Dataset Information

Determining propensity for sub-optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol response to statins and future risk of cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Variability in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) response to statins is underappreciated. We characterised patients by their statin response (SR), baseline risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 10-year CVD outcomes.

Methods and results

A multivariable model was developed using 183,213 United Kingdom (UK) patients without CVD to predict probability of sub-optimal SR, defined by guidelines as <40% reduction in LDL-C. We externally validated the model in a Hong Kong (HK) cohort (n = 170,904). Patients were stratified into four groups by predicted SR and 10-year CVD risk score: [SR1] optimal SR & low risk; [SR2] sub-optimal SR & low risk; [SR3] optimal SR & high risk; [SR4] sub-optimal SR & high risk; and 10-year hazard ratios (HR) determined for first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Our SR model included 12 characteristics, with an area under the curve of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.71; UK) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.67-0.68; HK). HRs for MACE in predicted sub-optimal SR with low CVD risk groups (SR2 to SR1) were 1.39 (95% CI 1.35-1.43, p<0.001; UK) and 1.14 (95% CI 1.11-1.17, p<0.001; HK). In both cohorts, patients with predicted sub-optimal SR with high CVD risk (SR4 to SR3) had elevated risk of MACE (UK HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.32-1.40, p<0.001: HK HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.21-1.28, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Patients with sub-optimal response to statins experienced significantly more MACE, regardless of baseline CVD risk. To enhance cholesterol management for primary prevention, statin response should be considered alongside risk assessment.

SUBMITTER: Weng SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8638964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an important modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It is unclear whether the percentage LDL-C lowering with pharmacotherapies differs on the basis of baseline LDL-C levels. To evaluate the association between baseline LDL-C levels and the percentage LDL-C reduction with a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor. This secondary exploratory study analyzed data from 3 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (Aggrastat to Zocor-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 21 [A to Z-TIMI 21], Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT], and Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk [FOURIER]) of lipid-lowering therapies (statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9 inhibitor) and included participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Analyses took place form April to October 2020. In A to Z-TIMI 21, 1:1 randomization to simvastatin, 40 mg, daily for 30 days followed by 80 mg daily thereafter vs placebo for 4 months followed by simvastatin, 20 mg, daily thereafter. In IMPROVE-IT, 1:1 randomization to ezetimibe, 10 mg, daily plus simvastatin, 40 mg, daily vs placebo plus simvastatin, 40 mg, daily. In FOURIER, 1:1 randomization to evolocumab, 140 mg, every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly vs matching placebo. The percentage LDL-C reduction at either 1 month (A to Z-TIMI 21, IMPROVE-IT) or 3 months (FOURIER) as a function of baseline LDL-C level. Data were modeled using a generalized linear regression model. A total of 3187 patients from A to Z-TIMI 21, 10 680 patients from IMPROVE-IT, and 25 847 patients from FOURIER were analyzed. There was a higher percentage reduction in LDL-C levels with evolocumab in patients with lower baseline LDL-C levels, ranging from 59.4% (95% CI, 59.1%-59.8%) in patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 130 mg/dL to 66.1% (95% CI, 65.6%-66.6%) in patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 70 mg/dL (P < .001). In contrast, across the same range of baseline LDL-C level, there was a more modest difference for simvastatin (44.6% [95% CI, 43.9%-45.2%] vs 47.8% [95% CI, 46.4%-49.2%]; P < .001) and minimal difference with ezetimibe (25.0% [95% CI, 23.3%-26.6%] vs 26.2% [95% CI, 24.2%-28.1%]; P = .007). The percentage LDL-C reduction with statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibition is not attenuated in patients starting with lower baseline LDL-C levels and is 6.6% greater for PCSK9 inhibition. These data are encouraging for the use of intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy even for patients with lower LDL-C levels.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is strongly emphasized. If the LDL-C goals are not achieved with statin therapy, combination with ezetimibe is recommended. Studies revealed a substantial gap between obtained LDL-C levels and LDL-C target in ASCVD patients. However, little is known about the achievement of LDL-lowering treatment targets in ASCVD patients receiving ezetimibe in addition to statins.Materials and methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study based on EHR data from the regional health information system of Yinzhou, an eastern coastal area of China. ASCVD Patients stratified as very high risk, taking both statin and ezetimibe for lipid control, and had at least one lipid test after ezetimibe initiation were included between January 2013 and July 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the LDL-C values and target value (1.8 mmol/L according to the Chinese guideline, 1.4 mmol/L according to the European guideline) achievements. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the influencing factors of target achievement rate.ResultsA total of 1,727 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 15.0 months. Taking 1.8 mmol/L as the target value, the achievement rates of LDL-C over the first 3 follow up years were 50.6, 31.3, and 30.3%, respectively. Taking 1.4 mmol/L as the target value, the achievement rates were 25.6, 15.5, and 16.5%, respectively. Multivariable analysis suggested that male patients (OR = 1.78, 95%CI: 1.27-2.49), combined use of atorvastatin or rosuvastatin with ezetimibe (vs other statins, OR = 4.64, 95% CI: 1.83-11.76), better medication adherence (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04) and smoking cessation (vs smoking, OR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.27-4.02) were associated with a higher achievement rate, while baseline LDL-C level (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.41-0.56) and treatment course of statin before ezetimibe (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98) were negatively associated with achievement rate.ConclusionLong-term follow-up data based on a Chinese regional database shows that in very high-risk ASCVD patients taking ezetimibe in addition to statins, achievement rate of LDL-lowering treatment targets is still low and far from satisfactory in real-world setting. More efforts are needed to achieve optimal LDL-C levels.

Project description:Background Epidemiological studies show that women are generally at lower risk for cardiovascular disease than men. Here, we investigated the sex-specific differential effect of genetically increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other lipid-associated diseases. Methods and Results This is a 2-sample Mendelian randomization study that uses individual participant data from 425 043 participants from the UK Biobank, including 229 279 female participants. An 80-variant LDL-C weighted genetic score was generated. Linear and logistic regression models with interactions were used to identify differences between sex-specific LDL-C effects on lipids, carotid-intima media thickness, and multiple cardiovascular outcomes such as CVD, ischemic heart disease, peripheral artery disease, heart failure, aortic valve disease, type 2 diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and aortic aneurysm and dissection. After correction for multiple testing, we observed that the genetically increased LDL-C effect on CVD events was sex specific: per SD genetically increased LDL-C, female participants had a higher LDL-C increase but an attenuated CVD risk increase compared with male participants (LDL-C: female participants 0.71 mmol/L, 95% CI, 0.70-0.72 and male participants 0.57 mmol/L, 95% CI, 0.56-0.59. P for interaction: 5.03×10-60; CVD: female participants: odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% CI 1.24-1.40 and male participants: OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.46-1.58. P for interaction: 9.88×10-5). We also observed attenuated risks for ischemic heart disease and (nominally for) heart failure in female participants, and genetically increased LDL-C results in higher risk for aortic valve disease in female participants compared with male participants. Genetically increased LDL-C was also associated with an attenuated carotid-intima media thickness increase in female participants. We did not observe other significant attenuations. Sensitivity analyses with an unweighted genetic score and sex-specific weighted genetic scores showed similar results. Conclusions We found that genetically increased LDL-C has a sex-specific differential effect on the risk for cardiovascular disease, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and aortic valve stenosis. Our observations provide evidence that LDL-C might be a less important determinant of CVD in women compared with men, suggesting that male patients might benefit more from LDL-C targeted therapies for CVD management than female patients and warranting investigations into the sex-specific relative contribution of risk factors for CVD.

Project description:Levels of LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol in the population are declining, and increasing attention is being focused on residual lipid-related pathways of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk beyond LDL cholesterol. Among individuals with low (<130 mg/dL) LDL cholesterol, we undertook detailed profiling of circulating atherogenic lipoproteins in relation to incident cardiovascular disease in 2 populations.We performed proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to quantify concentrations of LDL and VLDL (very low-density lipoprotein) particle subclasses in 11 984 JUPITER trial participants (NCT00239681). Adjusted Cox models examined cardiovascular disease risk associated with lipoprotein measures according to treatment allocation. Risk (adjusted hazard ratio [95%CI] per SD increment) among placebo-allocated participants was associated with total LDL particles (1.19 [1.02, 1.38]) and total VLDL particles (1.21 [1.04, 1.41]), as well as apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides, but not LDL-c. Rosuvastatin reduced LDL measures but had variable effects on triglyceride and VLDL measures. On-statin levels of the smallest VLDL particle subclass were associated with a 68% per-SD (adjusted hazard ratio 1.68 [1.28, 2.22]) increase in residual risk-this risk was related to VLDL cholesterol and not triglyceride or larger VLDL particles. There was evidence that residual risk prediction during statin therapy could be significantly improved through the inclusion of key VLDL measures (Harrell C-index 0.780 versus 0.712; P<0.0001). In an independent, prospective cohort of 4721 individuals referred for cardiac catheterization (CATHGEN), similar patterns of lipoprotein-related risk were observed.Atherogenic lipoprotein particle concentrations were associated with cardiovascular disease risk when LDL cholesterol was low. VLDL lipoproteins, particularly the smallest remnant subclass, may represent unused targets for risk prediction and potential therapeutic intervention for reducing residual risk.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00239681.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to 1 December 2021.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials comparing different types and intensities of statins, including placebo, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was changes in levels of non-HDL-C, calculated from measures of total cholesterol and HDL-C. Secondary outcomes were changes in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol, three point major cardiovascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death related to cardiovascular disease), and discontinuations because of adverse events. A bayesian network meta-analysis of statin intensity (low, moderate, or high) with random effects evaluated the treatment effect on non-HDL-C by mean differences and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analysis of patients at greater risk of major cardiovascular events was compared with patients at low or moderate risk. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework was applied to determine the certainty of evidence.ResultsIn 42 randomised controlled trials involving 20 193 adults, 11 698 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the greatest reductions in levels of non-HDL-C were seen with rosuvastatin at high (-2.31 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -3.39 to -1.21) and moderate (-2.27, -3.00 to -1.49) intensities, and simvastatin (-2.26, -2.99 to -1.51) and atorvastatin (-2.20, -2.69 to -1.70) at high intensity. Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C. In 4670 patients at greater risk of a major cardiovascular events, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (-1.98, -4.16 to 0.26, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 64%). Simvastatin (-1.93, -2.63 to -1.21) and rosuvastatin (-1.76, -2.37 to -1.15) at high intensity were the most effective treatment options for reducing LDL-C. Significant reductions in non-fatal myocardial infarction were found for atorvastatin at moderate intensity compared with placebo (relative risk=0.57, confidence interval 0.43 to 0.76, n=4 studies). No significant differences were found for discontinuations, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular deaths.ConclusionsThis network meta-analysis indicated that rosuvastatin, at moderate and high intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin, at high intensity doses, were most effective at moderately reducing levels of non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. Given the potential improvement in accuracy in predicting cardiovascular disease when reduction in levels of non-HDL-C is used as the primary target, these findings provide guidance on which statin types and intensities are most effective by reducing non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021258819.