The relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment and prevention of coronary heart disease--related events

National lipid association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: part 1--full report

The leadership of the National Lipid Association convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. An Executive Summary of those recommendations was previously published. This document provides support for the recommendations outlined in the Executive Summary. The major conclusions include (1) an elevated level of cholesterol carried by circulating apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins (non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], termed atherogenic cholesterol) is a root cause of atherosclerosis, the key underlying process contributing to most clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events; (2) reducing elevated levels of atherogenic cholesterol will lower ASCVD risk in proportion to the extent that atherogenic cholesterol is reduced. This benefit is presumed to result from atherogenic cholesterol lowering through multiple modalities, including lifestyle and drug therapies; (3) the intensity of risk-reduction therapy should generally be adjusted to the patient's absolute risk for an ASCVD event; (4) atherosclerosis is a process that often begins early in life and progresses for decades before resulting a clinical ASCVD event. Therefore, both intermediate-term and long-term or lifetime risk should be considered when assessing the potential benefits and hazards of risk-reduction therapies; (5) for patients in whom lipid-lowering drug therapy is indicated, statin treatment is the primary modality for reducing ASCVD risk; (6) nonlipid ASCVD risk factors should also be managed appropriately, particularly high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, and diabetes mellitus; and (7) the measurement and monitoring of atherogenic cholesterol levels remain an important part of a comprehensive ASCVD prevention strategy.

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.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and goal achievement with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin or rosuvastatin in patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or neither disease, stratified by National Cholesterol Education Program risk category

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome are at increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Studies have shown differential statin efficacy on low-density lipid cholesterol (LDL-C) by CHD risk strata.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the consistency of effect with ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) combination therapy, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin in patients with DM, metabolic syndrome, or neither condition (No DM/metabolic syndrome), stratified by the National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) CHD risk group.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses of 2 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 6-week studies comparing E/S 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg with either atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg, or rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. Treatments were compared by pooling across all doses for LDL-C reduction and NCEP LDL-C goal attainment in patients with DM, metabolic syndrome without DM, or No DM/metabolic syndrome across NCEP CHD risk strata.

RESULTS

NCEP LDL-C goal attainment was lowest in the high-risk group with atherosclerotic vascular disease (12-64%) and greatest in the moderate and low-risk groups (84-100%). In contrast, LDL-C reduction was generally similar irrespective of disease or risk subgroup. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with overall similar safety regardless of disease and risk level.

CONCLUSIONS

In these studies, CHD risk strata were inversely related to the likelihood of attaining NCEP LDL-C goals, but did not appear to affect the percentage LDL-C change from baseline. This demonstrates the need for especially aggressive cholesterol lowering necessary to reach the lower LDL-C goal for high-risk patients.

Cholesterol goal attainment in patients with coronary heart disease and elevated coronary risk: results of the Hong Kong hospital audit study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine 1) long-term lipid-lowering treatment patterns; 2) cholesterol goal attainment rates and possible determinants of goal achievement; and 3) effects of cholesterol goal attainment on coronary events in hospitalized Hong Kong patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, records of two public Hong Kong hospitals were reviewed for 196 adults (69% with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD-risk equivalent) who received at least one lipid-lowering therapy during hospitalization. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets were <2.6 mmol/l (<100 mg/dL) for patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalents and <3.37 mmol/l (<130 mg/dL) for those without.

RESULTS

Most participants were initiated on regimens of low to midequipotency doses and never had their regimens adjusted to higher potency. Approximately 44% of patients not at LDL-C at baseline failed to achieve goal during a median follow-up of 1.9 years. Patients with higher coronary risk and/or LDL-C levels at baseline were less likely than their lower-risk counterparts to achieve goal; for each 1-mmol/l (38.7-mg/dL) increase in LDL-C at baseline, the likelihood of attaining goal declined by 64%. Patients achieving cholesterol goal had significantly longer cardiovascular event-free times.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 44% of Hong Kong patients not at LDL-C goals at baseline did not achieve them over 1.9 years. More effective and well-tolerated therapies, including adjunctive regimens (e.g., ezetimibe-statin, niacin-statin), may be necessary to enhance LDL-C goal achievement and increase event-free time.

Achieving lipid goals with rosuvastatin compared with simvastatin in high risk patients in real clinical practice: a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multi-center study: the DISCOVERY-Beta study

The aim of this multi-center, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with that of simvastatin in achieving the 1998 European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) lipid treatment goals. 504 patients (> or =18 years) with primary hypercholesterolemia and a 10-year cardiovascular (CV) risk >20% or history of coronary heart disease (CHD) or other established atherosclerotic disease were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg once daily for 12 weeks. A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved 1998 EAS low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal after 12 weeks of treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared to simvastatin 20 mg (64 vs 51.5%, p < 0.01). Similarly, significantly more patients achieved the 1998 EAS total cholesterol (TC) goal and the 2003 EAS LDL-C and TC goals (p < 0.001) with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with simvastatin 20 mg. The incidence of adverse events and the proportion of patients who discontinued study treatment were similar between treatment groups. In conclusion, in the DISCOVERY-Beta Study in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia greater proportion of patients in the rosuvastatin 10 mg group achieved the EAS LDL-C treatment goal compared with the simvastatin 20 mg group. Drug tolerability was similar across both treatment groups.

A global survey of physicians' perceptions on cholesterol management: the From The Heart study

AIMS

Guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention cite high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a major risk factor and recommend LDL-C goals for various risk groups. Lifestyle changes are advised as first-line treatment for patients with high cholesterol, and statins are recommended in high-risk patients. The From The Heart study investigated current practice for the diagnosis and treatment of high cholesterol, and attitudes towards management of the condition.

METHODS

Physicians were randomly selected from 10 countries, and completed a confidential, semi-structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 2790 physicians agreeing to participate, 750 (27%) responded. Physicians rated CVD as the leading cause of death, although physicians (80%) perceived that cancer was the most feared illness among patients. Physicians (71%) believed smoking to be the greatest CVD risk factor, while only 50% thought high cholesterol was the greatest risk. Most physicians (81%) used guidelines to set cholesterol goals, primarily their national guidelines (34%) or the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines (24%). Although only 47% of patients reached and maintained their cholesterol goals, 61% of physicians believed that a sufficient number of patients achieved goals, and 53% did not feel frustrated that they could not always effectively treat patients with CVD.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate discrepancies between guideline recommendations and clinical practice. Although physicians appreciate the risk of CVD, the importance of achieving healthy cholesterol levels for CVD prevention does not seem to be widely endorsed. There is a need for improved communication regarding the importance of cholesterol lowering and investigation of initiatives to improve goal achievement among physicians.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (results from the EXPLORER study)

Patients at risk of coronary heart disease may not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals on statin monotherapy. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe 10 mg in patients at high risk of coronary heart disease. Four hundred sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to rosuvastatin alone or in combination with ezetimibe for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) LDL cholesterol goal (<100 mg/dl) at week 6. Secondary end points included the percentage of patients achieving other ATP III and 2003 European lipid goals, changes from baseline in lipid, lipoprotein, and inflammatory parameters, and safety and tolerability. Significantly more patients receiving rosuvastatin/ezetimibe than rosuvastatin alone achieved their ATP III LDL cholesterol goal (<100 mg/dl, 94.0% vs 79.1%, p <0.001) and the optional LDL cholesterol goal (<70 mg/dl) for very high-risk patients (79.6% vs 35.0%, p <0.001). The combination of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe reduced LDL cholesterol significantly more than rosuvastatin (-69.8% vs -57.1%, p <0.001). Other components of the lipid/lipoprotein profile were also significantly (p <0.001) improved with rosuvastatin/ezetimibe. Both treatments generally were well tolerated. Rosuvastatin 40 mg was effective at improving the atherogenic lipid profile in this high-risk population. Combination rosuvastatin with ezetimibe 10 mg enabled greater decreases in LDL cholesterol and allowed more patients to achieve LDL cholesterol goals. In conclusion, rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe may improve the management of high-risk patients who cannot achieve goal on maximal statin monotherapy.

Expanding options with a wider range of rosuvastatin doses

BACKGROUND

The dose range for rosuvastatin in Europe has recently been expanded to 5 to 40 mg and is now in line with the dose range currently available in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this article was to review the efficacy and safety data available for the rosuvastatin 5-mg dose and discuss these data in the context of the full 5- to 40-mg dose range.

METHODS

Articles referring to clinical efficacy or safety data for the 5-mg dose of rosuvastatin were identified and reviewed after a search of the MEDLINE database (2000-August 2006; English language only) using the search term rosuvastatin. Proceedings from major cardiology congresses (2000-2006) were also searched for additional information.

RESULTS

Rosuvastatin 5 mg is significantly (P < 0.001) more effective at reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (42% and 30%) levels compared with atorvastatin 10 mg (36% and 27%), simvastatin 20 mg (36% and 25%), and pravastatin 20 mg (27% and 19%). Rosuvastatin 5 mg allows significantly more patients to reach their LDL-C goals as recommended by the 2003 European guidelines and the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) (49%-52% and 67%-71%) than atorvastatin 10 mg (36%, P < 0.001; 53%, P < 0.01), simvastatin 20 mg (37%, P < 0.001; 64%, P < 0.05), and pravastatin 20 mg (12%, P < 0.001; 49%, P < 0.001). Rosuvastatin is well tolerated across the 5- to 40-mg dose range, with a type and incidence of adverse events similar to the other commonly available, but less effective, statins. The introduction of a 5-mg dose offers greater flexibility to prescribing physicians in that it provides an additional dosing option for those patients who are at a lower cardiovascular risk or who have an increased potential for developing myopathy with statin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin 5 mg is well tolerated and has beneficial effects across the atherogenic lipid profile by reducing LDL-C and total cholesterol, raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and helping a greater proportion of patients reach their LDL-C goals.

Are lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol beneficial? A review of recent data

In the 1960s, epidemiologic studies established a link between elevated serum cholesterol and increased risk of cardiovascular events. Extensive clinical trial data subsequently highlighted 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (ie, statins) as the most effective pharmacotherapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and showed that statin-mediated LDL cholesterol reductions were associated with significant improvements in cardiovascular outcomes. Such findings are reflected in current cardiovascular disease management guidelines, which focus on LDL cholesterol as the primary therapeutic target. These guidelines recommend target LDL cholesterol levels. However, a number of clinical trials have failed to identify an LDL cholesterol threshold level below which no further cardiovascular risk reduction occurs. Such findings suggest that optimal risk reduction may require greater reductions in LDL cholesterol than are currently being achieved. This review examines recent data highlighting the benefits of more pronounced LDL cholesterol reductions and considers how this could be achieved in clinical practice when many patients are not even reaching current targets.

Long-term achievement of the therapeutic objectives of lipid-lowering agents in primary prevention patients and cardiovascular outcomes: An observational study

AIMS

Lowering elevated cholesterol levels reduces cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Nonetheless, most patients treated with lipid-lowering agents (LLA) do not reach recommended therapeutic objectives. In a setting of primary care in France, we investigated the association between LDL-cholesterol goal attainment and the occurrence of CV events in primary prevention patients with multiple CV risk factors (> or = 3). According to national guidelines, the therapeutic objective (TO) for such patients is an LDL-cholesterol value below 130 mg/dL.

METHODS

579 patients treated with LLA and with LDL-cholesterol values documented at least once a year over a period of at least 3 years (2000-2002) were allocated to three groups based on the number of years the TO was attained during the follow-up period: in all 3 years (TO+++: n=145), only part of the time (TO intermediate: n=256), and never (TO---: n=178). CV events (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, peripheral artery disease) occurring during the last year of observation (2002) were retrospectively collected. The occurrence risk (OR) of CV events was assessed based on TO status, with a logistic regression model to adjust for baseline differences in CV risk factors.

RESULTS

Only a quarter of patients attained TO during all 3 study years. CV events during the third year of observation occurred in 5.5%, 10.5% and 12.9% of patients in the TO+++, TO intermediate and TO--- groups, respectively. Compared with TO+++ patients, the risk of CV events increased significantly in TO intermediate (OR=2.34, 95% CI=[1.01-5.39]) and TO--- patients (OR=2.99, 95% CI=[1.26-7.08]).

CONCLUSION

In real practice, a prolonged attainment of TO is rarely observed in high CV risk patients treated with LLA as primary prevention. Therapeutic failure is related to an increased incidence of cardiovascular morbidity. Our data strongly support the need to improve adherence to treatment guidelines to achieve effective cardiovascular prevention.

Rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in achieving lipid goals in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease in clinical practice: A randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study (DISCOVERY Alpha study)

BACKGROUND

The majority of clinical trials investigating the clinical benefits of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) have focused on North American or western and nothern European populations. Therefore, it is timely to confirm the efficacy of these agents in other patient populations in routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Direct Statin COmparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY) Alpha study was to compare the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg with those of atorvastatin 10 mg in achieving LDL-C goals in the Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice guidelines.

METHODS

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was conducted at 93 centers in eastern Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Russia, Slovenia), Central and South America (Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama), and the Middle East (Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates). Male and female patients aged ≥18 years with primary hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C level, >135 mg/dL if LLT-naive or ≥120 mg/dL if switching statins; triglyceride [TG] level, <400 mg/dL) and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk >20% or a history of CHD or other established atherosclerotic disease were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive rosuvastatin 10-mg or atorvastatin 10-mg tablets QD for 12 weeks. No formal statistical analyses or comparisons were performed on lipid changes between switched and LLT-naive patients because of the different lipid inclusion criteria for these patients. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving 1998 European LDL-C goals after 12 weeks of treatment. A subanalysis was performed to assess the effects of statins in patients who had received previous statin treatment versus those who were LLT-naive. Tolerability was assessed using laboratory analysis and direct questioning of the patients.

RESULTS

A total of 1506 patients (52.1% women, 47.9% men; mean [SD] age, 58.2 [10.8] years) participated in the study (rosuvastatin, 1002 patients; atorvastatin, 504 patients; previous LLT, 567 patients). A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved 1998 European LDL-C goals after 12 weeks with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (72.5% vs 56.6%; P < 0.001). Similarly, more patients achieved the 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg (57.5% vs 39.2%). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was associated with a significantly greater change in LDL-C levels compared with atorvastatin 10 mg, in patients who were LLT-naive (LDL-C: -44.7% vs -33.9%; P < 0.001) and in patients who had received previous LLT (LDL-C: -32.0% vs -26.5%; P = 0.006). TG levels were also decreased with rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg, although there was no significant difference between treatments. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels between treatments. The most common adverse events overall were headache 16/1497 (1.1%), myalgia 10/1497 (0.7%), and nausea 10/1497 (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia in clinical practice, greater reductions in LDL-C levels were achieved with a starting dose (10 mg) of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin 10 mg, with more patients achieving European LDL-C goals. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Ineffectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy in primary care

BACKGROUND

Evidence confirms the positive effects of lipid-lowering agents on the risk of cardiovascular disease. Local guidelines in France (AFSSAPS) have defined therapeutic objectives for LDL-cholesterol. These objectives vary with the number of cardiovascular risk factors in addition to dyslipidaemia. We determined the proportions of patients at therapeutic objective in different classes of cardiovascular risk to test the hypothesis that compliance with guidelines varies across the levels of risk. Comparison with international guidelines (ANDEM) was also performed.

METHODS

A group of 3173 dyslipidaemic patients treated with lipid-lowering agents and managed by general practitioners was randomly selected from BKL-Thales panel, a French computerized database. For each patient, history of coronary heart disease and the number of cardiovascular risk factors were documented. Compliance with guidelines was assessed from achievement of therapeutic objective.

RESULTS

The study population included 79% primary prevention patients (1.6, 25.5, 31.7 and 20.1%, with 1, 2, 3, and >3 risk factors, respectively) and 21.0% secondary prevention patients. Applying AFSSAPS guidelines, the proportions of primary prevention patients not at LDL-cholesterol objectives varied across risk categories (P < 0.0001), from 3.9% for patients with one risk factor to 46.5% for patients with >3 risk factors, and therapeutic failure reached 39.9% in secondary prevention. Only 26% of patients who were at high cardiovascular risk (>3 risk factors or prior coronary heart disease) and not at therapeutic objective received high doses (>standard recommended doses) of lipid-lowering agents in monotherapy. Applying ANDEM guidelines, 74% of secondary prevention patients were not at treatment goal.

CONCLUSION

Compliance with guidelines varied inversely with the level of cardiovascular risk. Besides, most patients not at therapeutic objective were not up-titrated. The use of lipid-lowering agents is inadequate, depriving many patients of an effective protection against cardiovascular diseases.

Statins: can the new generation make an impression?

Although large-scale statin trials have demonstrated significant reductions in cardiovascular risk, there are many patients who have a cardiovascular event despite receiving statin therapy. There is increasing evidence that larger reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are associated with greater improvements in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which highlights the need for more efficacious statins. This article will review the lipid-altering effects of two new statins, rosuvastatin and pitavastatin. Rosuvastatin represents an advance in the pharmacological and clinical properties of other available agents. The large LDL-C reductions observed with rosuvastatin, even at the start dose of 10 mg and in patients switched from other statins to rosuvastatin 10 mg, should help to improve goal attainment, while reducing the need for dose titration. The ability of rosuvastatin to improve other elements of the lipid profile, such as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides and non-HDL-C, may be of utility in patients with diabetes and the metabolic syndrome. Increases in HDL-C, along with the greater efficacy of rosuvastatin for reducing LDL-C and non-HDL-C, may obviate the need for combination therapy. Results of a number of outcome studies with rosuvastatin are expected over the next 5 years, which will contribute to the evidence base for statin therapy and cardiovascular disease prevention.

Improving lipid management--to titrate, combine or switch

Despite the benefits of statin therapy, cholesterol management remains suboptimal and many patients do not achieve their recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. The use of insufficient doses, limited drug effectiveness and poor patient compliance may contribute to the treatment gap. Options for improving lipid management include dose titration, combination therapy or prescribing a more efficacious statin. LDL-C reductions are generally modest when patients' current statin dose is titrated, and there may be an increased potential for adverse effects. Combining statin therapy with another lipid-modifying agent can provide additional LDL-C reductions, but cost, tolerability and compliance should be considered. In general, switching to a more efficacious statin is a cost-effective way of enabling more patients to achieve recommended targets without increasing dosages. When considering the options available, physicians should balance efficacy, cost and safety to enable more patients to attain LDL-C goals and achieve greater therapeutic gain from statin treatment.

Cost of care for patients treated with lipid-lowering drugs

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between attainment of treatment goals with lipid-lowering therapy and healthcare costs.

PARTICIPANTS

9789 patients who received treatment with a lipid-lowering agent at any time between 1 January 1993 and 14 April 2003.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A cohort study using linkage of patient medical records from 29 Swedish primary care centres and the Swedish national inpatient register. The primary outcomes of interest were the total costs of medical care and costs of cardiovascular-related inpatient care during the year before treatment initiation and during years 1, 2 and 3 of treatment. The cost data were analysed with a two-part random-effects regression model.

RESULTS

Of the 9789 patients identified in the database for the study, 6316 had at least one cholesterol measurement during the year after the index prescription and were included in the analysis. 37% of the patients attained the goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 3.0 mmol/L and total cholesterol < 5.0 mmol/L. Patients who attained treatment goal had 44% higher pre-treatment costs of care. During the first year of treatment, patients who attained treatment goal had 28% higher costs of care. After the first year, costs for goal-attaining patients were 17% higher. However, the cost of cardiovascular-related inpatient care in patients attaining cholesterol treatment goal was twice as high as in patients not achieving goal before treatment start and 40% lower 2-3 years after treatment start.

CONCLUSION

Patients reaching target cholesterol levels showed a trend of cost reductions over time, whereas no such trend could be found for patients not reaching goal levels. Reductions in costs were substantial for cardiovascular-related inpatient care for patients attaining cholesterol goals compared with patients not attaining cholesterol goals.

Lipid-lowering therapy: strategies for improving compliance

Lowering cholesterol levels is a primary approach for reducing the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), yet patients rarely achieve the lipid targets recommended by international guidelines. Although high rates of compliance and achievement of lipid targets have been reported in clinical trials, this situation is infrequently reproduced in regular practice. This sub-optimal lipid management has clinical consequences as patients will not gain the full benefit of treatment. Poor compliance with therapeutic lifestyle changes and/or lipid-lowering agents is thought to contribute to the failure of patients in clinical practice to achieve lipid targets, and therefore this problem needs to be addressed. Several approaches may be used to improve compliance, including the prescription of efficacious, well-tolerated agents, educating patients about the necessity of therapy, and regular follow-up to monitor compliance and achievement of goals. However, educating patients to promote compliant behaviour can be time-consuming and therefore the support of other health-care workers, where available, can prove invaluable. Compliance initiatives using educational materials, access to helplines and regular telephone contact with a qualified health-care worker may also improve adherence with therapy. Further studies into the causes of poor compliance and methods of improving adherence with lipid-lowering agents are required.

Role of the Pharmacist in Establishing Lipid Intervention Programs

Despite the availability of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) guidelines for the management of hyperlipidemia since 1988, most patients do not achieve their target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) goals. With the publication of the most recent guidelines (ATP III), which contain more aggressive treatment recommendations, the cholesterol treatment gap is likely to widen further. Factors responsible for patients not receiving adequate treatment include a lack of focus on asymptomatic diseases, time and reimbursement constraints, inadequate training, a reluctance to prescribe aggressive treatment regimens, and poor communication among health care professionals. Results of several studies evaluating intervention programs indicate that pharmacists can play a key role in improving cholesterol management whether in lipid clinics, community pharmacies, or hospitals. In these intervention programs, pharmacists provided a wide range of functions that included reviewing the medical history, monitoring laboratory values, selecting lipid-lowering therapies, and educating patients regarding drug therapies and the importance of compliance. These interventions produced significant improvements in lipid parameters and in the number of patients who achieved LDL treatment goals. Most important, these interventions were associated with decreases in clinical events. Pharmacist intervention also was highly cost-effective and time efficient. These results suggest that pharmacists are in a unique position and possess the requisite skills to improve the treatment of patients with hyperlipidemia.

Ezetimibe: the first in a novel class of selective cholesterol-absorption inhibitors

Zetia (ezetimibe) is the first medication in the novel class of selective cholesterol-absorption inhibitors to be released in the United States. Ezetimibe selectively inhibits the uptake of cholesterol from the intestinal lumen at the level of the enterocyte in the intestinal brush border while having no effect on other sterols or lipid-soluble vitamins. Ezetimibe 10 mg daily produces a consistent reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by approximately 15 to 20% when used as monotherapy or in combination with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A inhibitors (statins) or fenofibrate and a 4 to 9% increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Unlike other lipid-lowering medications that act in the gastrointestinal tract, ezetimibe does not appear to worsen hypertriglyceridemia. Ezetimibe also has an adverse-event profile that is similar to placebo when used as monotherapy or in combination with statins and fenofibrate. Studies of longer duration and with niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and gemfibrozil are warranted to more completely assess the safety of ezetimibe in combination therapy. To date, no clinically significant drug-drug interactions have been noted with the use of ezetimibe; however, further studies are warranted. Ezetimibe will be useful as monotherapy in patients who need modest reductions in LDL-C or are intolerant to other lipid-lowering medication, and in combination with a statin in patients who are unable to tolerate large doses of statins or need further reductions in LDL-C despite maximum doses of a statin. The long-term safety and the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of ezetimibe are unknown.