S-EPMC8495090 - Patient characteristics and acute cardiovascular event rates among patients with very high-risk and non-very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. - OmicsDI

Unknown

Dataset Information

Patient characteristics and acute cardiovascular event rates among patients with very high-risk and non-very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The risk for subsequent major cardiovascular (CV) events among patients with very high-risk (VHR) atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) remains to be fully elucidated.

Hypothesis

We assessed the characteristics and major CV event rates of patients with VHR versus non-VHR ASCVD in a real-world setting in the United States (US), hypothesizing that patients with VHR ASCVD would have higher CV event rates.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 01, 2011, to June 30, 2018, in the US using the Prognos LDL-C database linked to the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus® database supplemented with the IQVIA prescription claims (Dx/LRx) databases. Patients were ≥18 years old and had ≥2 non-ancillary medical claims in the linked databases at least 30 days apart. The study was conducted in 2 stages: (1) identification of patients with ASCVD who met the definition of VHR ASCVD and a matched cohort of non-VHR ASCVD patients using the incidence density sampling (IDS) approach; (2) estimation of the occurrence of major CV events.

Results

Among patients with ≥1 major ASCVD event (N=147,679), most qualified as VHR ASCVD (79.5%). There were 115,460 patients each in IDS-matched VHR and non-VHR ASCVD cohorts. The composite myocardial infarction/ischemic stroke event rates in the VHR and non-VHR ASCVD cohorts were 8.04 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.87-8.22) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) events per 100 patient-years, respectively, during the 1-year post-index period.

Conclusions

Most patients with ≥1 previous major ASCVD event treated in real-world US clinical practice qualified as VHR ASCVD. Patients with VHR ASCVD had much higher rates of major CV events versus non-VHR ASCVD patients.

SUBMITTER: Fonarow GC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8495090 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe 10-year risk of recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events in patients with established ASCVD can be estimated with the Secondary Manifestations of ARTerial disease (SMART) risk score, and may help refine clinical management. To broaden generalizability across regions, we updated the existing tool (SMART2 risk score) and recalibrated it with regional incidence rates and assessed its performance in external populations.Methods and resultsIndividuals with coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, or abdominal aortic aneurysms were included from the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-SMART cohort [n = 8355; 1706 ASCVD events during a median follow-up of 8.2 years (interquartile range 4.2-12.5)] to derive a 10-year risk prediction model for recurrent ASCVD events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular mortality) using a Fine and Gray competing risk-adjusted model. The model was recalibrated to four regions across Europe, and to Asia (excluding Japan), Japan, Australia, North America, and Latin America using contemporary cohort data from each target region. External validation used data from seven cohorts [Clinical Practice Research Datalink, SWEDEHEART, the international REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry, Estonian Biobank, Spanish Biomarkers in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Biomarkers in Acute Myocardial Infarction (BACS/BAMI), the Norwegian COgnitive Impairment After STroke, and Bialystok PLUS/Polaspire] and included 369 044 individuals with established ASCVD of whom 62 807 experienced an ASCVD event. C-statistics ranged from 0.605 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.547-0.664] in BACS/BAMI to 0.772 (95% CI 0.659-0.886) in REACH Europe high-risk region. The clinical utility of the model was demonstrated across a range of clinically relevant treatment thresholds for intensified treatment options.ConclusionThe SMART2 risk score provides an updated, validated tool for the prediction of recurrent ASCVD events in patients with established ASCVD across European and non-European populations. The use of this tool could allow for a more personalized approach to secondary prevention based upon quantitative rather than qualitative estimates of residual risk.

Project description:It is uncertain whether pharmacological reductions in very-low-density lipoproteins (VLDLs), and their component triglyceride and cholesterol could reduce residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events among individuals in whom low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been adequately lowered. We examined whether individuals with greater on-statin reductions in VLDL-related measures-beyond reductions in LDL-C-were at further reduced risk of ASCVD. In 9423 participants in the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention) trial (NCT00239681), at baseline and on statin we measured standard lipids, 400-MHz proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy-measured VLDL particle subclasses (small, medium, and large VLDL lipoprotein particle concentration), and total VLDL cholesterol mass. Compared with individuals allocated to placebo, we examined risk of incident ASCVD (N=211) among statin-allocated participants who achieved minimal (<median) or greater (≥median) marker reductions using adjusted Cox models. On-statin changes in VLDL-related markers were only modestly correlated (Spearman r≤0.29) with change in LDL-C. On-statin median LDL-C was 54 mg/dL and triglyceride was 101 mg/dL. Dose-response reductions in ASCVD risk were observed for greater reductions in LDL-C, VLDL cholesterol mass, and small VLDL lipoprotein particle concentration; the latter 2 remained significant after incremental adjustment for change in LDL-C (P≤0.006). Conversely, there was no further risk reduction with greater reductions in triglycerides or large/medium VLDL lipoprotein particle concentration. Pharmacological reduction in small, cholesterol-enriched, triglyceride-depleted VLDL was associated with reduction in ASCVD risk. Chemically measured triglycerides may not sufficiently capture risk related to VLDL pathways. These findings also support broader profiling of lipid and lipoprotein changes in response to statins as prognostic markers of individual benefit, supporting more precision-medicine, individualized approaches to cardiovascular risk reduction. URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00239681.

Project description:IntroductionIn a five-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) with stratified randomization across 54 sites, we encountered low primary outcome event proportions, resulting in multiple sites with zero events either overall or in one or more study arms. In this paper, we systematically evaluated different statistical methods of accounting for center in settings with low outcome event proportions.MethodsWe conducted a simulation study and a reanalysis of a completed RCT to compare five popular methods of estimating an odds ratio for multicenter trials with stratified randomization by center: (i) no center adjustment, (ii) random intercept model, (iii) Mantel-Haenszel model, (iv) generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure, and (v) GEE with small sample correction (GEE-small sample correction). We varied the number of total participants (200, 500, 1000, 5000), number of centers (5, 50, 100), control group outcome percentage (2%, 5%, 10%), true odds ratio (1, > 1), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.025, 0.075), and distribution of participants across the centers (balanced, skewed).ResultsMantel-Haenszel methods generally performed poorly in terms of power and bias and led to the exclusion of participants from the analysis because some centers had no events. Failure to account for center in the analysis generally led to lower power and type I error rates than other methods, particularly with ICC = 0.075. GEE had an inflated type I error rate except in some settings with a large number of centers. GEE-small sample correction maintained the type I error rate at the nominal level but suffered from reduced power and convergence issues in some settings when the number of centers was small. Random intercept models generally performed well in most scenarios, except with a low event rate (i.e., 2% scenario) and small total sample size (n ≤ 500), when all methods had issues.DiscussionRandom intercept models generally performed best across most scenarios. GEE-small sample correction performed well when the number of centers was large. We do not recommend the use of Mantel-Haenszel, GEE, or models that do not account for center. When the expected event rate is low, we suggest that the statistical analysis plan specify an alternative method in the case of non-convergence of the primary method.