Predicted impact of lipid lowering therapy on cardiovascular and economic outcomes of Swedish atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease guideline.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Journath G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5559790 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC8996051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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.ExposuresTreatment intensification strategies with LLT.Main outcomes and measuresUse of LLT among the population with ASCVD and distributions of LDL-C levels under various treatment intensification scenarios.ResultsInclusion 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 relevanceLarge 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.
| S-EPMC5710173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo examine direct and indirect costs, early retirement, cardiovascular events and mortality over 5 years in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and matched controls in Sweden.MethodsIndividuals aged ≥ 16 years living in Sweden on 01 January 2012 were identified in an existing database. Individuals with ASCVD were propensity score matched to controls without ASCVD by age, sex and educational status. We compared direct healthcare costs (inpatient, outpatient and drug costs), indirect costs (resulting from work absence) and the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and early retirement.ResultsAfter matching, there were 231,417 individuals in each cohort. Total mean per-person annual costs were over 2.5 times higher in the ASCVD group versus the controls (€6923 vs €2699). Indirect costs contributed to 60% and 67% of annual costs in the ASCVD and control groups, respectively. Inpatient costs accounted for ≥ 70% of direct healthcare costs. Cumulative total costs over the 5-year period were €32,011 in the ASCVD group and €12,931 in the controls. People with ASCVD were 3 times more likely to enter early retirement than controls (hazard ratio [HR] 3.02 [95% CI 2.76-3.31]) and approximately 2 times more likely to experience stroke (HR 1.83 [1.77-1.89]) or MI (HR 2.27 [2.20-2.34]).ConclusionASCVD is associated with both economic and clinical impacts. People with ASCVD incurred considerably higher costs than matched controls, with indirect costs resulting from work absence and inpatient admissions being major cost drivers, and were also more likely to experience additional ASCVD events.
| S-EPMC10540350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsWe evaluated the contemporary use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in Korean patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and identified factors associated with statin non-prescription.MethodsUsing the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment data, we identified LLT-naïve subjects newly diagnosed with ASCVD between 2011 and 2012, and followed up until 2015. LLT-naïve status was defined as no LLT prescription for 1 year before ASCVD diagnosis. ASCVD was defined as first hospitalization or emergency room visit for coronary artery disease (CAD), acute cerebrovascular disease (CVD), or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Statin intensity was defined per the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for cholesterol treatment.ResultsThe study enrolled 80,884 subjects newly diagnosed with ASCVD, of whom only 48,725 (60.2%) received LLT during the follow-up period. Statin, combination of statin and non-statin, and non-statin LLT were administered in 50.5%, 9.7%, and 0.1% of all subjects, respectively. Statins were prescribed to 80.4% of CAD patients but only to 50.2% and 46.8% of CVD and PAD patients. Statin-based LLT usually had moderate- (77.2%) or high-intensity (18.5%). Subjects not prescribed statins were younger or older (< 40 or ? 70 years), more commonly female, and more likely to have comorbidities. Statins were prescribed at the time of ASCVD diagnosis in 45.5% of all subjects, and in 53.0% within 90 days of diagnosis.ConclusionOnly 60% of LLT-naïve Korean patients newly diagnosed with ASCVD received statins. Statins were often prescribed in subjects with CAD but less commonly in those with CVD or PAD. Moderate-intensity statins were most frequently used.
| S-EPMC7214354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe evaluated the associations of cardiorespiratory fitness with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by levels of baseline-predicted ASCVD risk among adults with type 2 diabetes.MethodsWe analyzed data from 4203 adults with type 2 diabetes in the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) study. Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed using maximal exercise testing and categorized into low, moderate, and high; baseline-predicted. ASCVD risk was calculated using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equation. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for ASCVD events (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and stroke).ResultsOver a median of 9.6 years, there were 295 ASCVD events. The effect of fitness on outcomes was different across levels of 10-year predicted ASCVD risk (P for interaction < .001). Among participants with a baseline-predicted risk of 7.5% to 20%, the HR of low (vs high) fitness group was 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.35) for ASCVD events. Fitness was not significantly associated with ASCVD events in the groups with baseline-predicted risk <7.5% (HR 1.53; 95% CI, 0.49-4.76) or ≥20% (HR 1.40; 95% CI, 0.88-2.24). A similar pattern was observed for myocardial infarction and stroke separately.ConclusionsIn a large sample of type 2 diabetes individuals, the association of low fitness with incident ASCVD was modified by the baseline-predicted 10-year ASCVD risk. Our findings suggest the utility of assessing fitness in ASCVD risk stratification in type 2 diabetes, especially among those with intermediate predicted 10-year risk of ASCVD.
| S-EPMC8176653 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOral lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) is the standard of care for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, insufficient treatment intensity and poor adherence can lead to suboptimal treatment benefit, rendering patients at increased risk of CVD.AimsThe objective of this study was to evaluate trends in LLT intensity and adherence in Sweden over time, and their association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after recent myocardial infarction (MI), and also to assess the impact of transition from secondary to primary care on intensity and adherence.Methods and resultsThis retrospective observational cohort study used data from Swedish nationwide patient registers and included patients on LLT after an MI in the years 2010-2016 (n = 50,298; mean age, 68 years; 69% men). LLT intensity was evaluated over time (overall, for 2010-2013 and for 2014-2016) as the proportion of patients prescribed low-, moderate-, and high-intensity LLT. Adherence was assessed as the proportion of days covered. A combined measure of intensity and adherence was also considered. Differences in treatment patterns and MACE were assessed. Initiation of high-intensity LLT increased over the two time periods studied (2010-2013, 32%; 2014-2016, 91%). Adherence varied by LLT intensity and was highest in patients receiving high-intensity LLT (>80%), especially during the first time period. Little change in treatment intensity or the combined measure of intensity and adherence was observed after transition to primary care. There was a significant association between the combined measure of intensity and adherence and MACE reduction (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] per 10% increase in the combined measure: 0.84 [0.82-0.86]; P < 0.01).ConclusionThe proportion of post-MI patients with high LLT intensity and adherence has increased in recent years, with little change after transfer from specialist to primary care. The combination of LLT intensity and adherence is important for preventing future cardiovascular events.
| S-EPMC9171571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), especially those with recent (<?1 year) acute coronary syndrome (ACS), are at high risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. This risk can be reduced by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. A comprehensive meta-analysis on the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe is lacking. This study attempts to address this gap. METHODS:A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials evaluating the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe in the ASCVD population was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications from database inception to August 2018 and for conference abstracts from 2015 to August 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe in the ASCVD population and the recent ACS subgroup. RESULTS:In total, 12 studies were eligible for the meta-analyses. Treatment with combination ezetimibe plus statin therapy showed greater absolute LDL-C reduction than statin monotherapy (mean difference - 21.86 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 26.56 to - 17.17; p?<?0.0001) after 6 months of treatment (or at a timepoint closest to 6 months). Similarly, in patients with recent ACS, combination ezetimibe plus statin therapy was favorable compared with statin monotherapy (mean treatment difference - 19.19 mg/dL; 95% CI - 25.22 to - 13.16; p?<?0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Ezetimibe, when added to statin therapy, provided a modest additional reduction in LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. However, this may not be sufficient for some patients with ASCVD who have especially high LDL-C levels despite optimal statin therapy.
| S-EPMC7266788 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8855234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe effect of therapeutic lowering of apolipoprotein B (apoB) on mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events is uncertain. It is also unclear whether these potential effects vary by different lipid-lowering strategies.MethodsA total of 29 randomized controlled trials were selected using PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE through 2018. We selected trials of therapies which ultimately clear apolipoprotein B particles by upregulating low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDL-R) expression (statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, bile acid sequestrants) or therapies which reduce apolipoprotein B independent of LDL-R (cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, fibrates, niacin, omega-3 fatty acids) with sample size of ≥1000 patients and follow-up of ≥1 year. The meta-regression and meta-analyses were constructed using a random effects model.ResultsIn 332,912 patients, meta-regression analyses showed relative risks of 0.95 for all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval 0.92-0.99) and 0.93 (0.88-0.98) for cardiovascular mortality for every 10 mg/dL decrease in apolipoprotein B by all interventions combined. Reduction in all-cause mortality was limited to statins (0.92 (0.86-0.98)). For MACE, the relative risk per 10 mg/dL reduction in apolipoprotein B was 0.93 (0.90-0.97) for all therapies combined, with both statin (0.88 (0.83-0.93)) and non-statin therapies (0.96 (0.94-0.99)). which clear apolipoprotein B by upregulating LDL-R showing significant reductions; whereas interventions which lower apolipoprotein B independent of LDL-R did not demonstrate this effect (1.02 (0.81-1.30)).ConclusionWhile both statin and established non-statin therapies (PCSK9 inhibitor and ezetimibe) reduced cardiovascular risk per decrease in apolipoprotein B, interventions which reduce apolipoprotein B independently of LDL-R were not associated with cardiovascular benefit.
| S-EPMC7489462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The role of statins in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is unclear. This paper compares cardiovascular outcomes with pravastatin vs. usual care, stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR).Post-hoc analyses of a prospective randomized open-label clinical trial; 10,151 participants in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (lipid-lowering component) were randomized to pravastatin 40 mg/day or usual care. Mean follow-up was 4.8 years.Through Year 6, total cholesterol declined in pravastatin (-20.7%) and usualcare groups (-11.2%). Use of statin therapy in the pravastatin group was 89.8% (Year 2) and 87.0% (Year 6). Usual-care group statin use increased from 8.2% (Year 2) to 23.5% (Year 6). By primary intention-to-treat analyses, no significant differences were seen between groups for coronary heart disease (CHD), total mortality or combined cardiovascular disease; findings were consistent across eGFR strata. In exploratory "as-treated" analyses (patients actually using pravastatin vs. not using), pravastatin therapy was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.76 (0.68 - 0.85), p<0.001) and lover CHD (HR=0.84 (0.73-0.97), p=0.01), but not combined cardiovascular disease (HR=0.95 (0.88-1.04), p=0.30). Total cholesterol reduction of 10 mg/dl from baseline to Year 2 was associated with 5% lower CHD risk.In hypertensive patients with moderate dyslipidemia, pravastatin was not superior to usual care in preventing total mortality or CHD independent of baseline eGFR level. However, exploratory "as-treated" analyses suggest improved mortality and CHD risk in participants using pravastatin, and decreased CHD events associated with achieved reduction in total cholesterol. Potential benefit from statin therapy may depend on degree of reduction achieved in total and LDL-cholesterol and adherence to therapy.
| S-EPMC4504135 | biostudies-literature