Loss of early gains in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment among high-risk patients

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol outcomes post-non-PCSK9i lipid-lowering therapies in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and probable heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients

Background

This study evaluated the proportion of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and probable heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) achieving ≥50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or reaching the LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL threshold, after initiating or modifying statin, and/or ezetimibe therapy.

Materials and methods

Adult ASCVD patients with baseline LDL-C >70 mg/dL (index) and a subset of patients with probable HeFH (proxied by LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL) were identified between January 1, 2012, and August 31, 2014, from the IQVIA electronic medical record database. Patients were followed for 12 months pre-index to examine baseline lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) use, and 12 months post index to evaluate treatment modifications and post-treatment LDL-C levels, stratified by type of treatment received and LDL-C levels at baseline.

Results

Of the sample of ASCVD patients who initiated treatment post-index (n=111,147), only 7.6% patients achieved a ≥50% reduction from baseline LDL-C and 19.1% of patients reached the LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL threshold. Among treated ASCVD patients who modified therapy post-index (n=75,523), 5.6% achieved a ≥50% reduction in LDL-C, and proportion of patients achieving LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL ranged from 6.9% to 26.7%, depending on the baseline LDL-C levels. Approximately 50% of the untreated probable HeFH patients (n=3,064) initiated LLT; however, the mean (SD) post-treatment LDL-C remained high (136.2 [47.8] mg/dL), with only 4.4% reaching LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL. Of the treated probable HeFH patients (n=1,073), 41.5% modified treatment; 22.1% achieved a ≥50% reduction in LDL-C and 1.1% reached LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL.

Conclusion

This study found that most patients had suboptimal LDL-C responses after initiating or modifying standard LLT (statin and/or ezetimibe). More frequent and aggressive lipid management, including increasing statin intensity and alternative therapies, may be needed in patients with ASCVD and probable HeFH to reduce their cardiovascular risk.

Effect of Combination Therapy of Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin on Remnant Lipoprotein Versus Double Atorvastatin Dose in Egyptian Diabetic Patients

A high level of remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) is a predominant feature in diabetic patients with atherosclerosis. This study aimed to investigate the effect of ezetimibe added to statin therapy compared to doubling standard statin dose. Sixty-five eligible patients were recruited then prospectively randomized to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/day plus their 40 mg daily atorvastatin dose (group 1) or atorvastatin 80 mg/day (group 2) for 3 months. Efficacy was evaluated using plasma levels of RLP-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL), percentage of brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, and lipid profile. Forty patients completed the study and provided efficacy data. Group 1 showed more reduction in RLP-C (45.7% vs 31.7%, P = .02), apolipoprotein B (28.5% vs 9.5%, P = .01), total cholesterol (34.7% vs 24.6%, P = .003), triglycerides (49% vs 24.4%, P = .000), non-HDL (49.3% vs 33%, P = .002), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (49.6% vs 35.2%, P = .02) compared to group 2. Group 1 showed a greater increase in HDL (66% vs 35%, P = .002); and flow-mediated dilation (30% vs 17%, P = .01) compared to group 2. It is concluded that adding ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg may be a better choice than doubling atorvastatin dose in improving RLPs, endothelial function, and lipid profile in diabetic cardiovascular patients who could not achieve their therapeutic treatment goals with the standard atorvastatin dose.

Use of high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the Veterans Affairs Health System: Practice impact of the new cholesterol guidelines

BACKGROUND

The November 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines recommend the use of high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We sought to determine how these guidelines are being adopted at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System and identify treatment gaps.

METHODS

We examined administrative data from the VA 12 months prior to the index dates of April 1, 2013, and after April 1, 2014, to identify patients ≤75 years of age with ≥2 codes for ASCVD. We identified those on high-intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, and simvastatin 80 mg) during the 6 months after the index date.

RESULTS

The study sample included 331,927 and 326,759 eligible adults with ASCVD before and after the release of the new guidelines, respectively. Overall, high-intensity statin use increased from 28% to 35% after guideline release. High-intensity statin use was lowest in Hispanics and Native Americans, although all groups showed an increase over time. Among those on low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy, 15.6% were intensified to a high-intensity statin after guideline release. Groups less likely to undergo statin intensification were older adults (odds ratio=0.78 for each 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.76-0.81), women (odds ratio=0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99), and certain minority groups. Academic teaching hospitals and hospitals on the West Coast were more likely to intensify statins after release of the new guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

High-intensity statin use increased in the VA following release of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guidelines, although disparities persist for certain patient groups including older adults, women, and certain minority groups.

Statin combination therapy and cardiovascular risk reduction

In numerous clinical trials, lowering LDL-C with statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary and secondary prevention settings. Guidelines recommend statins for first-line therapy in cholesterol-lowering management of patients with CVD risk. Despite increased statin monotherapy use over the last decade, a number of patients with high CVD risk do not achieve optimal LDL-C lowering. Guidelines recommend consideration of statin combination therapy with nonstatin agents for these patients. However, combination therapy approaches have been hampered by neutral findings. Recently, ezetimibe added to simvastatin therapy reduced cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome patients, more than simvastatin alone. This article provides an overview of various agents in combination with statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes. Other lipid-lowering agents in development, including PCSK9 and CETP inhibitors in development, are also described.

Effect of Switching From Statin Monotherapy to Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Combination Therapy Compared With Other Intensified Lipid-Lowering Strategies on Lipoprotein Subclasses in Diabetic Patients With Symptomatic Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease may not achieve adequate low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) lowering on statin monotherapy, attributed partly to atherogenic dyslipidemia. More intensive LDL‐C–lowering therapy can be considered for these patients. A previous randomized, controlled study demonstrated greater LDL‐C lowering in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease who switched from simvastatin 20 mg (S20) or atorvastatin 10 mg (A10) to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (ES10/20) therapy, compared with statin dose‐doubling (to S40 or A20) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10). The effect of these regimens on novel biomarkers of atherogenic dyslipidemia (low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein particle number and lipoprotein‐associated phospholipase A2 [Lp‐PLA₂]) was assessed.

Methods and Results

Treatment effects on low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein particle number (by NMR) and Lp‐PLA₂ (by ELISA) were evaluated using plasma samples available from 358 subjects in the study. Switching to ES10/20 reduced low‐density lipoprotein‐particle number numerically more than did statin dose‐doubling and was comparable with R10 (−133.3, −94.4, and −56.3 nmol/L, respectively; P>0.05). Increases in high‐density lipoprotein particle number were significantly greater with switches to ES10/20 versus statin dose‐doubling (1.5 and −0.5 μmol/L; P<0.05) and comparable with R10 (0.7 μmol/L; P>0.05). Percentages of patients attaining low‐density lipoprotein particle number levels <990 nmol/L were 62.4% for ES10/20, 54.1% for statin dose‐doubling, and 57.0% for R10. Switching to ES10/20 reduced Lp‐PLA₂ activity significantly more than did statin dose‐doubling (−28.0 versus −3.8 nmol/min per mL, P<0.05) and was comparable with R10 (−28.0 versus −18.6 nmol/min per mL; P>0.05); effects on Lp‐PLA₂ concentration were modest.

Conclusions

In diabetic patients with dyslipidemia, switching from statins to combination ES10/20 therapy generally improved lipoprotein subclass profile and Lp‐PLA₂ activity more than did statin dose‐doubling and was comparable with R10, consistent with its lipid effects.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00862251.

Frequency of high-risk patients not receiving high-potency statin (from a large managed care database)

We examined trends in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment in high-risk patients and use of high-potency statins (HPS) in a large, managed-care database from 2004 to 2012. The 2013 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology prevention guidelines recommend that subjects with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) should be prescribed HPS therapy, irrespective of LDL-C levels. Previous guidelines recommend an LDL-C target <70 mg/dl. Patients diagnosed with ASCVD based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes with ≥1 LDL-C test from January 2004 to December 2012 were identified in the Optum Insight database. Patients were identified as treated if they received lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) within 90 days of the LDL-C measurement and untreated if they did not receive LLT treatment. LLT treated patients were stratified into HPS users or non-HPS LLT users. There were 45,101 eligible patients in 2004 and 40,846 in 2012. The proportion of high-risk patients who were treated with LLT increased from 61.4% (2004) to 70.5% (2008) then remained relatively constant until 2012 (67.9%). Mean LDL-C values in treated patients decreased from 103.7 ± 32.1 (2004) to 90.8 ± 31.4 mg/dl (2012). The proportion of patients treated with HPS increased from 13% in 2004 to 26% in 2012. Although the proportion of treated high-risk patients who achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dl levels has increased sharply from 2004, approximately 3 of 4 patients still did not meet this target. Only 1/4 of ASCVD patients are on HPS. In conclusion, our findings highlight the need for renewed efforts to support guideline-based LDL-C treatment for high-risk patients.

Limitations of real-world treatment with atorvastatin monotherapy for lowering LDL-C in high-risk cardiovascular patients in the US

BACKGROUND

Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy.

METHODS

Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date.

RESULTS

Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%-34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL), and 72.0%-78.0% achieved LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%-40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.

Effect of an RNA interference drug on the synthesis of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and the concentration of serum LDL cholesterol in healthy volunteers: a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 trial

BACKGROUND

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) binds to LDL receptors, leading to their degradation. Genetics studies have shown that loss-of-function mutations in PCSK9 result in reduced plasma LDL cholesterol and decreased risk of coronary heart disease. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of ALN-PCS, a small interfering RNA that inhibits PCSK9 synthesis, in healthy volunteers with raised cholesterol who were not on lipid-lowering treatment.

METHODS

We did a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1 dose-escalation study in healthy adult volunteers with serum LDL cholesterol of 3·00 mmol/L or higher. Participants were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio by computer algorithm to receive one dose of intravenous ALN-PCS (with doses ranging from 0·015 to 0·400 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of ALN-PCS. Secondary endpoints were the pharmacokinetic characteristics of ALN-PCS and its pharmacodynamic effects on PCSK9 and LDL cholesterol. Study participants were masked to treatment assignment. Analysis was per protocol and we used ANCOVA to analyse pharmacodynamic endpoint data. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01437059.

FINDINGS

Of 32 participants, 24 were randomly allocated to receive a single dose of ALN-PCS (0·015 mg/kg [n=3], 0·045 mg/kg [n=3], 0·090 mg/kg [n=3], 0·150 mg/kg [n=3], 0·250 mg/kg [n=6], or 0·400 mg/kg [n=6]) and eight to placebo. The proportions of patients affected by treatment-emergent adverse events were similar in the ALN-PCS and placebo groups (19 [79%] vs seven [88%]). ALN-PCS was rapidly distributed, with peak concentration and area under the curve (0 to last measurement) increasing in a roughly dose-proportional way across the dose range tested. In the group given 0·400 mg/kg of ALN-PCS, treatment resulted in a mean 70% reduction in circulating PCSK9 plasma protein (p<0·0001) and a mean 40% reduction in LDL cholesterol from baseline relative to placebo (p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Our results suggest that inhibition of PCSK9 synthesis by RNA interference (RNAi) provides a potentially safe mechanism to reduce LDL cholesterol concentration in healthy individuals with raised cholesterol. These results support the further assessment of ALN-PCS in patients with hypercholesterolaemia, including those being treated with statins. This study is the first to show an RNAi drug being used to affect a clinically validated endpoint (ie, LDL cholesterol) in human beings.

FUNDING

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

Changes in LDL-C levels and goal attainment associated with addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin compared with titrating statin monotherapy

Background

Many high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) patients on statin monotherapy do not achieve guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and combination lipid-lowering therapy may be considered for these individuals. The effect of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy versus titrating these statins on LDL-C changes and goal attainment in CHD or CHD risk-equivalent patients was assessed in a large, managed-care database in the US.

Methods

Eligible patients (n = 17,830), initially on statin monotherapy who were ≥18 years with baseline and follow-up LDL-C values, no concomitant use of other lipid-lowering therapy, and on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥42 days, were identified between November 1, 2002 and September 30, 2009. The percent change from baseline in LDL-C levels and the odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) were estimated using an analysis of covariance and logistic regression, respectively, adjusted for various baseline factors.

Results

LDL-C reductions from baseline and goal attainment improved substantially in patients treated with ezetimibe added onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy (n = 2,312) versus those (n = 13,053) who titrated these statins. In multivariable models, percent change from baseline in LDL-C was −13.1% to −14.8% greater for those who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus those who titrated. The odds of attaining LDL-C <1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) increased by 2.6–3.2-fold and 2.5–3.1-fold, respectively, in patients who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus titrating statins.

Conclusion

CHD/CHD risk-equivalent patients in a large US managed-care database, who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin, had greater LDL-C reductions and goal attainment than those who uptitrated these statin therapies. Our study suggests that high-risk CHD patients in need of more intensive LDL-C lowering therapy may benefit by adding ezetimibe onto statin therapy.

Effect of health information technology interventions on lipid management in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Large gaps in lipid treatment and medication adherence persist in high-risk outpatients in the United States. Health information technology (HIT) is being applied to close quality gaps in chronic illness care, but its utility for lipid management has not been widely studied.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a qualitative review of the impact of HIT interventions on lipid management processes of care (screening or testing; drug initiation, titration or adherence; or referrals) or clinical outcomes (percent at low density lipoprotein cholesterol goal; absolute lipid levels; absolute risk scores; or cardiac hospitalizations) in outpatients with coronary heart disease or at increased risk.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched using Medical Subject Headings related to clinical informatics and cholesterol or lipid management. English language articles that described a randomized controlled design, tested at least one HIT tool in high risk outpatients, and reported at least 1 lipid management process measure or clinical outcome, were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies that enrolled 87,874 persons were identified. Study ratings, outcomes, and magnitude of effects varied widely. Twenty-three trials reported a significant positive effect from a HIT tool on lipid management, but only 14 showed evidence that HIT interventions improve clinical outcomes. There was mixed evidence that provider-level computerized decision support improves outcomes. There was more evidence in support of patient-level tools that provide connectivity to the healthcare system, as well as system-level interventions that involve database monitoring and outreach by centralized care teams.

CONCLUSION

Randomized controlled trials show wide variability in the effects of HIT on lipid management outcomes. Evidence suggests that multilevel HIT approaches that target not only providers but include patients and systems approaches will be needed to improve lipid treatment, adherence and quality.

Therapeutic practice patterns related to statin potency and ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapies in lowering LDL-C in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Statin combination therapy and statin uptitration have been shown to be efficacious in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and are recommended for patients with high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) who do not reach guideline-endorsed LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis evaluated treatment practice patterns and LDL-C lowering for patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin monotherapy in a real-world practice setting in the United States.

METHODS

In this retrospective, observational study, patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin therapy were identified during 2004 to 2008 in a US managed care database. Prescribing patterns and effect of switching from statin monotherapy to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy vs uptitration to higher statin dose/potency level and no change from initial statin potency on LDL-C lowering were assessed. Percentage of change from baseline in LDL-C levels and odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment were estimated with analyses of covariance and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 27,919 eligible patients on statin therapy, 2671 (9.6%) switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, 11,035 (39.5%) uptitrated statins, and 14,213 (50.9%) remained on the same statin monotherapy. LDL-C reduction from baseline and attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were substantially greater for patients who switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy (-24.0%, 81.2%, and 35.2%, respectively) than for patients who titrated (-9.6%, 68.0%, and 18.4%, respectively) or remained on initial statin therapy (4.9%, 72.2%, and 23.7%, respectively). The odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were also higher for patients who switched than for patients who uptitrated and had no therapy change than for patients who titrated vs no therapy change. Similarly, among a subgroup of patients not at LDL-C <100 mg/dL on baseline therapy, attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL was greater for patients who switched than for statin uptitration vs no change, as well as for patients who uptritrated statins vs no therapy change.

CONCLUSION

In this study, LDL-C lowering and goal attainment rates improved substantially for patients with high-risk CHD on statin monotherapy who switched to combination ezetimibe/statin or uptitrated their statin therapies; however, approximately one-third of these patients still did not attain the optional recommended LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL. Moreover, these higher efficacy lipid-lowering therapies were infrequently prescribed, indicating the need for further assessment of barriers to LDL-C goal attainment in actual practice settings.

Impact of adding ezetimibe to statin to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal (from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation [COURAGE] trial)

In the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) study, a revascularization strategy trial with optimal medical therapy in both arms, the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal was 60 to 85 mg/dl; this was revised to <70 mg/dl in 2004. COURAGE patients (n = 2,287) were titrated with increasing statin doses to achieve the initial LDL cholesterol goal using a prespecified protocol. Ezetimibe was not available when study enrollment began in 1999 but became available after approval in 2003. After maximizing statin dose, ezetimibe was added to reach the LDL cholesterol goal in 34% of patients (n = 734). Median baseline LDL cholesterol was higher in patients who received ezetimibe than in those who did not (109 vs 96 mg/dl). At baseline, 18% of patients who would later receive ezetimibe had LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl, and 8% had LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl. On maximum tolerated statin (with or without other lipid-lowering drugs), 40% had LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl and 23% had LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl before starting ezetimibe. At the final study visit, 68% of ezetimibe patients achieved LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl, and 46% achieved LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl. Using Cox regression analysis, the most significant factors associated with achieving LDL cholesterol goals were lower baseline LDL cholesterol, average statin dose, and ezetimibe use. In conclusion, after maximizing statin dose, the addition of ezetimibe results in a substantial increase in the percentage of patients who reach LDL cholesterol goal, a key component of optimal medical therapy.

Age, abdominal obesity, and baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein are associated with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B responses to ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with metabolic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Treatment response to lipid-lowering therapy can vary in patients with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) due to various patient demographic and baseline characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the relationships between baseline characteristics and changes in lipid variables, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and attainment of prespecified low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels in MetS patients treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 6-week parallel study in >1000 hypercholesterolemic subjects (median age of 59 years) with MetS and moderately high/high coronary heart disease risk who were treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 10/40 mg) or atorvastatin (10, 20, 40 mg). Factors that could affect these treatments were assessed by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Increasing age, abdominal obesity (waist circumference ≥ 40/35 inches for men/women), and lower baseline hs-CRP were significant predictors of greater reductions in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol but not for changes in HDL-C or apolipoprotein AI; effects of race and baseline triglycerides, non-HDL-C, LDL-C, or HDL-C levels were more limited. Age ≥ 65 years (versus <65 years) was also associated with significantly greater attainment of all LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets, whereas abdominal obesity, gender (female > male) and lower baseline LDL-C, non-HDL-C, triglycerides, and hs-CRP were associated with improved attainment for some of these targets. Blood pressure, fasting glucose, Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance tertiles, and diabetes did not predict response for any efficacy variable. Ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment (versus atorvastatin) was a significant predictor for change in most efficacy variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment responses to ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin in at-risk patients with the MetS were related to age (≥ 65 years), abdominal obesity, and lower baseline hs-CRP. Ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment was found to be consistently more effective than atorvastatin at the specified dose comparisons across these subgroups. The clinical value of predictive factors requires further study in outcome trials.

Use of Lipid-Lowering Medications and the Likelihood of Achieving Optimal LDL-Cholesterol Goals in Coronary Artery Disease Patients

Background. In clinical practice, most coronary artery disease patients are not achieving their recommend LDL-cholesterol goal of <70 mg/dL. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of outpatient electronic health records and the most recent lipid profile, lipid-lowering medications and doses were collected. Results. We identified 9950 coronary artery disease patients. Only 37% on a statin alone achieved an LDL-cholesterol of <70 mg/dL, and most were on moderate-to-high-potency statins. The intensity of statin therapy did not improve LDL-cholesterol goal attainment. Among patients on combination therapy, 41% on statin plus ezetimibe and 46% on statin plus niacin achieved an LDL-cholesterol of <70 mg/dL (P = 0.01 and <0.0001 versus statin alone). If patients were switched to a high-potency statin LDL-cholesterol goal attainment of <70 mg/dL would increase to 46% and would increase up to 72% with combination therapy. Conclusions. Most coronary artery disease patients in clinical practice do not attain an LDL-cholesterol of <70 mg/dL, even among patients on high potency statins. The combination of statin plus either ezetimibe or niacin is the most effective regimen to achieve an LDL-cholesterol of <70 mg/dL, however, these drug combinations are used infrequently in clinical practice.

Intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Statin therapy is the mainstay of lipid-lowering therapy; however, many patients, particularly those at high risk, do not achieve sufficient LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering. Thus, there remains an unmet medical need for more effective and well tolerated lipid-lowering agents. Guidelines recommend combining additional lipid-lowering agents with a complementary mode of action for these patients. One approach to complementing statin therapy is combination with inhibitors that block the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol. This review summarizes what is currently known about intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibitors (CAIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The only lipid-lowering agent currently available that specifically targets an intestinal sterol transporter (Niemann-Pick C1-like 1) is the CAI, ezetimibe. It is effective in lowering LDL-C, both when given alone and when combined with a statin. Clinical outcome data with ezetimibe combined with simvastatin have recently become available, and definitive evidence that the incremental LDL-C lowering attributable to the ezetimibe component reduces cardiovascular events beyond simvastatin alone is currently under study. Other novel CAIs have been evaluated based upon the structure and properties of ezetimibe, but none remain in development.

SUMMARY

Additional lipid-lowering agents are needed to fulfill an unmet medical need for those patients who do not achieve optimal LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. The inhibition of cholesterol absorption is an important therapeutic strategy to reduce cholesterol levels. Based upon the demonstrated lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, several CAIs have been identified; all to date have been discontinued due to limited efficacy.