Pooled Safety Analysis of Evolocumab in Over 6000 Patients From Double-Blind and Open-Label Extension Studies.

BACKGROUND: Evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9), markedly reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol across diverse patient populations. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and tolerability of evolocumab in a pooled safety analysis from phase 2 or 3 randomized and placebo or comparator-controlled trials (integrated parent trials) and the first year of open-label extension (OLE) trials that included a standard-of-care control group. METHODS: This analysis included adverse event (AE) data from 6026 patients in 12 phase 2 and 3 parent trials, with a median exposure of 2.8 months, and, of those patients, from 4465 patients who continued with a median follow-up of 11.1 months in 2 OLE trials. AEs were analyzed separately for the parent and OLE trials. Overall AE rates, serious AEs, laboratory assessments, and AEs of interest were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall AE rates were similar between evolocumab and control in the parent trials (51.1% versus 49.6%) and in year 1 of OLE trials (70.0% versus 66.0%), as were those for serious AEs. Elevations of serum transaminases, bilirubin, and creatine kinase were infrequent and similar between groups. Muscle-related AEs were similar between evolocumab and control. Neurocognitive AEs were infrequent and balanced during the double-blind parent studies (5 events [0.1%], evolocumab groups versus 6 events [0.3%], control groups). In the OLE trials, 27 patients (0.9%) in the evolocumab groups and 5 patients (0.3%) in the control groups reported neurocognitive AEs. No neutralizing antievolocumab antibodies were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this integrated safety analysis of 6026 patients pooled across phase 2/3 trials and 4465 patients who continued in OLE trials for 1 year supports a favorable benefit-risk profile for evolocumab.

Factorial Effects of Evolocumab and Atorvastatin on Lipoprotein Metabolism.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies against proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (PCSK9), such as evolocumab, lower plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol concentrations. Evolocumab is under investigation for its effects on cardiovascular outcomes in statin-treated, high-risk patients. The mechanism of action of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies on lipoprotein metabolism remains to be fully evaluated. Stable isotope tracer kinetics can effectively elucidate the mode of action of new lipid-regulating pharmacotherapies. METHODS: We conducted a 2-by-2 factorial trial of the effects of atorvastatin (80 mg daily) and subcutaneous evolocumab (420 mg every 2 weeks) for 8 weeks on the plasma kinetics of very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)-apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB), intermediate-density lipoprotein-apoB, and LDL-apoB in 81 healthy, normolipidemic, nonobese men. The kinetics of apoB in these lipoproteins was studied using a stable isotope infusion of D3-leucine, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and multicompartmental modeling. RESULTS: Atorvastatin and evolocumab independently accelerated the fractional catabolism of VLDL-apoB (P<0.001 and P.032, respectively), intermediate-density lipoprotein-apoB (P=0.021 and P=.002, respectively), and LDL-apoB (P<0.001, both interventions). Evolocumab but not atorvastatin decreased the production rate of intermediate-density lipoprotein-apoB (P=0.043) and LDL-apoB (P<0.001), which contributed to the reduction in the plasma pool sizes of these lipoprotein particles. The reduction in LDL-apoB and LDL-cholesterol concentrations was significantly greater with combination versus either monotherapy (P<0.001). Whereas evolocumab but not atorvastatin lowered the concentration of free PCSK9, atorvastatin lowered the lathosterol/campesterol ratio (a measure of cholesterol synthesis/absorption) and apoC-III concentration. Both interventions decreased plasma apoE, but neither significantly altered lipoprotein lipase and cholesteryl ester protein mass or measures of insulin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy, normolipidemic subjects, evolocumab decreased the concentration of atherogenic lipoproteins, particularly LDL, by accelerating their catabolism. Reductions in intermediate-density lipoprotein and LDL production also contributed to the decrease in LDL particle concentration with evolocumab by a mechanism distinct from that of atorvastatin. These kinetic findings provide a metabolic basis for understanding the potential benefits of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies incremental to statins in on-going clinical end point trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02189837.

Persistent Safety and Efficacy of Evolocumab in Patients with Statin Intolerance: a Subset Analysis of the OSLER Open-Label Extension Studies.

PURPOSE: Evolocumab reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in 12-week trials in statin-intolerant patients (GAUSS-1 and GAUSS-2); however, the persistence of efficacy during longer-term treatment is unknown. This subset analysis of the open-label extension studies (OSLER-1 and OSLER-2) aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of evolocumab up to 2 years in statin-intolerant patients. METHODS: Patients who completed GAUSS-1 and GAUSS-2 were enrolled in the OSLER studies and rerandomized 2:1 to evolocumab (140 mg biweekly or 420 mg monthly) plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC during year 1, and thereafter, evolocumab plus SOC. RESULTS: A total of 382 statin-intolerant patients who completed the GAUSS-1 and GAUSS-2 parent studies were enrolled and rerandomized into the OSLER studies. After year 1, 246 (98%) patients randomized to evolocumab plus SOC and 124 (95%) on SOC during year 1 remained in the OSLER studies; after year 2, 364 (95%) remained on study. Mean parent study baseline LDL-C concentration was 4.97-5.02 mmol/L (192-194 mg/dL). The median percentage reduction from baseline in LDL-C was 13% for SOC and 57% for evolocumab plus SOC at year 1, and 59% for evolocumab plus SOC at year 2. The patient incidence of muscle-related adverse events during year 1 in the SOC and evolocumab plus SOC groups was 16% and 14%, respectively, and 11% for evolocumab plus SOC at year 2. No patient discontinued the study due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Evolocumab plus SOC was persistently safe, tolerable, and efficacious for up to 2 years in statin-intolerant patients.

Identification and Management of Statin-Associated Symptoms in Clinical Practice: Extension of a Clinician Survey to 12 Further Countries.

PURPOSE: Statins are the first-choice pharmacological treatment for patients with hypercholesterolemia and at risk for cardiovascular disease; however, a minority of patients experience statin-associated symptoms (SAS) and are considered to have reduced statin tolerance. The objective of this study was to establish how patients with SAS are identified and managed in clinical practice in Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted (2015-2016) among clinicians (n = 60 per country; Croatia: n = 30) who are specialized/experienced in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Participants were asked about their experience of patients presenting with potential SAS and how such patients were identified and treated. RESULTS: Muscle-related symptoms were the most common presentation of potential SAS (average: 51%; range across countries [RAC] 17-74%); other signs/symptoms included persistent elevation in transaminases. To establish whether symptoms are due to statins, clinicians required rechallenge after discontinuation of statin treatment (average: 77%; RAC 40-90%); other requirements included trying at least one alternative statin. Clinicians reported that half of high-risk patients with confirmed SAS receive a lower-dose statin (average: 53%; RAC 43-72%), and that most receive another non-statin lipid-lowering therapy with or without a concomitant statin (average: 65%; RAC 52-83%). CONCLUSIONS: The specialists and GPs surveyed use stringent criteria to establish causality between statin use and signs or symptoms, and persevere with statin treatment where possible.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Barriers to Statin Treatment.

PURPOSE: Discontinuation of statin therapy represents a major challenge for effective cardiovascular disease prevention. It is unclear how often primary care physicians (PCPs) re-initiate statins and what barriers they encounter. We aimed to identify PCP perspectives on factors influencing statin re-initiation. METHODS: We conducted six nominal group discussions with 23 PCPs from the Deep South Continuing Medical Education network. PCPs answered questions about statin side effects, reasons their patients reported for discontinuing statins, how they respond when discontinuation is reported, and barriers they encounter in getting their patients to re-initiate statin therapy. Each group generated a list of responses in round-robin fashion. Then, each PCP independently ranked their top three responses to each question. For each PCP, the most important reason was given a weight of 3 votes, and the second and third most important reasons were given weights of 2 and 1, respectively. We categorized the individual responses into themes and determined the relative importance of each theme using a "percent of available votes" metric. RESULTS: PCPs reported that side effects, especially muscle/joint-related symptoms, were the most common reason patients reported for statin discontinuation (47% of available votes). PCPs reported statin re-challenge as their most common response when a patient discontinues statin use (31% of available votes). Patients' fear of side effects was ranked as the biggest challenge PCPs encounter in getting their patients to re-initiate statin therapy (70% of available votes). CONCLUSION: PCPs face challenges getting their patients to re-initiate statins, particularly after a patient reports side effects.

Anti-PCSK9 antibodies for hypercholesterolaemia: Overview of clinical data and implications for primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To put data from our recent systematic review of phase 3 studies of anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) antibodies into the context of clinical practice. METHODS: Data from studies previously identified by a systematic review of phase 3 studies of alirocumab and evolocumab and additional references from non-systematic literature searches were used. We evaluated the hypothetical cardiovascular (CV) benefit in cases of typical patients in whom anti-PCSK9 antibodies may be recommended, using preliminary major CV event (CVE) rates from long-term clinical trials of anti-PCSK9 antibodies and from extrapolations derived from correlation between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction and CV benefit with other lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs). RESULTS: Rapid (within 1-2 weeks) and persistent (8-74 weeks) reductions in LDL-C levels were achieved with anti-PCSK9 antibodies. When combined with statins (± ezetimibe), high rates of LDL-C goal achievement were observed (41%-87% with alirocumab and 63%-100% with evolocumab). In long-term alirocumab and evolocumab studies, reductions in major CVEs of 48% and 53%, respectively, were observed. For every 38.7 mg/dL (1 mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, a 22% reduction in relative CVE risk is predicted. Applying these assumptions to typical patients who have high-very high risk (15%-60% absolute 10-year CVE risk) and elevated LDL-C despite maximally tolerated statins, the 10-year number needed to treat with an anti-PCSK9 antibody to prevent one additional CVE varies from 4 to 26, depending on baseline LDL-C levels and residual absolute CVE risk. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-PCSK9 antibodies effectively lower LDL-C levels in a broad patient population. While awaiting comprehensive data from CV outcome trials, these agents should be considered in very high risk patients, such as those in secondary prevention and those with familial hypercholesterolaemia who are already receiving maximally tolerated LLTs, have not achieved their LDL-C goal and require substantial reductions in LDL-C.

Systematic review of published Phase 3 data on anti-PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies in patients with hypercholesterolaemia.

AIMS: Two anti-proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies, alirocumab and evolocumab, have been approved for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in certain patients. We reviewed data from Phase 3 studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these antibodies. METHODS: We systematically reviewed Phase 3 English-language studies in patients with hypercholesterolaemia, published between 1 January 2005 and 20 October 2015. Congress proceedings from 16 November 2012 to 16 November 2015 were also reviewed. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies of alirocumab and nine of evolocumab, including over 10 000 patients overall. Most studies enrolled patients with hypercholesterolaemia and used anti-PCSK9 antibodies with statins. The ODYSSEY FH I, FH II and HIGH FH alirocumab studies and the RUTHERFORD-2 evolocumab study exclusively recruited patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Two evolocumab studies focused mainly on homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH): TESLA Part B and TAUSSIG (a TESLA sub-study); only those data for HoFH are reported here. All comparator studies demonstrated a reduction in LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with the anti-PCSK9 antibodies. No head-to-head studies were conducted between alirocumab and evolocumab. Up to 87% of patients receiving alirocumab and up to 98% receiving evolocumab reached LDL-C goals. Both antibodies were effective and well tolerated across a broad population of patients and in specific subgroups, such as those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Using anti-PCSK9 antibodies as add-on therapy to other lipid-lowering treatments or as monotherapy for patients unable to tolerate statins may help patients with high cardiovascular risk to achieve their LDL-C goals.

Efficacy and Safety of the PCSK9 Inhibitor Evolocumab in Patients with Mixed Hyperlipidemia.

PURPOSE: Evolocumab significantly reduces low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C); we investigated its effects on LDL-C lowering in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. METHODS: We compared the efficacy and safety of evolocumab in hypercholesterolemic patients selected from the phase 2 and 3 trials who had fasting triglyceride levels ≥1.7 mmol/L (150 mg/dL elevated triglycerides) and <1.7 mmol/L (without elevated triglycerides). Fasting triglyceride level ≥ 4.5 mmol/L at screening was an exclusion criterion for these studies, but post-enrollment triglyceride levels may have exceeded 4.5 mmol/L (400 mg/dL). Efficacy was evaluated in four phase 3 randomized studies (n = 1148) and safety from the phase 2 and 3 studies (n = 2246) and their open-label extension studies (n = 1698). Efficacy analyses were based on 12-week studies, while safety analyses included data from all available studies. Treatment differences were calculated vs. placebo and ezetimibe after pooling dose frequencies. RESULTS: Mean treatment difference in percentage change from baseline in LDL-C for participants with elevated triglycerides and those without elevated triglycerides (mean of weeks 10 and 12) with evolocumab was approximately -67 % vs. placebo and -42 % vs. ezetimibe (all P < 0.001) compared to −65 % vs. placebo and −39 % vs. ezetimibe, [corrected] respectively. Treatment differences for evolocumab vs. placebo and ezetimibe followed a similar pattern for non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B. Evolocumab was well tolerated, with balanced rates of adverse events leading to discontinuation of evolocumab vs. comparator (placebo and/or ezetimibe). CONCLUSION: The significant reductions of atherogenic lipids including LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B seen with evolocumab are similar in patients with and without mixed hyperlipidemia.

Clinical Profile of Statin Intolerance in the Phase 3 GAUSS-2 Study.

PURPOSE: Recent evidence suggests that statin intolerance may be more common than reported in randomized trials. However, the statin-intolerant population is not well characterized. The goal of this report is to characterize the population enrolled in the phase 3 Goal Achievement after Utilizing an anti-PCSK9 antibody in Statin Intolerant Subjects Study (GAUSS-2; NCT 01763905). METHODS: GAUSS-2 compared evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) to ezetimibe in hypercholesterolemic patients who discontinued statin therapy due to statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). GAUSS-2 was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study that enrolled patients with elevated LDL-C who were either not on a statin or able to tolerate only a low-dose due to SAMS. Patients had received ≥2 statins and were unable to tolerate any statin dose or increase in dose above a specified weekly dose due to SAMS. RESULTS: Three hundred seven patients (mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years; 54 % males) were randomized 2:1 (evolocumab:ezetimibe). Mean (SD) LDL-C was 4.99 (1.51) mmol/L. Patients had used ≥2 (100 %), ≥3 (55 %), or ≥4 (21 %) statins. Coronary artery disease was present in 29 % of patients. Statin-intolerant symptoms were myalgia in 80 % of patients, weakness in 39 %, and more serious complications in 20 %. In 98 % of patients, SAMS interfered with normal daily activity; in 52 %, symptoms precluded moderate exertion. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of the GAUSS-2 trial population of statin-intolerant patients demonstrates that most patients were high risk with severely elevated LDL-C and many had statin-associated muscle symptoms that interfered with their quality of life.

Very low LDL-C levels may safely provide additional clinical cardiovascular benefit: the evidence to date.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in Europe and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major contributor to CVD risk. Extensive evidence from clinical studies of statins has demonstrated a linear relationship between LDL-C levels and CVD risk. It has been proposed that lower LDL-C levels than those currently recommended may provide additional clinical benefit to patients. AIM: This review summarises the genetic and clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of achieving very low LDL-C levels. METHODS: Relevant epidemiological and clinical studies were identified using PubMed and by searching abstracts published at major congresses. RESULTS: Genetic evidence demonstrates that individuals with naturally very low LDL-C levels are healthy and have a low risk of CVD. Clinical evidence has shown that those patients who achieve very low LDL-C levels through using lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), such as statins, have reduced CVD risk compared with patients who only just achieve recommended target LDL-C levels. These data show that the incidence of adverse events in patients achieving very low LDL-C levels using LLT is comparable to those reaching the recommended LDL-C targets. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic and clinical evidence supports the concept that reduction in LDL-C levels below current recommended targets may provide additional clinical benefit to patients without adversely impacting patient safety. Statin add-on therapies, such as ezetimibe and the recently approved proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab, allow patients to achieve very low LDL-C levels and are likely to impact on future treatment paradigms.

Development and preliminary validation of a Function IndeX for Trauma (FIX-IT).

BACKGROUND: Assessing fracture healing in clinical trials is subjective. The new Function IndeX for Trauma (FIX-IT) score provides a simple, standardized approach to assess weight-bearing and pain in patients with lower extremity fractures. We conducted an initial validation of the FIX-IT score. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 50 patients with lower extremity fractures across different stages of healing to evaluate the reliability and preliminary validity of the FIX-IT score. Patients were independently examined by 2 orthopedic surgeons, 1 orthopedic fellow, 2 orthopedic residents and 2 research coordinators. Patients also completed the Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v2) questionnaire, and convergent validity was tested with the SF-36v2. RESULTS: For interrater reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.637 to 0.915. The overall interrater reliability for the total FIX-IT score was 0.879 (95% confidence interval 0.828-0.921). The correlations between the FIX-IT score and the SF-36 ranged from 0.682 to 0.770 for the physical component summary score, from 0.681 to 0.758 for the physical function subscale, and from 0.677 to 0.786 for the role-physical subscale. CONCLUSION: The FIX-IT score had high interrater agreement across multiple examiners. Moreover, FIX-IT scores correlate with the physical scores of the SF-36. Although additional research is needed to fully validate FIX-IT, our results suggest the potential for FIX-IT to be a reliable adjunctive clinician measure to evaluate healing in lower extremity fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Study Level I.

CONTEXTE: Évaluer la guérison d'une fracture dans le cadre d'essais cliniques est un processus subjectif. Le nouveau score FIX-IT (pour Function IndeX for Trauma) constitue une approche simple et standardisée pour évaluer la mise en charge et la douleur chez les patients ayant subi une fracture d'un membre inférieur. Nous avons procédé à une validation initiale du score FIX-IT. MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une étude transversale regroupant 50 patients qui ont subi une fracture d'un membre inférieur, à différents stades de la guérison, pour évaluer la fiabilité et la validité préliminaire du score FIX-IT. Les patients ont été examinés indépendamment par 2 chirurgiens orthopédistes, 1 chargé de cours en orthopédie, 2 médecins résidents en orthopédie et 2 coordonnateurs de recherche. Les patients ont aussi répondu au questionnaire SF-36v2 (Short Form-36 version 2) et la validité convergente a été vérifiée au moyen du SF-36v2. RÉSULTATS: En ce qui concerne la fiabilité interexaminateur, les coefficients de corrélation intraclasse ont varié de 0,637 à 0,915. La fiabilité interexaminateur pour le score FIX-IT total a été de 0,879 (intervalle de confiance de 95 % 0,828­0,921). Les corrélations entre le score FIX-IT et le SF-36 ont varié de 0,682 à 0,770 pour le score sommaire de la composante physique, de 0,681 à 0,758 pour la sous-échelle du fonctionnement physique et de 0,677 à 0,786 pour la sous-échelle du rôle physique. CONCLUSION: Le score FIX-IT a offert une concordance interexaminateur élevée entre les multiples examinateurs. De plus, les scores FIX-IT sont en corrélation avec les scores physiques obtenus au SF-36. Même s'il faudra approfondir la recherche pour valider complètement le score FIX-IT, nos résultats donnent à penser que cet indice pourrait être une mesure clinique d'appoint fiable pour évaluer la guérison des fractures de membres inférieurs. NIVEAU DE PREUVE: Étude diagnostique de niveau I.

Patient-related risk factors for fracture-healing complications in the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A variety of risk factors have been hypothesized to contribute to the development of fracture-healing complications; however, population-based estimates of the strength of these risk factors are limited. In this case-control study, we evaluated patient-related risk factors for fracture-healing complications. METHODS: Using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database, we identified patients with a fracture-healing complication (delayed union, nonunion, or malunion) between 1988 and 2008. 4 controls (i.e. patients with normal healing) were matched to each case on general practice, fracture site, fracture date, and length of history in the database. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of various risk factors, including demographics, comorbidities, and medication use. RESULTS: Diabetes and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within 12 months before the initial fracture were associated with a higher odds of a fracture-healing complication (type-I diabetes: adjusted OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.3-3.8; type-II diabetes: adjusted OR = 2.3, CI: 1.4-3.7; NSAIDs: adjusted OR = 2.6, CI: 2.1-3.2). Patients who had a motor vehicle accident recorded within 1 month before their initial fracture were also at increased odds of a fracture-healing complication (adjusted OR = 2.6, CI: 1.2-5.4). INTERPRETATION: Diabetes, NSAID use, and a recent motor vehicle accident were most consistently associated with an increased risk of a fracture-healing complication, regardless of fracture site or specific fracture-healing complication. This analysis suggests that certain patient-related characteristics influence the development of fracture-healing complications in general, even though specific healing complications may differ by their mechanism.

Characterizing a Clinical Trial - Representative, Real-World Population with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.

PURPOSE: Given known differences between real-world and clinical trial populations, we characterized demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes using real-world (RW) data for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including those similar to subjects enrolled in an HFrEF clinical trial to better understand patient populations that could benefit from novel therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using Vanderbilt University Medical Center electronic health records (2006-2019), two RW cohorts of HFrEF patients were identified. The "Clinical Cohort" was based on a validated HFrEF algorithm and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%. The "GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort" mirrored enrollment requirements of the GALACTIC-HF clinical trial including hospitalizations, medications, laboratory values, and LVEF ≤35%. RESULTS: Median age at index for the Clinical Cohort (N = 3954) and GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort (N = 1541) were 65 and 61 years, respectively; both were 67% male and 80% white. Over half had coronary artery disease (55% Clinical vs 64% GALACTIC-HF-like); hypercholesterolemia was common (69% Clinical vs 74% GALACTIC-HF-like). Chronic kidney disease (31 vs 21%), atrial fibrillation (32 vs 29%), and cardiac resynchronization or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (26 vs 23%) were higher in the GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort. ACE inhibitor use was high in both groups but more common in the GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort (71% and 82%, respectively). Beta-blockers or loop diuretics were used by >90% of both cohorts. HF hospitalization rates were 261 (95% CI 224, 297) per 1000 person-years in Clinical versus 523 (484, 562) in GALACTIC-HF-like Cohort (median follow-up of 2.9 and 4.2 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: Approximately 40% of RW HFrEF patients met criteria for the GALACTIC-HF trial. While findings of ongoing clinical trials may be directly generalizable to this sizable proportion of patients, future trials should examine whether the majority of patients with lower prevalence of comorbidities and rate of HF hospitalization could benefit from emerging HF treatments.

Designing, Conducting, Monitoring, and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trials: Proceedings from a Multi-stakeholder Think Tank Meeting.

In late 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) outlined a framework for evaluating the possible use of real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decision-making. This framework was created to facilitate studies that would generate high-quality RWE, including pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs), which are randomized trials designed to inform clinical or policy decisions by assessing the real-world effectiveness of an intervention. There is general agreement among experts that the use of existing healthcare and patient-generated data holds promise for making randomized trials more efficient, less costly, and more generalizable. Yet the benefits of relying on real-world data sources must be weighed against difficulties with ensuring data integrity and completeness. Additionally, appropriately monitoring patient safety in randomized trials of new drugs using healthcare system data that might not be available in real time can be quite difficult. Recognizing that these and other concerns are critical to the development and acceptability of PCTs, a group of stakeholders from academia, industry, professional organizations, regulatory bodies, government agencies, and patient advocates discussed a path forward for PCT growth and sustainability at a think tank meeting entitled "Monitoring and Analyzing Data from Pragmatic Streamlined Randomized Clinical Trials," which took place in January 2019 (Washington, DC). The goals of this meeting were to: (1) evaluate study design and methodological options specific to PCTs that have the potential to yield high-quality evidence; (2) discuss best practices to ensure data quality in PCTs; and (3) identify appropriate methods for study monitoring. Proceedings from the think tank meeting are summarized in this manuscript.

Willingness to be Reinitiated on a Statin (from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke Study).

Guidelines recommend attempting to reinitiate statins in patients who discontinue treatment. Previous experiences while taking a statin, including side effects, may reduce a patient's willingness to reinitiate treatment. We determined the percentage of adults who are willing to reinitiate statin therapy after treatment discontinuation. Factors associated with willingness to reinitiate a statin were also examined. A statin questionnaire was administered and study examination conducted in black and white US adults enrolled in the nationwide REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke study from 2013 to 2017. In participants who self-reported ever having taken a statin (n = 7,216, mean age 72 years, 53% women, 34% black), 1,081 (15%) reported having discontinued treatment. Among those who discontinued treatment, statin side effects, perceived lack of need for a statin, and cost were reported by 66%, 31%, and 3% of participants, respectively. Overall, 37% of participants who had discontinued treatment were willing to reinitiate statin therapy. Participants who discontinued treatment due to cost (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01, 2.57) were more likely to report a willingness to reinitiate therapy. Participants with a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ≥130 mg/dl versus <100 mg/dl (PR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53, 0. 88) and who discontinued treatment due to side effects (PR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41, 0.64) were less likely to report willingness to reinitiate statin therapy. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of participants who discontinued statin therapy were willing to reinitiate treatment. Healthcare providers should discuss reinitiation of statin therapy with their patients who have discontinued treatment.

Healthcare Utilization and Statin Re-Initiation Among Medicare Beneficiaries With a History of Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Contact with the healthcare system represents an opportunity for individuals who discontinue statins to re-initiate treatment. To help identify opportunities for healthcare providers to emphasize the risk-lowering benefits accrued through restarting statins, we determined the types of healthcare utilization associated with statin re-initiation among patients with history of a myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Medicare beneficiaries with a statin pharmacy fill claim within 30 days of hospital discharge for a myocardial infarction in 2007 to 2012 (n=158 795) were followed for 182 days postdischarge to identify treatment discontinuation, defined as 60 continuous days without statins (n=24 461). Re-initiation was defined as a statin fill within 365 days of the discontinuation date (n=13 136). Using a case-crossover study design and each beneficiary as their own control, healthcare utilization during 0 to 14 days before statin re-initiation (case period) was compared with healthcare utilization 30 to 44 days before statin re-initiation (control period). The mean age of beneficiaries was 75.4 years; 52.8% were women and 81.9% were white. For routine healthcare utilization, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for statin re-initiation associated with lipid panel testing was 2.65 (1.93-3.65), outpatient primary care was 1.31 (1.23-1.40), and outpatient cardiologist care was 1.38 (1.28-1.50). For acute healthcare utilization, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for statin re-initiation associated with emergency department visits was 1.77 (1.31-2.40), coronary heart disease (CHD) hospitalizations was 3.16 (2.41-4.14) and non-coronary heart disease hospitalizations was 1.73 (1.49-2.01). CONCLUSIONS: The weaker association of routine versus acute healthcare utilization with statin re-initiation suggests missed opportunities to reinforce the importance of statin therapy for secondary prevention.

Evidence-based goals in LDL-C reduction.

The evidence from trials of statin therapy suggests that benefits in cardiovascular disease (CVD) event reduction are proportional to the magnitude of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering. The lack of a threshold at which LDL-C lowering is not beneficial, in terms of CVD prevention observed in these trials, is supported by epidemiological and genetic studies reporting the cardio-protective effects of lifelong low exposure to atherogenic cholesterol in a graded fashion. Providing that intensive LDL-C lowering is safe, these observations suggest that many individuals even at current LDL-C treatment targets could benefit. Here, we review recent safety and efficacy data from trials of adjunctive therapy, with LDL-C lowering beyond that achieved by statin therapy, and their potential implications for current guideline targets. Finally, the application of current guidance in the context of pre-treatment LDL-C concentration and deployment of statin therapy is also discussed. The number of patients requiring treatment to prevent a CVD event with statin treatment has been shown to differ markedly according to the pre-treatment LDL-C concentration even when absolute CVD risk is similar. It produces more likelihood of benefit when absolute LDL-C reduction is greater which is largely dependent on pre-treatment LDL-C concentration. This also has to be taken in consideration when deploying new agents like proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibodies. Patients with highest LDL-C concentration despite maximum statin and ezetimibe therapy will attain most absolute LDL-C reduction when treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibodies, hence benefit most in term of CVD risk reduction.

Practical Considerations for the Use of Subcutaneous Treatment in the Management of Dyslipidaemia.

Suboptimal drug adherence represents a major challenge to effective primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. While adherence is influenced by multiple considerations, polypharmacy and dosing frequency appear to be rate-limiting factors in patient satisfaction and subsequent adherence. The cardiovascular and metabolic therapeutic areas have recently benefited from a number of advances in drug therapy, in particular protease proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and incretin-based therapies, respectively. These drugs are administered subcutaneously and offer efficacious treatment options with reduced dosing frequency. Whilst patients with diabetes and diabetologists are well initiated to injectable therapies, the cardiovascular therapeutic arena has traditionally been dominated by oral agents. It is therefore important to examine the practical aspects of treating patients with these new lipid-lowering agents, to ensure they are optimally deployed in everyday clinical practice.