Dataset Information

Effect of C-Reactive Protein on Lipoprotein(a)-Associated Cardiovascular Risk in Optimally Treated Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the ACCELERATE Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, it remains unclear which patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease stand to benefit the most from Lp(a) lowering. Whether inflammation can modulate Lp(a)-associated cardiovascular (CV) risk during secondary prevention is unknown.

Objective

To examine whether Lp(a)-associated CV risk is modulated by systemic inflammation in optimally treated patients at high risk of CV disease.

Design, setting, and participants

A prespecified secondary post hoc analysis of the double-blind, multicenter randomized clinical Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes (ACCELERATE) trial was conducted between October 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013; the study was terminated October 12, 2015. The study was conducted at 543 academic and community hospitals in 36 countries among 12 092 patients at high risk of CV disease (acute coronary syndrome, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, or type 2 diabetes with coronary artery disease) with measurable Lp(a) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels during treatment. Statistical analysis for this post hoc analysis was performed from September 26, 2018, to March 28, 2020.

Interventions

Participants received evacetrapib, 130 mg/d, or matching placebo.

Main outcomes and measures

The ACCELERATE trial found no significant benefit or harm of evacetrapib on 30-month major adverse cardiovascular events (CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina). This secondary analysis evaluated rates of CV death, MI, and stroke across levels of Lp(a).

Results

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and Lp(a) levels were measured in 10 503 patients (8135 men; 8561 white; 10 134 received concurrent statins; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [9.4] years). In fully adjusted analyses, in patients with hsCRP of 2 mg/L or more but not less than 2 mg/L, increasing quintiles of Lp(a) were significantly associated with greater rates of death, MI, and stroke (P = .006 for interaction). Each unit increase in log Lp(a) levels was associated with a 13% increased risk of CV death, nonfatal MI, or stroke only in those with hsCRP levels of 2 mg/L or more (P = .008 for interaction). There was also a significant stepwise relationship between increasing Lp(a) quintiles and time to first CV death, MI, or stroke (log-rank P < .001) when hsCRP levels were 2 mg/L or more but not less than 2 mg/L. Sensitivity analyses in the ACCELERATE placebo-treated group yielded similar significant associations exclusively in the group with hsCRP of 2 mg/L or more.

Conclusions and relevance

Elevated Lp(a) levels during treatment are related to CV death, MI, and stroke when hsCRP levels are 2 mg/L or more but not less than 2mg/L. This finding suggests a potential benefit of lowering Lp(a) in patients with residual systemic inflammation despite receipt of optimal medical therapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01687998.

SUBMITTER: Puri R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7344788 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsIn epidemiologic cohorts initiated >30 years ago, inflammatory biomarkers, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were shown to independently predict future cardiovascular events with a magnitude of effect comparable to that of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC). Whether aggressive contemporary therapy for atherosclerosis has altered these relationships is unknown yet has major implications for future drug development.Methods and resultsInterleukin-6, hsCRP, and LDLC were measured at baseline in up to 4168 North American patients enrolled in the contemporary Cardiovascular Inflammation Reduction Trial with prior myocardial infarction or multivessel coronary disease who additionally had diabetes or metabolic syndrome and were followed for a period of up to 5 years for incident major recurrent cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Three-quarters of the cohort were previously revascularized and the great majority was taking statins, angiotensin blocking agents, beta-blockers, and antithrombotic agents. Participants were randomly allocated to low-dose methotrexate 15 mg weekly or to placebo. Randomized use of methotrexate had no effect on event rates nor plasma levels of IL-6, hsCRP, or LDL over time. Yet, baseline levels of IL-6, hsCRP, and LDLC were all predictors of major recurrent cardiovascular events; adjusted hazard ratios [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for the lowest to highest baseline quartiles of IL-6 were 1.0 (referent), 1.66 (1.18-2.35), 1.92 (1.36-2.70), and 2.11 (1.49-2.99; P < 0.0001), while adjusted HRs for increasing quartiles of hsCRP were 1.0 (referent), 1.28 (0.92-1.79), 1.73 (1.25-2.38), and 1.79 (1.28-2.50; P < 0.0001) and adjusted HRs for increasing quartiles of LDLC were 1.0 (referent), 1.12 (0.78-1.62), 1.25 (0.87-1.79), and 2.38 (1.72-3.30; P < 0.0001). Effect estimates were not statistically different in these analyses for comparisons between IL-6, hsCRP, or LDLC, although IL-6 was the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality. The highest absolute risks were observed among those with elevated levels of both cholesterol and inflammation [HR 6.4 (95% CI 2.9-14.1) for those in the top quartiles of baseline IL-6 and LDLC, HR 4.9 (95% CI 2.6-9.4) for those in the top quartiles of baseline hsCRP and LDLC, both P < 0.0001].ConclusionDespite aggressive contemporary secondary prevention efforts, the relationships between inflammation, cholesterol, and cardiovascular risk are largely unchanged from those described two decades ago. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that future treatments for atherosclerosis may require a combination of inflammation inhibition and additional cholesterol reduction.Clinical trialClinicalTrials.gov NCT01594333.

Project description:ImportanceThe Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Risk Reduction Model pays provider organizations for measuring and reducing Medicare patients' cardiovascular risk.ObjectiveTo assess whether the model increases the initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medications or statins among patients with blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels above guideline thresholds for treatment intensification.Design, setting, and participantsThis prespecified secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial included primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments across the US. Participants included Medicare patients who were enrolled into the model in 2017 by participating organizations and who were at high risk and at medium risk of a myocardial infarction or stroke in 10 years. Patient outcomes were analyzed for 1 year postenrollment (through December 2018) using an intent-to-treat design. Analysis began November 2019.InterventionsUS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations for risk stratifying Medicare patients and reducing CVD risk among high-risk patients through discussing risk scores, developing individualized risk reduction plans, and following up with patients twice yearly.Main outcomes and measuresInitiating or intensifying statin or antihypertensive therapy within 1 year of enrollment, measured in Medicare Part D claims, and LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure levels approximately 1 year after enrollment, measured in usual care and reported to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services via a data registry (data complete for 51% of high-risk enrollees). The study's primary outcome (incidence of first-time myocardial infarction and stroke) is not reported because the trial is ongoing.ResultsA total of 330 primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments and 125 436 Medicare patients were included in this analysis. High-risk patients in the intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 74 (4.1), 15 213 (63%) were male, 21 657 (90%) were receiving antihypertensive medication at baseline, and 16 558 (69%) were receiving statins. Almost all (21 791 [91%]) high-risk intervention group patients had above-threshold systolic blood pressure level (>130 mm Hg), LDL cholesterol level (>70 mg/dL), or both. Patients in the intervention group with these risk factors were more likely than control patients (8127 [37.3%] vs 4753 [32.4%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.9-6.7; P < .001) to initiate or intensify statins or antihypertensive medication. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not pay for CVD risk reduction for medium-risk enrollees, but initiation or intensification rates for these enrollees were also higher in the intervention vs control groups (12 668 [27.9%] vs 7544 [24.8%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3; P < .001). Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately 1 year after enrollment, LDL cholesterol level was slightly lower in the intervention vs control groups (mean [SD], 89 [31.8] vs 91 [32.1] mg/dL; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.8; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6; P = .002), as was systolic blood pressure (mean [SD], 133 [15.7] vs 135 [16.4] mm Hg; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.6; P = .003).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, a pay-for-performance model led to modest increases in the use of CVD medications in a range of organizations, despite high medication use at baseline.

Project description:Background The failure of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor torcetrapib was associated with an off-target increase in plasma aldosterone. We sought to evaluate the impact of evacetrapib on plasma aldosterone level and determine the association between plasma aldosterone level and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial. Methods and Results We included all patients with a plasma aldosterone level (N=1624) and determined the impact of evacetrapib exposure compared with placebo on plasma aldosterone levels after 12 months of treatment. Using baseline and postexposure aldosterone levels, hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, hospitalization for unstable angina, and revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline and percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were calculated. The average age was 65.2 years, 75.7% were men, 93.7% were hypertensive, 73.3% were diabetic, and 57.6% had a prior myocardial infarction. Baseline plasma aldosterone level (85.2 [43, 150] versus 86.8 [43, 155] pmol/L; P=0.81) and follow-up percentage change (13.6% [-29, 88] versus 17.9% [-24, 87]; P=0.23) were similar between those who received evacetrapib and placebo. During median follow-up of 28 months, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 263 patients (16.2%). The hazard ratios for increasing quartile of baseline or percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow-up were not significant for major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings remained consistent when adjusting for significant characteristics. Conclusions Exposure to evacetrapib did not result in significant change in plasma aldosterone levels compared with placebo. Among patients with stable high-risk vascular disease, plasma aldosterone levels were not a predictor for future cardiovascular events. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Project description:ImportanceThe 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Multisociety Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol identified patients with recent (past 12 months) myocardial infarction (MI) as very high risk, in whom a PCSK9 inhibitor is reasonable to add to maximally tolerated statin combined with ezetimibe if their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level is 70 mg/dL or greater or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level is 100 mg/dL or greater.ObjectiveTo examine the clinical efficacy of evolocumab in patients with recent MI.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a prespecified secondary analysis of the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial, in which 27 564 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treated with a statin were randomized to evolocumab vs placebo. Patients with prior MI with a known date (n = 22 320) were stratified as having a recent MI (within 12 months of randomization) or a remote MI (more than 12 months prior to randomization). Per protocol, patients with MI within 4 weeks prior to randomization were excluded from the FOURIER trial. Data were collected from February 2013 to November 2016, and data were analyzed from May 2019 to February 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary composite end point was cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. The key secondary composite end point was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke.ResultsOf 22 320 included patients, 17 516 (78.5%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 62.2 (9.0) years. Compared with 16 609 patients with a remote MI, 5711 patients with a recent MI were younger and more likely to be treated with high-intensity statin (77.3% [4415] vs 69.3% [11 506]). In the placebo arm, the 3-year Kaplan-Meier rate for the primary end point was 17.2% in patients with recent MI compared with 14.4% in those with remote MI (adjusted HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64; P < .001). Similarly, the 3-year Kaplan-Meier rates for the key secondary end point was also higher in those with recent MI (10.9% vs 9.5%; adjusted HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.69; P < .001). In patients with a recent MI, evolocumab reduced the risk of the primary and key secondary end points by 19% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93) and 25% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.91), respectively. In patients with a remote MI, evolocumab reduced the risk of the primary and key secondary end points by 8% (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.01; P for interaction = .13) and 15% (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.96; P for interaction = .24), respectively. Given the higher event rates in patients with a recent MI, the absolute risk reductions over 3 years with evolocumab were 3.7% in those with recent MI vs 1.1% in those with remote MI for the primary end point and 3.2% vs 1.3%, respectively, for the key secondary end point.Conclusions and relevancePatients with a recent MI were at higher risk of cardiovascular events and tended to experience greater absolute risk reductions with evolocumab than those with remote MIs. These findings support the concept in US and European guidelines to aggressively lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in very high-risk patients, such as those with a recent MI.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01764633.

Project description:Background Conventional "low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)" assays measure cholesterol content in both low-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particles. To clarify the consequences of this methodological limitation for clinical care, our study aimed to compare associations of "LDL-C" and corrected LDL-C with risk of cardiovascular disease and to assess the impact of this correction on the classification of patients into guideline-recommended LDL-C categories. Methods and Results Lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was estimated as 30% of lipoprotein(a) mass and subtracted from "LDL-C" to obtain corrected LDL-C values (LDL-Ccorr30). Hazard ratios for cardiovascular disease (defined as coronary heart disease, stroke, or coronary revascularization) were quantified by individual-patient-data meta-analysis of 5 statin landmark trials from the Lipoprotein(a) Studies Collaboration (18 043 patients; 5390 events; 4.7 years median follow-up). When comparing top versus bottom quartiles, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease was significant for "LDL-C" (1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31; P=0.005) but not for LDL-Ccorr30 (1.07; 95% CI, 0.93-1.22; P=0.362). In a routine laboratory database involving 531 144 patients, reclassification of patients across guideline-recommended LDL-C categories when using LDL-Ccorr30 was assessed. In "LDL-C" categories of 70 to <100, 100 to <130, 130 to <190, and ?190 mg/dL, significant proportions (95% CI) of participants were reassigned to lower LDL-C categories when LDL-Ccorr30 was used: 30.2% (30.0%-30.4%), 35.1% (34.9%-35.4%), 32.9% (32.6%-33.1%), and 41.1% (40.0%-42.2%), respectively. Conclusions "LDL-C" was associated with incident cardiovascular disease only when lipoprotein(a) cholesterol content was included in its measurement. Refinement in techniques to accurately measure LDL-C, particularly in patients with elevated lipoprotein(a) levels, is warranted to assign risk to the responsible lipoproteins.