High-Intensity Versus Non-High-Intensity Statins in Patients Achieving Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goal After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Cost-utility analysis of using high-intensity statin among post-hospitalized acute coronary syndrome patients

BACKGROUND

Post-hospitalized acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients in Indonesia National Insurance does not pay for the use of high-intensity statin (HIS) for secondary prevention after ACS hospitalization. Moreover, a cost-utility analysis needs to be conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prescribing HIS and low-to-moderate-intensity statin (LMIS) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of long-term HIS treatment in post-hospitalized ACS patients in Indonesia compared to current practice.

RESULTS

This study compared the economic outcomes of long-term HIS and LMIS in Indonesian post-hospitalized ACS patients. A lifetime Markov model predicted ACS-related events, costs, and QALY from a payer perspective. A systematic review estimated treatment-specific event probabilities, post-event survival, health-related quality of life, and Indonesia medical-care expenses from published sources. This study conducted probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using 1000 independent Monte Carlo simulations and a series of one-way deterministic sensitivity analyses utilizing a tornado diagram. The economic evaluation model proved that intensive HIS treatment can increase per-patient QALYs and care expenditures compared to LMIS. The use of HIS among post-hospitalized ACS patients had ICER 31.843.492 IDR per QALY gained, below the Indonesia willingness-to-pay (WTP) for terminal disease and life-saving treatment.

CONCLUSION

From the Indonesia payer perspective, using HIS for post-hospitalized ACS patients in Indonesia is cost-effective at 31.843.492 IDR per QALY gained.

Moderate-Intensity Statins Plus Ezetimibe vs. High-Intensity Statins After Coronary Revascularization: A Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Whether moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe could be an alternative to high-intensity statins in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is unclear. We compared the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statins after a coronary revascularization procedure using data from a large cohort study.

METHOD

Population-based cohort study using nationwide medical insurance data from Korea. Study participants (n = 20,070) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, and received moderate-intensity statins (atorvastatin 10-20 mg or rosuvastatin 5-10 mg) plus ezetimibe (n = 922) or high-intensity statins (atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 20 mg; n = 19,148). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for stroke, or revascularization.

RESULTS

At 12 months, the incidence rates of the primary outcome were 138.0 vs. 154.0 per 1000 person-years in the moderate-intensity stains plus ezetimibe and the high-intensity statins group, respectively. The fully adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for the primary outcome was 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.42; p = 0.43). The multivariable-adjusted HR for a composite of cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for MI, or hospitalization for stroke was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74-1.47; p = 0.80). During follow-up, the proportion of patients maintaining their initial lipid-lowering therapy was significantly higher in the moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe group than in the high-intensity statins group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing a coronary revascularization procedure who received moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe showed similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events as patients who received high-intensity statins.

Approaches to management of rhabdomyolysis as the adverse effect of drug interaction between atorvastatin and sacubitril/valsartan: a case report

Background

Atorvastatin and sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto™) have been cornerstones in managing patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure (HF). We report a case of life-threatening rhabdomyolysis associated with the co-administration of atorvastatin and sacubitril/valsartan.

Case summary

A 58-year-old male with coronary heart disease and chronic HF treated with the optimal dose of atorvastatin and other cardiovascular medications was frequently admitted for acute decompensation of HF. We decided to optimize his condition by adding sacubitril/valsartan to his treatment regime. He presented to our outpatient clinic with worsening myalgia and oliguria 6 days later. He was readmitted with markedly elevated serum creatinine kinase (CK) (94 850 U/L; normal range 32–294 U/L), deranged liver function tests, and acute kidney injury. We withheld atorvastatin and sacubitril/valsartan and treated him with renal replacement therapy.

Discussion

Sacubitril inhibits the excretion of statins, thereby elevating serum statin concentration and increasing the likelihood of developing muscle-related toxicity. Co-administration of atorvastatin and sacubitril/valsartan should be monitored closely with laboratory investigations of CK and liver and renal function. The physician may consider starting low-dose atorvastatin at 20 mg daily in combination with sacubitril/valsartan 24 mg/26 mg twice daily and titrating accordingly to optimal doses. Rosuvastatin could be an alternative to atorvastatin, as it has less drug–drug interaction with sacubitril, thereby reducing the adverse effect.

High-Intensity Statin vs. Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Target for Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From a Territory-Wide Cohort Study in Hong Kong

Background: Different guidelines recommend different approaches to lipid management in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We aim to determine the best strategy for lipid management in Asian patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Method: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in patients who underwent first-ever PCI from 14 hospitals in Hong Kong. All participants either achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target of <55 mg/dl with ≥50% reduction from baseline (group 1), or received high-intensity statin (group 2), or both (group 3) within 1 yr after PCI. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and any unplanned coronary revascularization between 1 and 5 yr after PCI.

Results: A total of 8,650 patients were analyzed with a median follow-up period of 4.2 yr. After the adjustment of baseline characteristics, complexity of PCI and medications prescribed and the risks of the primary outcome were significantly lower in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.93, P = 0.003) and group 3 (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62–0.90; P = 0.002). The primary outcome occurred at similar rates between group 2 and group 3.

Conclusions: Use of high intensity statin, with or without the attainment of guidelines recommended LDL-C target, was associated with a lower adjusted risk of MACE at 5 yr, compared with patients who attained LDL-C target without high intensity statin.

Comparison of the Effects of High-intensity Statin Therapy with Moderate-Intensity Statin and Ezetimibe Combination Therapy on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Nationwide Cohort Study

Objective

We compared the effects of high-intensity statin monotherapy versus moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Methods

Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, we screened 82,941 patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2013 and 2016. Among them, we identified 9,908 patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg (A40, n=4,041), atorvastatin 20 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (A20+E10, n=233), rosuvastatin 20 mg (R20, n=5,251), or rosuvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (R10+E10, n=383). The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, repeat revascularization, and ischemic stroke. Multivariable analyses were performed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method.

Results

The incidence rate of MACE in the overall population was 42.97 cases per 1,000 person-years. There was no significant difference in the risk of composite outcomes of MACE between the groups. However, the R10+E10 group showed a higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-3.94) than the A40 group (reference group) in the weighted multivariable model.

Conclusions

In this study, there was no significant difference in the composite outcome of MACE between high-intensity statin monotherapy and moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy.

Trends in the Utilization of Lipid-Lowering Medications in Australia: An Analysis of National Pharmacy Claims Data

Lipid-lowering medications comprise standard of care in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. This study examined the trends in the utilization of statin and non-statin medications in the Australian general population between 2013 and 2019. Pharmacoepidemiological analyses were performed using pharmacy dispensing data from Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. One-year prevalence and incidence of statin and non-statin prescribing patterns were reported, and relative variations in prescribing examined via Poisson regression modelling. The one-year prevalence of statins' prescriptions decreased between 2013-2019 by 5.5% (from 25.0%-19.5%). Females were less likely than males to be prescribed statins (rate ratio [RR]=0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.91). The one-year prevalence of ezetimibe alone, and in combination with statins, increased consistently from 2013-2019 from 1.5%-3.6% (P<0.01) and 0.1%-1.1% (P<0.01), respectively. The prevalence was higher among those aged 61-80 years (RR=1.20, 95%CI 1.10-1.21) and those aged older than 80 years (RR=1.34, 95%CI 1.22-1.47), when compared to people aged <60 years. The incidence of ezetimibe prescriptions was highest in people aged 61-80 years (RR=1.36, 95%CI 1.31-1.41) compared to those aged <60 years. The one-year prevalence of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor prescriptions was highest among those aged 46-60 years (RR=1.24, 95%CI 0.97-4.97) compared to people aged <46 and >60 years. Females were less likely than males to be prescribed a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (RR=0.87, 95%CI 0.75-0.98). Statins remain the most prevalent lipid-lowering medication prescribed in Australia. The prescribing of non-statin medications remains low, but is increasing.

Adjunctive Statin Therapy Reduces Mortality After Acute Hemorrhagic Stroke

Background

Statin treatment improves clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic strokes, although there is no evidence regarding the safety of statin therapy in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). This study aimed at evaluating the effects of continuing statin treatment after ICH.

Methods

Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. We retrospectively compared the data of patients with and without statin exposure after ICH. The outcomes of interest were recurrence of hemorrhagic stroke and mortality during a follow-up period of 10 years.

Results

During the 10-year follow-up period, the mortality rate was 32.73% in the statin group and 42.77% in the non-statin group. Statin therapy in patients with acute ICH with dyslipidemia can decrease mortality.

Conclusion

Statin therapy reduced the risk of 10-year mortality in patients who experienced acute hemorrhagic stroke.

Clinical outcomes of high-intensity doses of atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A retrospective cohort study using real-world data

AIMS

To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 high-intensity atorvastatin doses (40 mg vs 80 mg) among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study using real-world data included patients admitted with ACS to the Heart Hospital in Qatar between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular disease-associated death, nonfatal ACS and nonfatal stroke. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to determine the association between the 2 high-intensity atorvastatin dosing regimens and the primary outcome at 1 month and 12 months postdischarge.

RESULTS

Of the 626 patients included in the analyses, 475 (75.9%) received atorvastatin 40 mg, while 151 (24.1%) received atorvastatin 80 mg following ACS. Most of the patients were Asian (73%), male (97%) with a mean age of 50 years and presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (60%). The incidence of the primary effectiveness outcome did not differ between the atorvastatin 40-and 80-mg groups at 1 month (0.8 vs 1.3%; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.04-8.13, P = .690) and at 12 months (3.2 vs 4%; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.18-1.80, P = .340). Similarly, the use of the 2 doses of atorvastatin resulted in comparable safety outcomes, including liver toxicity, myopathy and rhabdomyolysis with an event rate of <1% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of atorvastatin 40 mg in comparison to atorvastatin 80 mg in patients with ACS resulted in similar cardiovascular effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Diabetes mellitus associated with an increased risk of percutaneous coronary intervention long-term adverse outcomes in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based cohort study

AIMS

This study compared the incidence rates of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and patients without DM with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a national population-based cohort to determine if the patients with DM have an increased risk of adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study among 92,624 patients with and without DM, who underwent PCI for the first time in 2000-2008. The patients were identified from National Health Insurance Program Database through propensity score matching. Endpoints were the occurrence of PCI adverse outcomes, including myocardial infarction (MI), need for target vessel revascularization by either bypass surgery or repeat PCI, all-cause mortality or 2011/12/31. Incidence rate was calculated and hazard ratios of PCI adverse events were estimated using Cox's proportional hazard regression model.

RESULTS

During the mean six-year follow up, the rates of MI (incidence rate 20.96 vs. 15.59 per 1000 person-years), bypass surgery (incidence rate 8.15 vs. 5.15 per 1000 person-years), all-cause mortality (incidence rate 6.20 vs. 4.72 per 1000 person-years), and the composite measure of MI, repeat PCI, bypass surgery, all-cause mortality (incidence rate 37.31 vs. 28.14 per 1000 person-years) were higher in patients with DM. The corresponding hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were 1.34 (95% CI: 1.29, 1.39), 1.46 (1.38, 1.56), 1.34 (1.25, 1.44), and 1.31 (1.27, 1.35). However, the repeat PCI rate (incidence rate 2.65 vs. 2.70 per 1000 person-years); with an adjusted HR of 0.97 (0.88, 1.07) was not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide retrospective cohort study determined a positive correlation between PCI adverse events and DM. As the prevalence of DM and PCI continues to increase, novel treatments and intensified surveillance coronary angiography for high risk patients are needed.

2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for management of dyslipidaemia: strengths and limitations

In 2019, the European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society released a new guideline document with substantial changes regarding the assessment of cardiovascular risk and treatments. The update of high-risk criteria and categories led to a better detection and primary prevention of patients at risk of a first cardiovascular event. Nonetheless, additional efforts are needed for a better inclusion of risk modifiers, especially specific to women, to improve risk stratification and direct primary prevention. Eventually, we discuss how these new guidelines implement PCSK9 inhibitors for very high-risk individuals and the evidence supporting new low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals below, such as 55 and 40 mg/dL.

High-Intensity Versus Non-High-Intensity Statins in Patients Achieving Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goal After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background Whether use of high-intensity statins is more important than achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL -C) target remains controversial in patients with coronary artery disease. We sought to investigate the association between statin intensity and long-term clinical outcomes in patients achieving treatment target for LDL -C after percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results Between February 2003 and December 2014, 1746 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and achieved treatment target for LDL -C (<70 mg/dL or >50% reduction from baseline level) were studied. We classified patients into 2 groups according to an intensity of statin prescribed after index percutaneous coronary intervention: high-intensity statin group (atorvastatin 40 or 80 mg, and rosuvastatin 20 mg, 372 patients) and non-high-intensity statin group (the other statin treatment, 1374 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Difference in time-averaged LDL -C during follow-up was significant, but small, between the high-intensity statin group and non-high-intensity statin group (59±13 versus 61±12 mg/dL; P=0.04). At 5 years, patients receiving high-intensity statins had a significantly lower incidence of the primary outcome than those treated with non-high-intensity statins (4.1% versus 9.9%; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.79; P<0.01). Results were consistent after propensity-score matching (4.2% versus 11.2%; hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.69; P<0.01) and across various subgroups. Conclusions Among patients achieving treatment target for LDL -C after percutaneous coronary intervention, high-intensity statins were associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than non-high-intensity statins despite a small difference in achieved LDL -C level.