S-EPMC5710173 - Simulation of Lipid-Lowering Therapy Intensification in a Population With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease. - OmicsDI

Unknown

Dataset Information

Simulation of Lipid-Lowering Therapy Intensification in a Population With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), guidelines recommend optimizing statin treatment, and consensus pathways suggest use of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in patients with persistently elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite use of statins. Recent trials have provided evidence of benefit in reduction of cardiovascular events with these agents.

Objective

To estimate the percentage of patients with ASCVD who would require a PCSK9 inhibitor when oral lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is intensified first.

Design, setting, and participants

This simulation model study used a large administrative database of US medical and pharmacy claims to identify a cohort of 105 269 patients with ASCVD enrolled from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2013, who met the inclusion criteria (database cohort). Patients were sampled with replacement (bootstrapping) to match the US epidemiologic distribution and entered into a Monte Carlo simulation (simulation cohort) that applied stepwise treatment intensification algorithms in those with LDL-C levels of at least 70 mg/dL. All patients not initially receiving a statin were given atorvastatin, 20 mg, and the following LLT intensification steps were applied: uptitration to atorvastatin, 80 mg; add-on ezetimibe therapy; add-on alirocumab therapy, 75 mg (a PCSK9 inhibitor); and uptitration to alirocumab, 150 mg. Sensitivity analyses included evolocumab as a PCSK9 inhibitor. Efficacy was estimated from published studies and incorporated patient-level variation. Data were analyzed from December 2015 to May 2017.

Exposures

Treatment intensification strategies with LLT.

Main outcomes and measures

Use of LLT among the population with ASCVD and distributions of LDL-C levels under various treatment intensification scenarios.

Results

Inclusion criteria were met by 105 269 individuals in the database cohort (57.2% male and 42.8% female; mean [SD] age, 65.1 [12.1] years). In the simulation cohort (1 million patients; 54.8% male and 45.2% female; mean [SD] age, 66.4 [12.2] years), before treatment intensification, 51.5% used statin monotherapy and 1.7% used statins plus ezetimibe. Only 25.2% achieved an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL. After treatment intensification, 99.3% could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL, including 67.3% with statin monotherapy, 18.7% with statins plus ezetimibe, and 14% with add-on PCSK9 inhibitor.

Conclusions and relevance

Large gaps exist between recommendations and current practice regarding LLT in the population with ASCVD. In our model that assumes no LLT intolerance and full adherence, intensification of oral LLT could achieve an LDL-C level of less than 70 mg/dL in most patients, with only a modest percentage requiring a PCSK9 inhibitor.

SUBMITTER: Cannon CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5710173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is one of the key strategies for reducing the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) burden. However, little is known about the percentage of people in need of different LLT regimens to achieve optimal targets of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and the corresponding cost and benefit.MethodsWe conducted a simulation study based on the data from the nationwide China PEACE MPP population cohort (2015-2020), from which we included 2,904,914 participants aged 35-75 years from all the 31 provinces in mainland China. Participants were grouped based on their 10-year ASCVD risks, then entered into a Monte Carlo model which was used to perform LLT intensification simulation scenarios to achieve corresponding LDL-C goals in each risk stratification.ResultsAfter standardizing age and sex, the proportions of participants included at low, moderate, high, and very-high risk were 70.8%, 15.6%, 11.5%, and 2.1%, respectively. People who failed to achieve the corresponding LDL-C goals -8.1% at low risk, 19.6% at moderate risk, 53.2% at high risk, and 93.6% at very-high risk (either not achieving the goal or not receiving LLT)-would be in need of the LLT intensification simulation. After the use of atorvastatin 20 mg was simulated, over 99% of the population at low or moderate risk could achieve the LDL-C goals; while 11.3% at high and 24.5% at very-high risk would still require additional non-statin therapy. After the additional use of ezetimibe, there were still 4.8% at high risk and 11.3% at very-high risk in need of evolocumab; and 99% of these two groups could achieve the LDL-C goals after the use of evolocumab. Such LLT intensification with statin, ezetimibe, and evolocumab would annually cost $2.4 billion, $4.2 billion, and $24.5 billion, respectively, and prevent 264,170, 18,390, and 17,045 cardiovascular events, respectively.ConclusionsModerate-intensity statin therapy is pivotal for the attainment of optimal LDL-C goals in China, and around 10-25% of high- or very-high-risk patients would require additional non-statin agents. There is an opportunity to reduce the rising ASCVD burden in China by optimizing LLT.

Project description:The management of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is a central strategy for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Current United States (2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety) and European (2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) guidelines endorse statin therapy as the first-line therapy for pharmacologic LDL-C lowering. However, in clinical practice up to 30% of patients report partial or complete intolerance to statin therapy. While the nocebo effect with statins is well described, perceived statin intolerance prevents many patients from achieving LDL-C thresholds associated with clinical benefit. Bempedoic acid is a novel, oral, non-statin lipid-l owering therapy that works by inhibiting adenosine triphosphate-citrate lyase, an enzymatic reaction upstream of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase in the hepatic cholesterol synthesis pathway. Bempedoic acid confers reduction in LDL-C of ~18% on background statin therapy,~21% in patients with statin intolerance, and ~38% when given in fixed-dose combination with ezetimibe. The CLEAR Outcomes trial, which enrolled high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients with reported statin intolerance and LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL, showed that bempedoic acid compared with placebo reduced 4-component major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 13% (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.96). Bempedoic acid also reduced 3-component MACE by 15%, myocardial infarction by 23% and coronary revascularization by 19%. The benefit was even greater in the primary prevention cohort (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.89) for 4-component MACE. Bempedoic acid was associated with increases in uric acid levels and cholelithiasis, but numerically fewer events of myalgia and new-onset diabetes. These findings confirm that bempedoic acid is an effective approach to reduce cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients with statin intolerance who require further reduction in LDL-C.

Project description:ImportanceBased on contemporary estimates in the US, evidence-based therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction are generally underused among patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).ObjectiveTo determine the use of evidence-based cardiovascular preventive therapies in a broad US population with diabetes and ASCVD.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study used health system-level aggregated data within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, including 12 health systems. Participants included patients with diabetes and established ASCVD (ie, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease) between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from September 2020 until January 2021.ExposuresOne or more health care encounters in 2018.Main outcomes and measuresPatient characteristics by prescription of any of the following key evidence-based therapies: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA).ResultsThe overall cohort included 324 706 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 68.1 (12.2) years and 144 169 (44.4%) women and 180 537 (55.6%) men. A total of 59 124 patients (18.2% ) were Black, and 41 470 patients (12.8%) were Latinx. Among 205 885 patients with specialized visit data from the prior year, 17 971 patients (8.7%) visited an endocrinologist, 54 330 patients (26.4%) visited a cardiologist, and 154 078 patients (74.8%) visited a primary care physician. Overall, 190 277 patients (58.6%) were prescribed a statin, but only 88 426 patients (26.8%) were prescribed a high-intensity statin; 147 762 patients (45.5%) were prescribed an ACEI or ARB, 12 724 patients (3.9%) were prescribed a GLP-1RA, and 8989 patients (2.8%) were prescribed an SGLT2I. Overall, 14 918 patients (4.6%) were prescribed all 3 classes of therapies, and 138 173 patients (42.6%) were prescribed none. Patients who were prescribed a high-intensity statin were more likely to be men (59.9% [95% CI, 59.6%-60.3%] of patients vs 55.6% [95% CI, 55.4%-55.8%] of patients), have coronary atherosclerotic disease (79.9% [95% CI, 79.7%-80.2%] of patients vs 73.0% [95% CI, 72.8%-73.3%] of patients) and more likely to have seen a cardiologist (40.0% [95% CI, 39.6%-40.4%] of patients vs 26.4% [95% CI, 26.2%-26.6%] of patients).Conclusions and relevanceIn this large cohort of US patients with diabetes and ASCVD, fewer than 1 in 20 patients were prescribed all 3 evidence-based therapies, defined as a high-intensity statin, either an ACEI or ARB, and either an SGLT2I and/or a GLP-1RA. These findings suggest that multifaceted interventions are needed to overcome barriers to the implementation of evidence-based therapies and facilitate their optimal use.

Project description:Guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) recommend intensive statin therapy and adding nonstatin therapy if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are 70 mg/dL or more. Compliance with guidelines is often low. To track LDL-C treatment patterns in the US over 2 years. GOULD is a prospective observational registry study involving multiple centers. Patients with ASCVD receiving any lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were eligible. Between December 2016 and July 2018, patients were enrolled in 1 of 3 cohorts: (1) those currently receiving proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i) and 2 groups not receiving PCSK9i drugs, with (2) LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more or (3) LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL. Patients had medical record reviews and telephone interviews every 6 months. Analysis was done on data collected as of October 5, 2020. The primary outcome was the change in LLT use in 2 years. Secondary outcomes included the number of LDL-C measurements, LDL-C levels, and responses to structured physician and patient questionnaires over 2 years. A total of 5006 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 67.8 [9.9] years; 1985 women [39.7%]; 4312 White individuals [86.1%]). At 2 years, 885 (17.1%) had LLT intensification. In the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, LLT intensification occurred in 403 (22.4%) and 383 (14.4%), respectively; statins were intensified in 115 (6.4%) and 168 (6.3%), ezetimibe added in 123 (6.8%) and 118 (4.5%), and PCSK9i added in 114 (6.3%) and 58 (2.2%), respectively. In the PCSK9i cohort, 508 of 554 (91.7%) were still taking PCSK9i at 2 years. Lipid panels were measured at least once over 2 years in 3768 patients (88.5%; PCSK9i cohort, 492 [96.1%]; LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL or more, 1294 [85.9%]; 70-99 mg/dL, 1982 [88.6%]). Levels of LDL-C fell from medians (interquartile ranges) of 120 (108-141) mg/dL to 95 (73-118) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more, 82 (75-89) to 77 (65-90) mg/dL in the cohort with LDL-C levels of 70 to 99 mg/dL, and 67 (42-104) mg/dL to 67 (42-96) mg/dL in the PCSK9i cohort. Levels of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL at 2 years were achieved by 308 patients (21.0%) and 758 patients (33.9%) in the cohorts with LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or more and 70 to 99 mg/dL, respectively, and 272 patients (52.4%) in the PCSK9i cohort. At 2 years, practice characteristics were associated with more LLT intensification (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 148 of 589 [25.1%] vs 600 of 3607 [16.6%]; lipid protocols or none, 359 of 1612 [22.3%] vs 389 of 2584 [15.1%]; cardiology, 452 of 2087 [21.7%] vs internal or family medicine, 204 of 1745 [11.7%] and other, 92 of 364 [25.3%]; all P < .001) and achievement of LDL-C less than 70 mg/dL (teaching vs nonteaching hospitals, 173 of 488 [35.5%] vs 823 of 2986 [27.6%]; lipid protocols vs none, 451 of 1411 [32.0%] vs 545 of 2063 [26.4%]; both P < .001; cardiology, 523 of 1686 [30.1%] vs internal or family medicine, 377 of 1472 [25.6%] and other, 96 of 316 [30.4%]; P = .003). Of patients with ASCVD, most with suboptimal LDL-C levels at baseline, only 17.1% had LLT intensification after 2 years, and two-thirds remained at an LDL-C level greater than 70 mg/dL. Further intensive efforts are needed to achieve optimal LDL-C management in patients with ASCVD.