Adherence and persistence in the use of statins and ezetimibe over 8 years in a real-life study

Retrospective real-world analysis of adherence and persistence to lipid-lowering therapy in Germany

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in Germany. Cardiovascular risk can be mitigated with long-term lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) that reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Although effective, risk mitigation is hindered by poor persistence and adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate real-world persistence and adherence to LLTs through 36 months post-initiation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with dyslipidemia who were newly prescribed LLTs between July and December 2017, using anonymized prescription data from the Insight Health™ Patient Insight Tool, and followed up until March 2021. Persistence and adherence to the therapies were stratified by age and sex. The proportion of days covered (PDC) was used to measure adherence.

RESULTS

Patients with dyslipidemia and newly prescribed statins (n = 865,732), ezetimibe (n = 34,490), or anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibodies (anti-PCSK9 mAbs; n = 1940) were included. Persistence to LLTs declined gradually across all treatment subgroups and was lower in women than men. Adherence, calculated as the mean PDC at the end of the analysis period (July 2017‒March 2021) was 0.84, 0.92, and 0.93 for statins, ezetimibe, and anti-PCSK9 mAbs, respectively. Among patients who discontinued treatment, mean treatment duration was 265, 255, and 387 days for statins, ezetimibe, and anti-PCSK9 mAbs, respectively. Only ~ 10% of patients persisted between 201 and 300 days. By Day 300, 71% of patients on statins had discontinued treatment. At 36 months, overall persistence rates were lowest with statins (20.6%), followed by ezetimibe (22.3%) and anti-PCSK9 mAbs (50.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

High non-persistence rates were observed across all LLT regimens analyzed, with the lowest persistence rates observed with statins.

Eradicating Atherosclerotic Events by Targeting Early Subclinical Disease: It Is Time to Retire the Therapeutic Paradigm of Too Much, Too Late

Recent decades have seen spectacular advances in understanding and managing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but paradoxically, clinical progress has stalled. Residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events is particularly vexing, given recognized lifestyle interventions and powerful modern medications. Why? Atherosclerosis begins early in life, yet clinical trials and mechanistic studies often emphasize terminal, end-stage plaques, meaning on the verge of causing heart attacks and strokes. Thus, current clinical evidence drives us to emphasize aggressive treatments that are delayed until patients already have advanced arterial disease. I call this paradigm "too much, too late." This brief review covers exciting efforts that focus on preventing, or finding and treating, arterial disease before its end-stage. Also included are specific proposals to establish a new evidence base that could justify intensive short-term interventions (induction-phase therapy) to treat subclinical plaques that are early enough perhaps to heal. If we can establish that such plaques are actionable, then broad screening to find them in early midlife individuals would become imperative-and achievable. You have a lump in your coronaries! can motivate patients and clinicians. We must stop thinking of a heart attack as a disease. The real disease is atherosclerosis. In my opinion, an atherosclerotic heart attack is a medical failure. It is a manifestation of longstanding arterial disease that we had allowed to progress to its end-stage, despite knowing that atherosclerosis begins early in life and despite the availability of remarkably safe and highly effective therapies. The field needs a transformational advance to shift the paradigm out of end-stage management and into early interventions that hold the possibility of eradicating the clinical burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, currently the biggest killer in the world. We urgently need a new evidence base to redirect our main focus from terminal, end-stage atherosclerosis to earlier, and likely reversible, human arterial disease.

Approach to the Patient With a Suboptimal Statin Response: Causes and Algorithm for Clinical Management

CONTEXT

Statins are the lipid-lowering therapy of choice for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but their effectiveness in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can substantially differ between individuals. In this mini-review, we describe the different causes for a suboptimal statin response and an algorithm for the diagnosis and clinical management of these patients.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search using the terms "statin resistance," "statin sensitivity," "statin pharmacokinetics," "cardiovascular disease," and "lipid-lowering therapies" was performed. Published papers in the past 10 years that were relevant to the topic were examined to provide content for this mini-review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Suboptimal lowering of LDL-C by statins is a major problem in the clinical management of patients and limits the value of this therapeutic approach. There are multiple causes of statin hyporesponsiveness with compliance being the most common explanation. Other causes, such as analytical issues with LDL-C measurement and the presence of common lipid disorders (familial hypercholesterolemia, elevated lipoprotein[a] and secondary dyslipidemias) should be excluded before considering primary statin resistance from rare genetic variants in lipoprotein-related or drug-metabolism genes. A wide variety of nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs are now available and can be added to statins to achieve more effective LDL-C lowering.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of statin hyporesponsiveness is a multistep process that can lead to the optimization of lipid-lowering therapy for the prevention of ASCVD. It may also lead to the identification of distinct types of dyslipidemias that require specific therapies and/or the genetic screening of family members.

Comparison of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) Goal Achievement and Lipid-Lowering Therapy in the Patients With Coronary Artery Disease With Different Renal Functions

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between renal function and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement and compare the strategy of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) among the patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with different renal functions.

Methods

In this study, we enrolled 933 Chinese patients with CAD from September 2020 to June 2021 admitted to the Cardiometabolic Center of Fuwai Hospital in Beijing consecutively. All individuals were divided into two groups based on their estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The multiple logistical regression analysis was performed to identify and compare the independent factors which impacted LDL-C goal achievement in the two groups after at least 3 months of treatment.

Results

There were 808 subjects with eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m² who were divided into Group 1 (G1). A total of 125 patients with eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m² were divided into Group 2 (G2). The rate of LDL-C goal attainment (LDL-C <1.4 mmol/L) was significantly lower in G2 when compared with that in G1 (24.00% vs. 35.52%, P = 0.02), even though there was no significant difference in the aspect of LLT between the two groups (high-intensity LLT: 82.50% vs. 85.60% P = 0.40). Notably, in G1, the proportion of LDL-C goal achievement increased with the intensity of LLT (23.36% vs. 39.60% vs. 64.52% in the subgroup under low-/moderate-intensity LLT, or high-intensity LLT without proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor (PCSK9i), or high-intensity LLT with PCSK9i, respectively, P < 0.005). In addition, in G2, there was a trend that the rate of LDL-C goal achievement was higher in the subgroup under high-intensity LLT (26.60% in the subgroup under high-intensity LLT without PCSK9i and 25.00% in the subgroup under high-intensity LLT with PCSK9i) than that under low-/moderate-intensity LLT (15.38%, P = 0.49). Importantly, after multiple regression analysis, we found that eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m² [odds ratio (OR) 1.81; 95%CI, 1.15–2.87; P = 0.01] was an independent risk factor to impact LDL-C goal achievement. However, the combination strategy of LLT was a protective factor for LDL-C goal achievement independently (statin combined with ezetimibe: OR 0.42; 95%CI 0.30–0.60; P < 0.001; statin combined with PCSK9i: OR 0.15; 95%CI 0.07–0.32; P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Impaired renal function (eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m²) was an independent risk factor for LDL-C goal achievement in the patients with CAD. High-intensity LLT with PCSK9i could improve the rate of LDL-C goal achievement significantly. It should be suggested to increase the proportion of high-intensity LLT with PCSK9i for patients with CAD, especially those with impaired renal function.