early statin group in both model 1 (14.3% vs. 18.4%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66–0.91; p=0.002) and model 2 (14.6% vs. 19.7%, HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.97; p=0.022). After propensity-score matching, results remained unaltered. Statin initiation <24 hours reduced MACE compared to statin initiation ≥24 hours in model 1. Statin initiation <48 hours also reduced MACE compared to statin initiation later in model 2. However, there was no difference in incidence of MACE between statin initiation <24 hours and 24–48 hours) in model 3.

Conclusions

Early statin therapy within 48 hours after admission in statin-naïve patients with AMI reduced long-term clinical outcomes compared with statin initiation later.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02385682

Statin intensity and postoperative mortality following open repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

There is a lack of evidence for the association between intensive statin therapy and outcomes following vascular surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between perioperative statin intensity and in-hospital mortality following open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.

Methods

Patients undergoing open AAA repair between 2009 and 2015 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database. Statin use was classified into low, moderate and high intensity, based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Supratherapeutic intensity was defined as doses higher than the recommended guidelines. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between statin intensity and postoperative major adverse events and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Of 6497 patients undergoing open AAA repair, 3217 (49·5 per cent) received perioperative statin. Statin users were more likely to present with three or more co-morbidities than non-users (26·5 versus 21·8 per cent; P < 0·001). Unadjusted postoperative mortality was significantly lower in statin users (2·6 versus 6·3 per cent; P < 0·001); however, there was no difference in the risk of developing major adverse events. Multivariable analysis showed that statin use was associated with lower odds of death (odds ratio 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·31 to 0·54). Moderate, high and supratherapeutic statin intensities were not associated with lower odds of death or major adverse events compared with low-intensity statin therapy.

Conclusion

Statin use is associated with lower odds of death in hospital following open AAA repair. High-intensity statins were not associated with lower morbidity or mortality.

Lipid management in ACS: Should we go lower faster?

Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) is a well-accepted causal risk factor for athero-thrombotic cardiovascular disease, as demonstrated in large epidemiological studies, including Mendelian randomization data. Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyzes have shown that lipid lowering therapies, such as statins and more recently the non-statin agents ezetimibe and Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin Kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies (mAb), reduce cardiovascular events across a broad range of baseline LDL-C levels. Over time, the recommended target for LDL-C has become more stringent, moving from 2.6 mmol/l to 1.8 mmol/l in very high-risk patients. It is currently recommended to start high intensity statin treatment immediately after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) to maximally and rapidly reduce LDL-C. The novel treatment options enable the achievement of very low LDL-C levels below 1 mmol/l, with no reported safety issues, in particular with regard to neurocognitive events. However, current evidence supports the use of PCSK9 mAb treatment in ACS patients only after an initial 2-3 month run-up treatment adaptation period with maximally tolerated statin. The use of PCSK9 mAb immediately in the acute phase of ACS (<1 month) remains to be studied. Some data suggest that circulating PCSK9 increases coronary plaque vulnerability, inflammation as well as platelet aggregation in the acute phase of ACS, potentially justifying earlier PSCK9 mAb treatment initiation. As the use of novel treatment combinations in ACS is further explored to widen the perspectives of a more personalized approach for the management of ACS based on individual patient risk profile and baseline LDL-C values, their relative cost-effectiveness will also need to be assessed.