Treatment pattern changes in high-risk patients newly initiated on statin monotherapy in a managed care setting

Prevalence, Associated Risk Factors, and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes of Statins Discontinuation: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Statins are widely prescribed for cardiovascular diseases (CVD) prevention; however, a significant proportion of users discontinue the medication for various reasons. This review aimed to determine the prevalence of statin therapy discontinuation, its associated factors, and adverse cardiovascular outcomes within the first year of discontinuation.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar databases were systematically searched from their inception to December 2022. Manual searches were also conducted on the bibliographies of relevant articles. Studies were included for qualitative data synthesis and assessed for methodological quality.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies, predominantly cohort studies (n = 38), involving 4 277 061 participants were included. The prevalence of statin discontinuation within the first year of statin initiation ranged from 0.8% to 70.5%, which was higher for primary prevention indications. Factors frequently associated with an increased likelihood of statin discontinuation included male sex, nonWhite ethnicity, smoking status, and being uninsured. Conversely, discontinuation was less likely in patients with CVD who received secondary prevention statin therapy and in patients with polypharmacy. Furthermore, age showed diverse and inconsistent relationships with statin discontinuation among various age categories. Five studies that reported the cardiovascular risk of statin discontinuation within the first year of initiation showed significantly increased risk of discontinuation, including all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.36-3.65).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a high prevalence of statin discontinuation and an increased likelihood of adverse cardiovascular outcomes within the first year of discontinuation, despite wide variability across published studies. This review highlights the importance of addressing the modifiable risk factors associated with statin discontinuation, such as smoking and lack of insurance coverage.

Evaluation of Statin Indication and Dose Intensification Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients at a Tertiary Hospital

Background

Diabetes mellitus (DM) increases cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality. While guidelines endorse statin use in type 2 DM (T2DM) to mitigate cardiovascular risks and mortality, challenges like statin initiation and prompt treatment adjustments affect patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess the appropriateness of indications for and dose intensification of statin therapy among T2DM patients at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH).

Methodology

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted from April 1 to June 30 2020. In total, 405 T2DM patients were selected using a systematic random sampling technique. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 26.0. An adjusted odds ratio (OR) was used and a 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values of <0.05 were utilized to determine statistical significance.

Results

Of the total 405 participants, 346 (85.4%) started taking statins for primary or secondary prevention purposes. Indication for statin use was appropriate in 96.2% patients, while for 216 (62.4%) patients their doses were appropriately intensified. Predictors of the inappropriateness of statin use were an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) score of ≥7.5% (AOR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.102-0.738, p=0.01), the presence of dyslipidemia (AOR=4.48; 95% CI: 1.85-10.84; p=0.001), initiation of aspirin therapy (AOR=3.7; 95% CI: 1.522-9.144; p=0.004), and an LDL-cholesterol level of 70-189 mg/dL (AOR=0.124; 95% CI: 0.042-0.365; p=0.001). DM duration of ≥10 years (AOR=2.51; 95% CI: 1.35-4.66, p=0.004), male gender (AOR=2.04; 95% CI: 1.16-3.58, p=0.013), age ≥65 years (AOR=2.15; 95% CI: 1.23-3.75, p=0.007) and uncontrolled blood pressure (AOR=2.09; 95% CI: 1.07-4.08, p=0.031) were associated with inappropriate statin intensification.

Conclusion

The study found that indication of statins was optimal and about two-thirds of patients had their doses appropriately intensified. Monitoring is needed to avoid inappropriate intensification of statin therapy, particularly in patients with longer diabetes duration, those of male gender and advanced age, and those with uncontrolled blood pressure.

Patterns of Lipid Lowering Therapy Use Among Older Adults in a Managed Care Advantage Plan in the United States

Background: The prevalence of cardiovascular events is increasing. There are many new lipids lowering therapies available in recent years. Increased evidence through literature and guidelines suggests that the use of lipid lowering therapy (LLT) benefits patients who are at risk for cardiovascular events. Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the current LLT use as well as patterns of treatment modification among adults ≥ 65 years. Methods: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data between January 2016 and May 2018 was conducted. Patients with a LLT refill and continuous enrollment during 1-year prior and 1-year follow-up were identified. The treatment episodes captured were interruption of therapy, intensity changes, dose changes, treatment augmentation, switching, and discontinuation. An analysis of treatment patterns among patients ≥75 years was also performed. Results: The study included 14,360 patients with a LLT of which 99% of patients were on statins as monotherapy or combination. Overall non-statin therapy use either as monotherapy or combination was 2.1%. There were significant differences among new initiators and existing users of therapy. Among prevalent users 57.4% had no changes in the follow-up period, 13.6% interrupted therapy, and 6.6% discontinued. Among new users, 47.9% patients had interrupted therapy, 25% had no changes, and 21.9% discontinued therapy. Conclusion: Most patients were on monotherapy and statins with low non-statin use. The new users among them were more likely to discontinue and interrupt therapy, highlighting the limitations and issues that older patients face that need to increase adherence.

Optimal implementation of the 2019 ESC/EAS dyslipidaemia guidelines in patients with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease across Europe: a simulation based on the DA VINCI study

Background

The impact of the stepwise implementation of the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) treatment algorithm on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment was simulated in patients from the DA VINCI study.

Methods

Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate treatment optimisation scenarios, based on a patient's risk category: statin intensification (step 1), addition of ezetimibe (step 2), and addition of a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (step 3). Residual cardiovascular risk and predicted relative and absolute risk reduction (RRR and ARR) in cardiovascular events were assessed.

Findings

In DA VINCI, 2482 patients did not achieve their 2019 ESC/EAS LDL-C goals and were included in the simulation. In patients without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (n = 962), 27.0% (n = 259) and 57.0% (n = 548) are likely to achieve their LDL-C goals at step 1 and step 2, respectively. Of those at very high risk without ASCVD (n = 74), 88.1% (n = 65) are likely to achieve their LDL-C goals at step 3. In patients with ASCVD (n = 1520), 12.0% (n = 183), 42.1% (n = 641) and 93.2% (n = 1416) are likely to achieve their LDL-C goals at steps 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In patients with and without ASCVD, treatment optimisation may result in mean simulated RRR of 24.0% and 17.7%, respectively, and ARR of 8.1% and 2.6%, respectively.

Interpretation

Most patients at high cardiovascular risk are unlikely to achieve LDL-C goals through statin optimisation and ezetimibe, and will require a PCSK9 inhibitor, leading to greater reduction in cardiovascular risk.

Funding

Amgen.

Rationale and design of a pragmatic trial aimed at improving treatment of hyperlipidemia in outpatients with very high risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A pragmatic trial of messaging to providers about treatment of hyperlipidemia (PROMPT-LIPID)

BACKGROUND

Despite guideline recommendations to optimize low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction with intensification of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), few of these patients achieve LDL-C < 70 mg/dL in practice.

PURPOSE

We developed a real-time, targeted electronic health record (EHR) alert with embedded ordering capability to promote intensification of evidence based LLT in outpatients with very high risk ASCVD.

METHODS

We designed a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, cluster randomized trial to test the effectiveness of an EHR-based LLT intensification alert. The study will enroll about 100 providers who will be randomized to either receive the alert or undergo usual care for outpatients with high risk ASCVD with LDL-C > 70 mg/dL. Total enrollment will include 2,500 patients. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with LLT intensification at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include achieved LDL-C at 6 months and the proportion of patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL or < 55 mg/dL at 6 months.

RESULTS

Enrollment of 1,250 patients (50% of goal) was reached within 47 days (50% women, mean age 72, median LDL-C 91). At baseline, 71%, 9%, and 3% were on statins, ezetimibe, or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PRagmatic Trial of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of HyperLIPIDemia has rapidly reached 50% enrollment of patients with very high risk ASCVD, demonstrating low baseline LLT utilization. This pragmatic, EHR-based trial will determine the effectiveness of a real-time, targeted EHR alert with embedded ordering capability to promote LLT intensification. Findings from this low-cost, widely scalable intervention to improve LDL-C may have important public health implications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT04394715.

Statin dose titration patterns and subsequent major cardiovascular events in very high-risk patients: estimates from Swedish population-based registry data

AIMS

Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of intensive statin therapy in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular (CV) events. Our objective was to examine statin titration patterns and the association between titration patterns and subsequent CV events in very high-risk patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using Swedish national population-based registry data, we identified 192 435 patients with very high risk of atherosclerotic CV disease initiated on moderate-intensity statin therapy between 2006 and 2013. Outcomes of interest were titration to high-intensity therapy and the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composite (myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and CV death) outcome. Cumulative incidence of MACE was assessed by titration status 1-year post-treatment initiation in patients adherent to treatment during the first year, using a 12-week cut-off from initiation to define early, delayed and no up-titration to high-intensity statins. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). In 144 498 eligible patients, early titration was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE in the subsequent 2 years compared to no up-titration (HR 0.76, P < 0.01]. Delayed up-titration was associated with a smaller reduction (HR 0.88, P = 0.08). The majority of patients did not up-titrate.

CONCLUSION

Early up-titration to high-intensity statins was independently associated with lower risk of subsequent CV events compared to no up-titration. Delayed up-titration was not associated with the same benefit. Despite the higher risk associated with no up-titration, few patients at very high CV risk who started treatment on moderate-intensity up-titrated to high intensity, indicating a potential need for more aggressive lipid management of these patients in clinical practice.

Proportion of High-Risk/Very High-Risk Patients in Europe with Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol at Target According to European Guidelines: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Assess achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Observational studies reporting LDL-C levels/target attainment, measured between 1 August 2006 to 31 August 2017, in European adults with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes with target organ damage, familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) or 10-year risk of fatal CVD ≥ 5% (assessed by Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE]).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted relevant studies and assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias for Non-Randomised Studies-Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C targets in the 2011/2016 ESC/EAS guidelines. Where available, patient characteristics were presented as means weighted by sample size. The proportions of patients achieving LDL-C targets in the 5 years before and after publication of the 2011 guidelines were compared using a chi-square test.

RESULTS

Across 81 eligible studies (303,534 patients), achievement of LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L was poor among patients with established CVD (16%; range 9-56%) and at very high risk of CVD (SCORE ≥ 10% [18%; 14-25%]). In individuals with FH, SCORE 5-10%, or diabetes and target organ damage, LDL-C < 2.5 mmol/L was achieved by 15% (9-22%), 46% (21-55%) and 13% (6-34%), respectively. Comparing the 5 years before/after publication of the 2011 guidelines, target achievement increased significantly over time but remained suboptimal (LDL-C < 1.8, 22% versus 15%; LDL-C < 2.5, 68% versus 61%; both p < 0.001; established CVD group only).

CONCLUSIONS

These data show suboptimal LDL-C control among European patients at high risk of CVD. Those at greatest overall risk (clinically established CVD or at least a 10% 10-year risk of fatal CVD) had the lowest achievement of 2011/2016 EAS/ESC LDL-C targets. With lower LDL-C targets advocated in 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines, this unmet need will increase.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number; CRD77844.

Getting to an ImprOved Understanding of Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management (GOULD): Methods and baseline data of a registry of high cardiovascular risk patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for managing patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend statin therapy initially. Target levels/goals for low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) were initially included, subsequently de-emphasized in 2013, and then re-introduced as thresholds, leading to confusion in clinical practice. We designed a multicenter, observational registry of patients with ASCVD, to describe and track LDL-C treatment patterns in the United States over time.

METHODS

Patients with ASCVD receiving any pharmacologic lipid-lowering therapy were eligible for enrollment in one of three cohorts: 1) currently receiving a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i), or not receiving PCSK9i with 2) LDL-C 70-99 mg/dL, or 3) LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. Patients undergo a 1-year retrospective chart review, followed by chart reviews and phone interviews every 6 months for 2 years.

RESULTS

A total of 5006 patients were enrolled at 119 centers. Mean age was 68 years, 40% of patients were female, 86% were white, 80% had coronary artery disease, and 33% had type 2 diabetes mellitus. Among those not on a PCSK9i, high-intensity statins and ezetimibe were utilized in only 44% and 9%, respectively. Among women vs men, only 36.6% vs 48.2% received high-intensity statins (P < .001). Among patients on a PCSK9i, only one-third were receiving a statin, suggesting statin intolerance is a driver of PCSK9i use at present.

CONCLUSION

Our data on current practice in the US continue to illustrate that high-intensity statins and ezetimibe are underutilized in at-risk patients outside of clinical trials, particularly women. This study will track temporal changes in treatment patterns and identify opportunities for improvement in lipid management in patients with ASCVD.

Contemporary rates and correlates of statin use and adherence in nondiabetic adults with cardiovascular risk factors: The KP CHAMP study

BACKGROUND

Statin therapy is highly efficacious in the prevention of fatal and nonfatal atherosclerotic events in persons at increased cardiovascular risk. However, its long-term effectiveness in practice depends on a high level of medication adherence by patients.

METHODS

We identified nondiabetic adults with cardiovascular risk factors between 2008 and 2010 within a large integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Through 2013, we examined the use and adherence of newly initiated statin therapy based on data from dispensed prescriptions from outpatient pharmacy databases.

RESULTS

Among 209,704 eligible adults, 68,085 (32.5%) initiated statin therapy during the follow-up period, with 90.4% receiving low-potency statins. At 12 and 24 months after initiating statins, 84.3% and 80.2%, respectively, were actively receiving statin therapy, but only 42% and 30%, respectively, had no gaps in treatment during those time periods. There was also minimal switching between statins or use of other lipid-lowering therapies for augmentation during follow-up. Age≥50 years, Asian/Pacific Islander race, Hispanic ethnicity, prior myocardial infarction, prior ischemic stroke, hypertension, and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol>100 mg/dL were associated with higher adjusted odds, whereas female gender, black race, current smoking, dementia were associated with lower adjusted odds, of active statin treatment at 12 months after initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

There remain opportunities for improving prevention in patients at risk for cardiovascular events. Our study identified certain patient subgroups that may benefit from interventions to enhance medication adherence, particularly by minimizing treatment gaps and discontinuation of statin therapy within the first year of treatment.

Patterns of Statin Use in a Real-World Population of Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of statins has improved hypercholesterolemia management, yet a significant proportion of patients remain at risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. Analyses of treatment patterns reveal inadequate intensity and duration of statin therapy among patients with hypercholesterolemia, and little is known about real-world statin use, specifically in subgroups of patients at high risk for CV events.

OBJECTIVE

To examine patterns of statin use and outcomes among patients with high-risk features who newly initiated statin monotherapy.

METHODS

Adult patients (aged > 18 years) at high CV risk who received > 1 prescription for statin monotherapy and who had not received lipid-modifying therapy during the previous 12 months were identified from the Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (from January 2007 to June 2013). Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or diabetes were hierarchically classified into 5 mutually exclusive CV risk categories (listed here in order from highest to lowest risk): (1) recent CV event (subcategorized by hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome [ACS] or other non-ACS CV event within 90 days of index); (2) coronary heart disease (CHD); (3) history of ischemic stroke; (4) peripheral artery disease (PAD); and (5) diabetes. Outcomes of interest included changes in therapy, proportion of days covered (PDC), time to discontinuation, and proportion of patients with ASCVD-related inpatient visit during the follow-up period. Statin therapy was subdivided into high-intensity treatment (atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, or simvastatin 80 mg) or moderate- to low-intensity treatment (all other statins and statin dosing regimens). Follow-up data were obtained from the index date (statin initiation) until the end of continuous enrollment.

RESULTS

A total of 541,221 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients were stratified in the diabetes cohort (61.1%), followed in frequency by recent ACS event (15.8%), recent non-ACS CV event (9.9%), PAD (4.7%), CHD (4.4%), and history of ischemic stroke (4.1%). Only 15.0% of the population initiated therapy with a high-intensity statin, and 22.5% of these high-intensity statin initiators switched to a moderate- to low-intensity regimen during the follow-up period. Median time to statin discontinuation was approximately 15 months. Duration of treatment was longer among those who were treated with a high-intensity versus a moderate- to low-intensity statin regimen (21 and 15 months, respectively). The PDC was highest in the recent ACS hospitalization cohort (66.4%) and lowest in the diabetes cohort (55.5%). The PDC was significantly greater among patients who initiated treatment with a high-intensity statin regimen than with a moderate- to low-intensity statin regimen (62.1% vs. 57.5%, respectively; P< 0.001). At 1 year, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative rates for ASCVD-related hospitalizations ranged from 3.5% (diabetes) to 21.8% (recent ACS hospitalization).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at high risk for CV events are suboptimally dosed with statins, have high rates of discontinuation, and have low rates of adherence. Despite the use of statin therapy, ASCVD-related inpatient visit rates were high, particularly among those patients at highest risk because of a recent ACS hospitalization. Future interventions are required to ensure that high-risk patients are effectively managed to reduce subsequent morbidity and mortality.

DISCLOSURES

Support for this research was provided by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York, and Sanofi US, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Menzin and Lin are employees of Boston Health Economics, which received consulting fees from Sanofi. Friedman is a consultant to Boston Health Economics. Lin, Friedman, and Menzin have received research support from Sanofi US. Sung, Mallya, Panaccio, and Koren are employees of Sanofi US and also have ownership interest in Sanofi US. Sanchez is an employee of and has ownership interest in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Neumann has served on advisory boards for Merck & Co, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Genentech, Novartis, Bayer AG, UCB, Sanofi US, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Cubist and serves as consultant for Boston Health Economics, Forrest, P urdue, and Smith and Nephew. This research has been presented in part at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20th Annual International Meeting, May 16-20, 2015, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. All authors contributed to the study design, protocol development, and results interpretation. Lin and Menzin were responsible for conducting the study analyses. All authors were involved in manuscript development and approved the submitted version.

Longitudinal treatment patterns among US patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia initiating lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy

BACKGROUND

The most recent American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guidelines recommend high-dose statin therapy for most patients with confirmed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and patients with high cardiovascular risk. There is limited information regarding long-term treatment patterns among these patients.

OBJECTIVE

To examine longitudinal treatment modifications in patients with ASCVD or familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of administrative claims data identified patients initiating statin or ezetimibe therapy between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2012, who had evidence of ASCVD or FH. Patients were followed for up to 3 years and up to 4 treatment episodes. After initial treatment, subsequent treatment episodes began on the date of a treatment modification, which included discontinuation, statin dose change, switching, and augmentation.

RESULTS

A total of 92,621 patients (mean age 64.7 years, 57.3% male) were identified; 91,740 had ASCVD, 937 had FH (56 had both). Most ASCVD (89.6%) and FH (85.8%) patients initiated on statin monotherapy. The most common treatment modification in the first treatment episode was discontinuation (ASCVD: 42.0%; FH: 58.4%); among patients who discontinued, most reinitiated therapy (70.5% of ASCVD, 76.8% of FH). Most ASCVD (68.2%) and FH (71.1%) patients initiated on moderate-dose statins; statin dose increase occurred in 10.3% of ASCVD and 18.5% of FH patients in the first episode.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with high cardiovascular risk, most initiated on moderate-dose statins with infrequent uptitration. In light of the recent American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guidelines, statin initiation practices will need to change to ensure appropriate therapy for high-risk patients.

Prescribing patterns, adherence and LDL-cholesterol response of type 2 diabetes patients initiating statin on low-dose versus standard-dose treatment: a descriptive study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe and compare treatment modifications and discontinuation, adherence levels and response to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating on low-dose vs. standard-dose statin treatment.

METHODS

A 2-year follow-up cohort study was performed using data from the Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) database in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating statin treatment between January 2007 and December 2012. First, we determined whether there were differences in treatment modifications and discontinuation after statin initiation between patients starting on a low-dose vs. standard-dose. Second, we looked at differences in adherence and LDL-cholesterol response after 2 years follow-up between these groups.

RESULTS

Around 22% of patients initiated statin treatment on a dose lower than recommended. More than half of them remained on a low dose during a 2-year follow-up period, whereas less than 15% received a dose increase. Of the patients initiating on standard-dose, also more than half remained on the same treatment during this period, whereas 8% received a dose decrease without subsequent increase. Over 25% of patients starting on low-dose or standard-dose treatment discontinued treatment, often within the first 180 days after initiation or after a first treatment change. Patients on low-dose treatment had lower adherence levels and were less likely to have adequate LDL-cholesterol response compared with patients on standard-dose after 2 years follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Current patterns of statin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes are suboptimal, with discontinuation, inadequate adherence levels and lack of treatment intensification seen in those who had inadequate LDL-cholesterol response after 2 years of follow-up. Patients starting on low-dose had more treatment modifications, discontinuation and adherence problems as compared with those starting on standard-dose treatment, which calls for a closer look at the rationale of starting patients on low-dose statin treatment.

A US Claims-Based Analysis of Real-World Lipid-Lowering Treatment Patterns in Patients With High Cardiovascular Disease Risk or a Previous Coronary Event

The objective was to examine real-world treatment patterns of lipid-lowering therapies and their possible associated intolerance and/or ineffectiveness in patients with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk initiating statins and/or ezetimibe. Patients aged ≥18 years who initiated statins and/or ezetimibe from January 01, 2007, to June 30, 2011, were retrospectively identified from the IMS LifeLink PharMetrics Plus commercial claims database. Patients were further classified into 2 cohorts: (1) history of cardiovascular event (CVE) and (2) history of coronary heart disease risk equivalent (CHD RE). Patients had continuous health plan enrollment ≥1 year pre- and post-index date (statin and/or ezetimibe initiation date). Primary outcomes were index statin intensity, treatment modifications, possible associated statin/nonstatin intolerance and/or ineffectiveness issues (based on treatment modification), and time-to-treatment modifications. Analyses for each cohort were stratified by age group (<65 and ≥65 years). A total of 41,934 (history of CVE) and 170,344 patients (history of CHD RE) were included. On the index date, 8.8% to 25.1% of patients were initiated on high-intensity statin. Among patients aged <65, 79.2% and 48.8% of those with history of CVE and 78.6% and 47.3% of those with a history of CHD RE had ≥1 and 2 treatment modifications, respectively. Among all patients, 24.6% to 25.6% had possible statin intolerance and/or ineffectiveness issues after accounting for second treatment modification (if any). In conclusion, in patients with high CVD risk, index statin treatment modifications that imply possible statin intolerance and/or ineffectiveness were frequent; low use of high-intensity statins indicates unmet need in the management of hyperlipidemia and possible remaining unaccounted CVD residual risk.

Statin use associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia requiring hospitalization in patients with myocardial infarction: a nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Statins have been reported to prevent adverse cardiovascular events in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). However, the association of statin use and the risk of pneumonia requiring hospitalization in MI patients remains unclear.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was conducted by using data from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Among 24,975 patients with MI, 2686 case patients with pneumonia requiring hospitalization were age- and sex-matched with 10,726 control patients using the incidence density sampling approach. Duration and dosage of statin use were obtained from pharmaceutical claims. Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia associated with statin use adjusted for patient's demographics, medical conditions and prescribed medications.

RESULTS

Statin use was associated with a 15% reduced risk of pneumonia requiring hospitalization among MI patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-0.95, P = 0.004). The association was more significant for MI patients unexposed to statin pretreatment (aOR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.64-0.90, P = 0.001). Statins also exhibited favorable benefits in a time- and dose-dependent manner. The results were consistent in various subgroup analysis of the patients who were female, age ≥ 65 years, a low CHADS2 (i.e. congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, previous stroke and age > 75 years old) score, and fewer comorbidities. Atorvastatin, fluvastatin and simvastatin were the most common prescribed statins and had similar effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins might be considered as an adjunctive therapy to reduce the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia for MI patients under thorough evaluation of individual comorbidities, previous statin use and optimal dosage.

Adherence to statin therapy and the incidence of ischemic stroke in patients with diabetes

PURPOSE

We aimed to quantify for the first time the relationship between statin adherence and ischemic stroke (IS) in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

Using Finnish health registers, we assembled a cohort of 52 868 statin initiators with diabetes in 1995-2006. We conducted a nested case-control analysis matching cases with IS with up to four controls for age, sex, date of statin initiation and follow-up duration. Adjusted rate ratios for IS were estimated with conditional logistic regression. Additional potential confounders were considered with inverse probability weighting and the role of unmeasured confounding using external adjustment. Statin adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC).

RESULTS

Among 1703 cases and 6799 controls, good adherence to statins (PDC ≥ 80%) was associated with a 23% decreased incidence of IS (95%CI 14-32%) compared with poor adherence (PDC < 80%). This association remained broadly unchanged when stratified by sex, age, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or IS. There was a dose-response relationship between adherence level and the risk of IS (RR 0.63 [0.53-0.75] for PDC ≥ 80% versus PDC < 20%, P for trend <0.0001). Among patients with good adherence, those initiating with low intensity statin therapy had a 15% lower incidence (95%CI 2-27%) and those initiating with moderate intensity therapy a 29% lower incidence (16-41%) of IS compared with those with poor adherence who initiated with low intensity therapy. Our sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

In diabetes, poor statin adherence may considerably increase the risk of IS both in primary and secondary prevention of IS.

Impact of treatment with rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on cardiovascular outcomes: evidence from the Archimedes-simulated clinical trials

Objective

No clinical trials have been conducted to directly compare the effect of the two high-intensity statins, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, on cardiovascular outcomes. However, three such trials have been computer-simulated using the Archimedes model, an individual-based simulation of human physiology and behaviors, treatment interventions, and health care systems. The results are reviewed here.

Methods

The first simulated trial assessed clinical outcomes in patients receiving available doses of the two drugs. The second assessed the impact of initial treatment decisions, while the third assessed the effect of switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin.

Results

In the first simulated trial, treatment with rosuvastatin was estimated to result in greater reductions than treatment with atorvastatin in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates at 5 years and 20 years at all doses examined (relative risk [RR]: 0.897, 0.888, and 0.930 at 5 years for rosuvastatin 20 mg vs atorvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 40 mg vs atorvastatin 80 mg, and rosuvastatin 20 mg vs atorvastatin 80 mg, respectively; all P<0.05). In the second simulated trial, outcomes were significantly better in patients initially prescribed rosuvastatin than in those initially prescribed atorvastatin (RR of MACE at 5 years: 0.918; P<0.001). In the third simulated trial, risk of MACE was significantly greater in patients switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin than in those remaining on rosuvastatin (RR at 5 years: 1.109; P<0.001).

Conclusion

The results of these simulated clinical trials suggest improved outcomes among patients receiving rosuvastatin relative to patients receiving atorvastatin in various clinical settings.

Assessment of statin therapy, LDL-C levels, and cardiovascular events among high-risk patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Statins have demonstrated significant benefit in reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate statin treatment patterns by intensity, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and cardiovascular (CV) events in high-risk CVD patients.

METHODS

Patients included were aged ≥ 18 years, with a coronary heart disease (CHD; Jan 1, 2007-Dec 31, 2011, index date) or CHD risk equivalent (CHD RE) diagnosis (Jan 1, 2007-Dec 31, 2010, index date), in the Truven MarketScan claims database, continuously enrolled for 2 years pre- and up to 1 (CHD) or 2 (CHD RE) years post-index. Patients with CHD, CHD RE, rhabdomyolysis, or chronic kidney disease any time pre-index were excluded. Statin therapy was assessed at baseline, 30, 90, and 365 days post-index. LDL-C values were captured in patients with available data at 30-day intervals up to 1 year. CV events were evaluated up to 1 year post-index. Descriptive statistics were used to report results.

RESULTS

There were 175,103 CHD and 68,290 CHD RE patients; 3333 CHD RE patients had post-index CV events. At 1 year, 38.7% of CHD patients and 44.3% of CHD RE patients with post-index CV events were not prescribed statins. Most patients who were prescribed statins, received a moderate-intensity statin. The percentage of patients with LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL reduced over time, but at 1 year, 29.3% of CHD and 30.0% of CHD RE patients with post-index CV events had LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL. At 1 year post-index, 9.9% CHD and 7.3% CHD RE patients had at least 1 CV event.

CONCLUSION

There is room for better LDL-C management among high-risk CVD patients to reduce their overall CV risk.

Patient and physician factors influence decision-making in hypercholesterolemia: a questionnaire-based survey

Background

Goal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians’ treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians’ treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy.

Methods

Physicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks’ treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians’ treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100–105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians’ treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients’ pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change).

Results

Questionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43–52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations.

Conclusions

This study provides insight into physicians’ perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians’ treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12944-015-0037-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lipid-lowering treatment patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with high cardiovascular disease risk

OBJECTIVE

To examine real-world treatment patterns of lipid-lowering treatment and their possible associated intolerance and/or ineffectiveness among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating statins and/or ezetimibe.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Adult (aged ≥18 years) patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who initiated statins and/or ezetimibe from January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2011 were retrospectively identified from the IMS LifeLink Pharmetrics Plus commercial claims database. Patients were further classified into 3 high-risk cohorts: (1) history of cardiovascular event (CVE); (2) two risk factors (age and hypertension); (3) aged ≥40 years. Patients had continuous health plan enrolment ≥1 year preindex and postindex date (statin and/or ezetimibe initiation date). Primary outcomes were index statin intensity, treatment modification(s), possible associated statin/non-statin intolerance and/or ineffectiveness issues (based on treatment modification type), and time-to-treatment modification(s). Analyses for each cohort were stratified by age groups (<65 and ≥65 years).

RESULTS

A total of 9823 (history of CVE), 62 049 (2 risk factors), and 128 691 (aged ≥40 years) patients were included. Among patients aged <65 years, 81.4% and 51.8% of those with history of CVE, 75.6% and 44.4% of those with 2 risk factors, and 77.9% and 47.1% of those aged ≥40 years had ≥1 and 2 treatment modification(s), respectively. Among all patients, 23.2-28.4% had possible statin intolerance and/or ineffectiveness issues after accounting for second treatment modification (if any).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with type 2 diabetes with high cardiovascular disease risk, index statin treatment modifications that potentially imply possible statin intolerance and/or ineffectiveness were frequent.