Treatment effect of alirocumab according to age group, smoking status, and hypertension: Pooled analysis from 10 randomized ODYSSEY studies.

BACKGROUND: Age, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension are major risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether the effects of alirocumab on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) differed according to age, hypertension, or smoking status. METHODS: Data were pooled from 10 Phase 3 ODYSSEY randomized trials (24-104 weeks' duration) in 4983 people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or non-familial hypercholesterolemia (3188 on alirocumab, 1795 on control [620 on ezetimibe and 1175 on placebo]). Most participants received concomitant maximum tolerated statin therapy. In 8 trials, the alirocumab dose was increased from 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) to 150 mg Q2W at Week 12 if predefined risk-based LDL-C goals were not achieved at Week 8 (≥70 mg/dL in very high cardiovascular risk; ≥100 mg/dL in moderate or high cardiovascular risk). Two trials compared alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs placebo. The efficacy and safety of alirocumab were assessed post hoc in subgroups stratified by age (<65, ≥65 to <75, ≥75 years) and baseline hypertension or smoking status. RESULTS: Alirocumab reduced LDL-C by 23.7% (75/150 mg vs ezetimibe + statin) to 65.4% (150 mg vs placebo + statin) from baseline to Week 24 vs control. Subgroup analyses confirmed no significant interactions in response to alirocumab between age group, hypertension, or smoking status. Overall rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between alirocumab and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis from 10 trials, alirocumab led to substantial LDL-C reductions vs control in every age group and regardless of hypertension or smoking status. Alirocumab was well tolerated in all subgroups.

Associations between lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events in very high-risk patients: Pooled analysis of nine ODYSSEY trials of alirocumab versus control.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Subgroups with comorbidities that increase cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD) or polyvascular disease (PoVD), may derive greater absolute benefit from addition of non-statin therapies. We assessed the relationship between lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk reduction during alirocumab phase III ODYSSEY trials among these subgroups. METHODS: Patient data were pooled from nine trials comparing alirocumab with control (placebo/ezetimibe), predominantly on background maximally tolerated statin. Patients with baseline ASCVD were stratified into subgroups with DM, CKD or PoVD, or without comorbidities, and between-group relative and absolute benefits were compared. RESULTS: Among 3505 patients with ASCVD, 1573 had no comorbidities, 981 had DM, 660 had CKD and 943 had PoVD, with overlap between comorbidities; mean baseline LDL-C levels were 119 (ASCVD overall), 123, 117, 114 and 113 mg/dL, respectively. Overall, each 39 mg/dL lower on-study LDL-C was associated with a 25% lower MACE risk, hazard ratio 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.90, p = 0.0023), with a similar lower risk observed in each very high-risk subgroup (DM, CKD or PoVD; 30-35%) but not in the subgroup without these comorbidities (9%). Absolute benefits were greater for very high-risk subgroups; lowering LDL-C from 120 to 40 mg/dL would result in 2.76-4.35 fewer MACE/100 patient-years versus 0.3 for no comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ASCVD and mean baseline LDL-C >100 mg/dL, patients with DM, CKD or PoVD appeared to derive greater absolute cardiovascular benefits from further LDL-C reduction than those without.

Patient-Reported Reasons for Declining or Discontinuing Statin Therapy: Insights From the PALM Registry.

Background Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient-reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation. Methods and Results This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin. Conclusions More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered.

Association of Clinician Knowledge and Statin Beliefs With Statin Therapy Use and Lipid Levels (A Survey of US Practice in the PALM Registry).

Guideline implementation requires clinician knowledge but may be influenced by pre-existing beliefs and biases. We assessed the association of these clinician factors with lipid management following the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines. In the PALM registry, 774 clinicians completed a survey to assess their knowledge of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, belief in statin benefit, and statin safety concerns. The association of these factors with statin use, statin dosing, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed in the 6,839 patients treated by these clinicians between May and November 2015. Overall, 63.9% of clinicians responded to at least 3 out of 4 hypothetical scenarios in concordance with guideline recommendations (good tested knowledge), 88.4% reported belief in statin benefit, and 15.4% raised concerns about statin safety. Belief in statin benefit was more prevalent among cardiologists, who represented 48.8% of the clinicians surveyed, and concerns regarding statin safety were higher among noncardiologists and clinicians in an academic setting. Guideline knowledge was not associated with a difference in statin use (74.1% vs 73.8%, p = 0.84) and achievement of LDL-C level <100 mg/dl (54.7% vs 52.4%, p = 0.07). However, patients treated by clinicians who reported belief in statin benefit were more likely to receive guideline-recommended statin intensity (41.9% vs 36.9%, p = 0.03), whereas patients treated by clinicians expressing statin safety concerns were less likely receive statins of at least guideline-recommended intensity (36.8% vs 42.5%, p = 0.001) and to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dl (44.1% vs 56.1%, p <0.001); the latter persisted after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.89). In conclusion, clinician beliefs regarding benefits and risks of statins were significantly associated with guideline adherence and patients' achieved LDL-C levels, whereas clinician knowledge of guideline recommendations was not.

Lower On-Treatment Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Women and Men: Pooled Analysis of 10 ODYSSEY Phase 3 Alirocumab Trials.

Background In statin trials, men and women derived similar relative risk reductions in cardiovascular events per 39 mg/ dL low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL -C) reduction. We explored whether lower LDL -C levels and greater LDL -C percentage reductions than those achieved with statins are associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular event ( MACE ) rates in women as well as men. Methods and Results Data pooled from 10 phase 3 ODYSSEY randomized trials (n=4983) comparing alirocumab with control (placebo/ezetimibe) were assessed for association between 39 mg/dL lower on-treatment LDL -C and percentage LDL -C change from baseline, and MACE risk by sex, using multivariable Cox regression. Mean baseline LDL -C was 135 mg/dL (women) and 121 mg/dL (men). Average on-treatment LDL -C levels with alirocumab, ezetimibe, and placebo were 71, 114, and 134 mg/dL, respectively, in women (n=1882) and 52, 93, and 122 mg/dL, respectively, in men (n=3090). Overall, 36.5% and 58.7% of women and men, respectively, achieved on-treatment LDL -C <50 mg/dL. Each 39 mg/dL lower LDL -C was associated with a 33% and 22% lower risk of MACE in women ( P=0.0209) and men ( P=0.0307), respectively, with no significant between-sex difference ( P for heterogeneity=0.4597). Results were similar when analyzed per 50% LDL -C reduction, 24% ( P=0.1094) and 29% ( P=0.0125) lower MACE risk in women and men, respectively ( P for heterogeneity=0.7499). Alirocumab was generally well tolerated in both sexes. Conclusions The present analysis reinforces the notion that both sexes derive a similar cardiovascular benefit from LDL -C lowering. Although women had slightly higher on-treatment LDL -C than men, both sexes showed a similar lower MACE risk with lower LDL -C.

Measurement of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels in Primary and Secondary Prevention Patients: Insights From the PALM Registry.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL -C) to identify untreated patients with LDL -C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid-lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL -C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL -C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart-documented LDL -C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non-college graduates (all P<0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P=0.0034), a high-intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P=0.016), nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P=0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL -C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P<0.0001) than patients with prior LDL -C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL -C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL -C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL -C testing is associated with higher-intensity lipid-lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL -C levels.

Does clinician-reported lipid guideline adoption translate to guideline-adherent care? An evaluation of the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) cholesterol guideline recommends statin treatment based on patients' predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Whether clinician-reported guideline adoption translates to implementation into practice is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare clinician lipid management in hypothetical scenarios versus observed practice. METHODS: The PALM Registry asked 774 clinicians how they would treat 4 hypothetical scenarios of primary prevention patients with: (1) diabetes; (2) high 10-year ASCVD risk (≥7.5%) with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; ≥130 mg/dL); (3) low 10-year ASCVD risk (<7.5%) with high LDL-C (130-189 mg/dL); or (4) primary and secondary prevention patients with persistently elevated LDL-C (≥130 mg/dL) despite high-intensity statin use. We assessed agreement between clinician survey responses and observed practice. RESULTS: In primary prevention scenarios, 85% of clinicians reported they would prescribe a statin to a diabetic patient and 93% to a high-risk/high LDL-C patient (both indicated by guidelines), while 40% would prescribe statins to a low-risk/high LDL-C patient. In clinical practice, statin prescription rates were 68% for diabetic patients, 40% for high-risk/high LDL-C patients, and 50% for low-risk/high LDL-C patients. Agreement between hypothetical and observed practice was 64%, 39%, and 52% for patients with diabetes, high-risk/high LDL-C, and low-risk/high LDL-C, respectively. Among patients with persistently high LDL-C despite high-intensity statin treatment, 55% of providers reported they would add a non-statin lipid-lowering medication, while only 22% of patients were so treated. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of clinicians report adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline recommendations, observed lipid management decisions in practice are frequently discordant.

Association of Patient Perceptions of Cardiovascular Risk and Beliefs on Statin Drugs With Racial Differences in Statin Use: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry.

Importance: African American individuals face higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than white individuals; reasons for these differences, including potential differences in patient beliefs regarding preventive care, remain unknown. Objective: To evaluate differences in statin use between white and African American patients and identify the potential causes for any observed differences. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the 2015 Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry data, we compared statin use and dosing between African American and white outpatient adults who were potentially eligible for primary or secondary prevention statins. A total of 138 US community health care practices contributed to the data. Data analysis was conducted from March 2017 to May 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were use and dosing of statin therapy according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline by African American or white race. Secondary outcomes included lipid levels and patient-reported beliefs. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between race and statin undertreatment, a category combining people who were not taking a statin or those taking a dose intensity lower than recommended. Results: A total of 5689 patients (806 [14.2%] African American) in the PALM registry were eligible for statin therapy. African American individuals were less likely than white individuals to be treated with a statin (570/807 [70.6%] vs 3654/4883 [74.8%]; P = .02). Among those treated, African American patients were less likely than white patients to receive a statin at guideline-recommended intensity (269 [33.3%] vs 2145 [43.9%], respectively; P < .001; relative risk, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.15]; P = .05, after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors). The median (interquartile range) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of patients receiving treatment were higher among African American than white individuals (97.0 [76.0-121.0] mg/dL vs 85.0 [68.0-105.0] mg/dL; P < .001). African American individuals were less likely than white individuals to believe statins were safe (292 [36.2%] vs 2800 [57.3%]; P < .001) or effective (564 [70.0%] vs 3635 [74.4%]; P = .008) and were less likely to trust their clinician (663 [82.3%] vs 4579 [93.8%]; P < .001). Group differences in statin undertreatment were not significant after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and clinician factors, socioeconomic status, and patient beliefs (final adjusted relative risk, 1.03 [95% CI 0.96-1.11]; P = .35). Conclusions and Relevance: African American individuals were less likely to receive guideline-recommended statin therapy. Demographic, clinical, socioeconomic, belief-related, and clinician differences contributed to observed differences and represent potential targets for intervention.

Statin Use and Adverse Effects Among Adults >75 Years of Age: Insights From the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline-recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were >75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high-dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those >75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old (P=0.83); high-dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups (P=0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [P=0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.01 [P=0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high-intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [P<0.0001]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.65 [P=0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P=0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged >75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high-intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adults.

Lipid management in contemporary community practice: Results from the Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry.

BACKGROUND: The latest cholesterol guidelines have shifted focus from achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets toward statin use and intensity guided by atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. METHODS: Statin use and intensity were evaluated in 5,905 statin-eligible primary or secondary prevention patients from 138 PALM Registry practices. RESULTS: Overall, 74.7% of eligible adults were on statins; only 42.4% were on guideline-recommended intensity. Relative to primary prevention patients, ASCVD patients were more likely to be on a statin (83.6% vs 63.4%, P<.0001) and guideline-recommended intensity (47.3% vs 36.0%, P<.0001). Men were more likely than women to be prescribed recommended intensity for primary (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.49-2.34) and secondary (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.26-1.70) prevention. In primary prevention, increasing age, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and lower 10-year ASCVD risk were associated with increased odds of receiving recommended intensity. Among ASCVD patients, those with coronary artery disease were more likely to be on recommended intensity than cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.41-2.09), as were those seen by cardiologists (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83). Median LDL-C levels were highest among patients not on statins (124.0 mg/dL) and slightly higher among those on lower-than-recommended intensity compared with recommended-therapy recipients (88.0 and 84.0 mg/dL, respectively; P≤.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In routine contemporary practice, 1 in 4 guideline-eligible patients was not on a statin; less than half were on the recommended statin intensity. Untreated and undertreated patients had significantly higher LDL-C levels than those receiving guideline-directed statin treatment.

Efficacy of alirocumab according to background statin type and dose: pooled analysis of 8 ODYSSEY Phase 3 clinical trials.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reductions with the PCSK9 monoclonal antibody alirocumab may be affected by background statin dose due to increased PCSK9 levels with higher statin doses. Data from 8 Phase 3 trials conducted with background statin (n = 4629) were pooled by alirocumab dose (75 or 150 mg every 2 weeks) and control (placebo/ezetimibe), and analyzed by background statin type/dose. Overall, 58.4% received high-dose statins (atorvastatin 40-80 mg, rosuvastatin 20-40 mg, simvastatin 80 mg), 28.6% moderate-dose statins (atorvastatin 20-<40 mg, rosuvastatin 10-<20 mg, simvastatin 40-<80 mg), and 12.9% low-dose statins (atorvastatin <20 mg, rosuvastatin <10 mg, simvastatin <40 mg). Mean baseline PCSK9 levels were higher with high versus moderate and low statin doses (318.5 vs 280.6 ng/mL). Baseline LDL-C levels were similar across pools, regardless of statin intensity. No associations were observed between statin type/dose and LDL-C % change from baseline or % of patients achieving LDL-C goals at Week 24 for alirocumab versus control (interaction P-values non-significant). Incidence of adverse events was similar for alirocumab versus control, except for a higher rate of injection-site reactions with alirocumab. In summary, alirocumab provided consistent LDL-C reductions and was generally well tolerated independent of background statin type/dose.

Effect of alirocumab dose increase on LDL lowering and lipid goal attainment in patients with dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to report the dose response in ODYSSEY phase 3 clinical trials of proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 inhibition with alirocumab in patients not at prespecified lipid goals who received a per-protocol dose increase from 75 every 2 weeks (Q2W) to 150 mg Q2W. METHODS: Patients (n=2181) receiving statins were enrolled in six phase 3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trials (24-104 weeks): alirocumab versus placebo or ezetimibe 10 mg/day. The 75 mg subcutaneous Q2W dose was increased to 150 mg at week 12 if week 8 LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) was greater than or equal to 70 mg/dl (>100 mg/dl in OPTIONS studies for patients without previous coronary heart disease, but with other risk factors). LDL-C percentage reductions from baseline (on-treatment data, n=1291) were compared at week 12 versus week 24. RESULTS: Most patients (n=951; 73.7%) with 75 mg Q2W dose plus background statin achieved LDL-C less than 70 or less than 100 mg/dl at week 8. In 340 (26.3%) patients, alirocumab dose was increased to 150 mg Q2W at week 12, and 60.9% of these patients achieved LDL-C goals at week 24, with an additional 14.2% reduction in LDL-C from week 12 to week 24. Adverse event rates were comparable in patients with versus without a dose increase (72.4 vs. 71.8% in placebo-controlled trials; 67.0 vs. 67.6% in ezetimibe-controlled trials). CONCLUSION: Most patients achieved LDL-C goals with alirocumab 75 mg Q2W plus statins. Of those (26.3%) receiving a dose increase, 60.9% achieved LDL-C goals at week 24 with an additional 14.2% reduction in LDL-C.

Design and rationale for the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in diagnosis and treatment, the prevalence of hyperlipidemia among adults in the United States remains high. Data are limited on treatment patterns and patient perceptions of cardiovascular disease risk since the release of new lipid guidelines. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the PALM registry are to assess contemporary patterns of lipid-lowering therapy use among adults receiving care in a nationally representative cohort of community clinics, determine consistency of treatment with varying lipid guidelines, identify factors affecting use of lipid-lowering therapy including patient-reported statin intolerance, and assess patient and provider knowledge of cardiovascular risk reduction goals. STUDY DESIGN: The PALM registry will enroll 7,500 patients likely to be considered for lipid-lowering therapy from 175 cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices across the United States. In this cross-sectional, observational registry, a novel tablet-based platform will be used to collect patient-reported knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding cardiovascular risk reduction and lipid management. Chart abstraction and core laboratory lipid levels will describe current lipid management. Provider surveys will assess perception of current lipid-lowering goals and barriers to optimal cardiovascular risk reduction. CONCLUSION: The PALM registry will allow for better understanding of current practice patterns, patient experiences, and patient and provider attitudes toward cholesterol management for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. These data can be used to better understand gaps in care and design targeted interventions to improve uptake of lipid-lowering therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of LMI1195: first-in-human study of a novel 18F-labeled tracer for imaging myocardial innervation.

UNLABELLED: A novel (18)F-labeled ligand for the norepinephrine transporter (N-[3-bromo-4-(3-(18)F-fluoro-propoxy)-benzyl]-guanidine [LMI1195]) is in clinical development for mapping cardiac nerve terminals in vivo using PET. Human safety, whole-organ biodistribution, and radiation dosimetry of LMI1195 were evaluated in a phase 1 clinical trial. METHODS: Twelve healthy subjects at 3 clinical sites were injected intravenously with 150-250 MBq of LMI1195. Dynamic PET images were obtained over the heart for 10 min, followed by sequential whole-body images for approximately 5 h. Blood samples were obtained, and heart rate, electrocardiogram, and blood pressure were monitored before and during imaging. Residence times were determined from multiexponential regression of organ region-of-interest data normalized by administered activity (AA). Radiation dose estimates were calculated using OLINDA/EXM. Myocardial, lung, liver, and blood-pool standardized uptake values were determined at different time intervals. RESULTS: No adverse events due to LMI1195 were seen. Blood radioactivity cleared quickly, whereas myocardial uptake remained stable and uniform throughout the heart over 4 h. Liver and lung activity cleared relatively rapidly, providing favorable target-to-background ratios for cardiac imaging. The urinary bladder demonstrated the largest peak uptake (18.3% AA), followed by the liver (15.5% AA). The mean effective dose was 0.026 ± 0.0012 mSv/MBq. Approximately 1.6% AA was seen in the myocardium initially, remaining above 1.5% AA (decay-corrected) through 4 h after injection. The myocardium-to-liver ratio was approximately unity initially, increasing to more than 2 at 4 h. CONCLUSION: These preliminary data suggest that LMI1195 is well tolerated and yields a radiation dose comparable to that of other commonly used PET radiopharmaceuticals. The kinetics of myocardial and adjacent organ activity suggest that cardiac imaging should be possible with acceptable patient radiation dose.

The effect of Definity on systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics in patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pulmonary and systemic hemodynamic effects of Definity in patients with normal as well as those with elevated pulmonary artery pressure at baseline. Secondary objectives of the study were to evaluate safety and determine whether any potential immunologic reactions develop after Definity administration. METHODS: Patients with normal and elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure undergoing right-heart catheterization received Definity (10 µL/kg) as a slow bolus over 30 to 60 sec. Multiple sequential measurements of right atrial pressure, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, cardiac output, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were made before and after Definity administration. Vital signs, electrocardiograms, and blood samples were taken at multiple time points. Patients were followed for the development of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients (16 with elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure > 35 mm Hg) were enrolled. No significant changes in any pulmonary or systemic hemodynamic parameters, vital sign values, electrocardiographic data, or laboratory variables were found for data obtained before versus after receipt of Definity. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of Definity at the approved dosage does not change pulmonary or systemic hemodynamics in control patients or those with mild to moderate pulmonary hypertension. No significant changes were noted in a wide array of clinical and laboratory safety assessments after patients were exposed to Definity.

Women and heart disease.

In the United States heart disease causes more than one-third of all deaths and most of these occur in women, not men, although women and health care professionals alike continue to view death from heart disease as a threat primarily to middle-aged men. The disparity between genders in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be the result of significant differences in both cardiovascular risk factors and presentation between men and women. This article reviews recent data regarding unique sex-specific characteristics of both risk for, and presentation of, CVD in women.

Hyperlipidemia in older adults.

Older adults carry the highest risk for coronary artery disease and the highest burden of atherosclerosis. Although most clinical trials of cholesterol-lowering therapy have not specifically targeted older persons, growing evidence supports treatment of elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in older patients, especially those at high risk for coronary events. The decision to treat a high or high-normal cholesterol level in an elderly individual must be individualized based on chronologic and physiologic age. This article summarizes current data on lipid-lowering therapy in older adults and the management of hyperlipidemia in elderly patients.

Peripheral arterial disease: current perspectives and new trends in management.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is defined as an arterial brachial index (ABI) of < or =0.90 in the lower extremities and results from a narrowing of the arteries as a result of progressive atherosclerosis. PAD affects 12-20% of Americans aged 65 years or older; however, most are asymptomatic and many do not seek treatment. Improved awareness and education in both the general population and among health care providers about these modifiable risk factors has the potential to improve general health and decrease morbidity and mortality secondary to atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Improvements in time to reperfusion: do women have an advantage?

Several studies demonstrate that women have greater delays in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To improve care for women, the Women's Heart Advantage at Yale-New Haven Hospital (YNHH) developed patient- and physician-level interventions to improve knowledge about chest pain syndromes to promote early presentation, diagnosis, and timely management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in women presenting to the emergency department. Specifically, we analyzed chart-abstracted data from all patients undergoing PCI for STEMI at YNHH from January 2004 to July 2007 and assessed quality of care for STEMI and trends in time to reperfusion. Women's Heart Advantage and YNHH orchestrated several clinical initiatives and instituted hospital-wide systems to improve STEMI care over this period. Both men and women had declines in time to reperfusion (91-73 minutes for men and 120-74 minutes for women). Notably, improvements in time to reperfusion were more substantial in women; the greatest improvement was reduction in door-to-table time (50% decrease in women vs. 19% decrease in men [P < 0.05]). In this single-site study of men and women undergoing primary PCI at a large, urban teaching hospital, where ongoing interventions to increase both patient and physician awareness regarding heart disease in women were initiated, time to reperfusion for women improved to a greater degree than in men. These results are encouraging, showing that significant improvements can be made over a relatively short time frame. It is hoped these reductions in time to reperfusion are associated with improved outcomes; however, further studies are needed to verify this potential benefit.