Non-statin lipid-lowering therapy over time in very-high-risk patients: effectiveness of fixed-dose statin/ezetimibe compared to separate pill combination on LDL-C.

BACKGROUND: Many patients at very-high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk do not reach guideline-recommended targets for LDL-C. There is a lack of data on real-world use of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies (LLT) and little is known on the effectiveness of fixed-dose combinations (FDC). We therefore studied prescription trends in oral non-statin LLT and their effects on LDL-C. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of electronic medical records of outpatients at very-high cardiovascular risk treated by general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists, and prescribed LLT in Germany between 2013 and 2018. RESULTS: Data from 311,242 patients were analysed. Prescriptions for high-potency statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) increased from 10.4% and 25.8% of patients treated by GPs and cardiologists, respectively, in 2013, to 34.7% and 58.3% in 2018. Prescription for non-statin LLT remained stable throughout the period and low especially for GPs. Ezetimibe was the most prescribed non-statin LLT in 2018 (GPs, 76.1%; cardiologists, 92.8%). Addition of ezetimibe in patients already prescribed a statin reduced LDL-C by an additional 23.8% (32.3 ± 38.4 mg/dL), with a greater reduction with FDC [reduction 28.4% (40.0 ± 39.1 mg/dL)] as compared to separate pills [19.4% (27.5 ± 33.8 mg/dL)]; p < 0.0001. However, only a small proportion of patients reached the recommended LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL (31.5% with FDC and 21.0% with separate pills). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription for high-potency statins increased over time. Non-statin LLT were infrequently prescribed by GPs. The reduction in LDL-C when statin and ezetimibe were prescribed in combination was considerably larger for FDC; however, a large proportion of patients still remained with uncontrolled LDL-C levels.

Treatment patterns and persistence rates with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for diabetic macular oedema in the UK: A real-world study.

INTRODUCTION: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factors (anti-VEGFs) are considered standard of care therapy for diabetic macular oedema (DME). This study examined treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with DME treated with anti-VEGF therapy. METHODS: Using anonymized electronic medical record data collected from three UK sites, this retrospective cohort study assessed rates of anti-VEGF intravitreal injections in adults with treatment-naïve DME who received their first treatment between 1 September 2010 and 31 July 2018. The proportion of patients with at least one interval of at least 12 weeks between injections; the distribution of injection intervals; the discontinuation rates; and the number of anti-VEGF injection-, injection-free- and total visits were assessed during the first and second years of treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 1606 patient eyes with DME were included, with no minimum follow-up. During the first and second year of treatment, 63.2% and 73.1% of eyes had at least one anti-VEGF injection interval of at least 12 weeks, respectively. In the first and second years of treatment, the mean (standard deviation) numbers of injections were 7.7 (1.9) and 5.6 (2.2), with 14.2 (5.7) and 13.4 (6.4) total clinic visits, and 6.6 (5.0) and 7.8 (5.8) injection-free visits, respectively. In total, 27.8% of patient eyes discontinued treatment during the first 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The high number of clinic visits and high discontinuation rates demonstrate a significant unmet need for a treatment to enable sustainable extended injection intervals, while maintaining visual acuity. This could improve patient adherence and health-related quality of life for patients with DME.

Global variation of risk thresholds for initiating statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a benefit-harm balance modelling study.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that the 10-year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk threshold to initiate statins for primary prevention depends on the baseline CVD risk, age, sex, and the incidence of statin-related harm outcome and competing risk for non-CVD death. As these factors appear to vary across countries, we aimed in this study to determine country-specific thresholds and provide guidelines a quantitative benefit-harm assessment method for local adaptation. METHODS: For each of the 186 countries included, we replicated the benefit-harm balance analysis using an exponential model to determine the thresholds to initiate statin use for populations aged 40 to 75 years, with no history of CVD. The analyses took data inputs from a priori studies, including statin effect estimates (network meta-analysis), patient preferences (survey), and baseline incidence of harm outcomes and competing risk for non-CVD (global burden of disease study). We estimated the risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins were more likely to outweigh the harms using a stochastic approach to account for statistical uncertainty of the input parameters. RESULTS: The 5th and 95th percentiles of the 10-year risk thresholds above which the benefits of statins outweigh the harms across 186 countries ranged between 14 and 20% in men and 19-24% in women, depending on age (i.e., 90% of the country-specific thresholds were in the ranges stated). The median risk thresholds varied from 14 to 18.5% in men and 19 to 22% in women. The between-country variability of the thresholds was slightly attenuated when further adjusted for age resulting, for example, in a 5th and 95th percentiles of 14-16% for ages 40-44 years and 17-21% for ages 70-74 years in men. Some countries, especially the islands of the Western Pacific Region, had higher thresholds to achieve net benefit of statins at 25-36% 10-year CVD risks. CONCLUSIONS: This extensive benefit-harm analysis modeling shows that a single CVD risk threshold, irrespective of age, sex and country, is not appropriate to initiate statin use globally. Instead, countries need to carefully determine thresholds, considering the national or subnational contexts, to optimize benefits of statins while minimizing related harms and economic burden.