Estimated individual lifetime benefit from PCSK9 inhibition in statin-treated patients with coronary artery disease

Individual lifetime benefit from low-dose colchicine in patients with chronic coronary artery disease

AIMS

Low-dose colchicine reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but absolute benefits may vary between individuals. This study aimed to assess the range of individual absolute benefits from low-dose colchicine according to patient risk profile.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-recommended SMART-REACH model was combined with the relative treatment effect of low-dose colchicine and applied to patients with CAD from the Low-Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial and the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease (UCC-SMART) study (n = 10 830). Individual treatment benefits were expressed as 10-year absolute risk reductions (ARRs) for myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death (MACE), and MACE-free life-years gained. Predictions were also performed for MACE plus coronary revascularization (MACE+), using a new lifetime model derived in the REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry. Colchicine was compared with other ESC guideline-recommended intensified (Step 2) prevention strategies, i.e. LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction to 1.4 mmol/L and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction to 130 mmHg. The generalizability to other populations was assessed in patients with CAD from REACH North America and Western Europe (n = 25 812). The median 10-year ARR from low-dose colchicine was 4.6% [interquartile range (IQR) 3.6-6.0%] for MACE and 8.6% (IQR 7.6-9.8%) for MACE+. Lifetime benefit was 2.0 (IQR 1.6-2.5) MACE-free years, and 3.4 (IQR 2.6-4.2) MACE+-free life-years gained. For LDL-c and SBP reduction, respectively, the median 10-year ARR for MACE was 3.0% (IQR 1.5-5.1%) and 1.7% (IQR 0.0-5.7%), and the lifetime benefit was 1.2 (IQR 0.6-2.1) and 0.7 (IQR 0.0-2.3) MACE-free life-years gained. Similar results were obtained for MACE+ and in American and European patients from REACH.

CONCLUSION

The absolute benefits of low-dose colchicine vary between individual patients with chronic CAD. They may be expected to be of at least similar magnitude to those of intensified LDL-c and SBP reduction in a majority of patients already on conventional lipid-lowering and blood pressure-lowering therapy.

Clinical implications of the log linear association between LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction: Greatest benefits when LDL-C >100 mg/dl

BACKGROUND

The log linear association between on-treatment LDL-C levels and ASCVD events is amplified in higher risk patient subgroups of statin versus placebo trials.

OBJECTIVES

Update previous systematic review to evaluate how the log linear association influences the magnitude of cardiovascular risk reduction from intensifying LDL-C lowering therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMED, Clinical trials.gov, and author files were searched from 1/1/2005 through 10/30/2019 for subgroup analyses of cardiovascular outcomes trials of moderate versus high intensity statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 mAbs with an ASCVD endpoint (nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, cardiovascular death). Annualized ASCVD event rates were used to extrapolate 5-year ASCVD risk for each treatment group reported in subgroup analyses, which were grouped into a priori risk groups according to annualized placebo/control rates of ≥4%, 3-3.9%, or <3% ASCVD risk. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Weighted least-squares regression was used to fit linear and log-linear models.

RESULTS

Systematic review identified 96 treatment subgroups from 2 trials of moderate versus high intensity statin, 2 trials of a PCSK9 mAb versus placebo, and 1 trial of ezetimibe versus placebo. A log linear association between on-treatment LDL-C and ASCVD risk represents the association between on-treatment LDL-C levels and ASCVD event rates, especially in higher risk subgroups. Greater relative and absolute cardiovascular risk reductions from LDL-C lowering were observed when baseline LDL-C was >100 mg/dl and in extremely high risk ASCVD patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater cardiovascular and mortality risk reduction benefits from intensifying LDL-C lowering therapy may be expected in those with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl, or in extremely high risk patient groups. When baseline LDL-C <100 mg/dl, the log linear association between LDL-C and event rates suggests that treatment options other than further LDL-C lowering should also be considered for optimal risk reduction.

Efficacy and safety of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies: an evidence-based review and update

Objective

Treatment of dyslipidemia lowers cardiovascular (CV) risk. Although statin use is a cornerstone therapy, many patients are not achieving their risk-specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies have been extensively studied as lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Herein, we present an updated evidence-based review of the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of familial and non-familial hypercholesterolemia.

Methods

PubMed database was searched to review Phase III studies on PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies. Then, the US National Institutes of Health Registry and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform were searched to identify and present the ongoing research.

Results

PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies were investigated for the treatment of dyslipidemia, as a single therapeutic agent or as an add-on therapy to the traditional LLT. They proved effective and safe in the treatment of familial and non-familial hypercholesterolemia, and in the prevention of adverse CV events.

Conclusions

The use of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of dyslipidemia is currently recommended to achieve risk-specific LDL-C goal to reduce adverse CV events. Future results of the ongoing research might expand their clinical generalizability to broader patient populations.

Disparities in Access to Revascularization: Evidence from New York

Purpose: To quantify and compare citywide disparities in the performance of coronary revascularization procedures in New York residents diagnosed with ischemic heart disease (IHD) by the characteristics of the patients and their neighborhood of residence in 2000–2002 and 2011–2013.

Methods: We identify the number of hospitalizations for patients with diagnoses of IHD and/or congestive heart failure (CHF) and the number of revascularization procedures performed on the population 45 years and older, relying on hospital administrative data for New York City, by area of residence, from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). We conduct multiple logistic regressions to analyze the factors associated with revascularization for hospitalized patients admitted with IHD and CHF over the two time periods.

Results: Despite any decline in population health status, both the age-adjusted rates of inpatient hospital discharges for acute myocardial infarction, for IHD and for CHF, decreased as did the rates of revascularization procedures. Racial and ethnic disparities were much smaller in the later period than those documented earlier. However, there were persistent gender, insurance status, and neighborhood-level disparities in the treatment of heart disease.

Conclusions: With the declines in rates of heart disease, our findings point to the need for more clinical and population-based research to improve the understanding of why race/ethnicity, gender, insurance status, and neighborhood-level disparities persist in the treatment of heart disease.

Estimating individual lifetime benefit and bleeding risk of adding rivaroxaban to aspirin for patients with stable cardiovascular disease: results from the COMPASS trial

Aims 

Adding rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable atherosclerotic disease reduces the recurrence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but increases the risk of major bleeding. The aim of this study was to estimate the individual lifetime treatment benefit and harm of adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease.

Methods and results 

Patients with established CVD from the COMPASS trial (n = 27 390) and SMART prospective cohort study (n = 8139) were used. Using the pre-existing lifetime SMART-REACH model for recurrent CVD, and a newly developed Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted lifetime model for major bleeding, individual treatment effects from adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in patients with stable CVD were estimated, expressed in terms of (i) life-years free of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) gained; and (ii) life-years free from major bleeding lost. Calibration of the SMART-REACH model for prediction of recurrent CVD events in the COMPASS study was good. The major bleeding risk model as derived in the COMPASS trial showed good external calibration in the SMART cohort. Predicted individual gain in life expectancy free of stroke or MI from added low-dose rivaroxaban had a median of 16 months (range 1–48 months), while predicted individualized lifetime lost in terms of major bleeding had a median of 2 months (range 0–20 months).

Conclusion 

There is a wide distribution in lifetime gain and harm from adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in individual patients with stable CVD. Using these lifetime models, benefits and bleeding risk can be weighed for each individual patient, which could facilitate treatment decisions in clinical practice.

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of - usually interactive and online available - tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

Risk prediction tools in cardiovascular disease prevention: A report from the ESC Prevention of CVD Programme led by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) in collaboration with the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professions (ACNAP)

Risk assessment and risk prediction have become essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Even though risk prediction tools are recommended in the European guidelines, they are not adequately implemented in clinical practice. Risk prediction tools are meant to estimate prognosis in an unbiased and reliable way and to provide objective information on outcome probabilities. They support informed treatment decisions about the initiation or adjustment of preventive medication. Risk prediction tools facilitate risk communication to the patient and their family, and this may increase commitment and motivation to improve their health. Over the years many risk algorithms have been developed to predict 10-year cardiovascular mortality or lifetime risk in different populations, such as in healthy individuals, patients with established cardiovascular disease and patients with diabetes mellitus. Each risk algorithm has its own limitations, so different algorithms should be used in different patient populations. Risk algorithms are made available for use in clinical practice by means of – usually interactive and online available – tools. To help the clinician to choose the right tool for the right patient, a summary of available tools is provided. When choosing a tool, physicians should consider medical history, geographical region, clinical guidelines and additional risk measures among other things. Currently, the U-prevent.com website is the only risk prediction tool providing prediction algorithms for all patient categories, and its implementation in clinical practice is suggested/advised by the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

PCSK9 inhibition 2018: riding a new wave of coronary prevention

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is a hepatic enzyme that regulates the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) receptor and thus circulating LDL-c levels. With overwhelming evidence now supporting the reduction in LDL-c to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, PCSK9 inhibitors represent an important therapeutic target, particularly in high-risk populations. Here, we summarise and update the science of PCSK9, including its discovery and the development of various inhibitors, including the now approved monoclonal antibodies. In addition, we summarise the clinical applications of PCSK9 inhibitors in a range of patient populations, as well as the major randomised controlled trials investigating their use in coronary prevention.