Mendelian Randomization Study of ACLY and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: ATP citrate lyase is an enzyme in the cholesterol-biosynthesis pathway upstream of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (HMGCR), the target of statins. Whether the genetic inhibition of ATP citrate lyase is associated with deleterious outcomes and whether it has the same effect, per unit decrease in the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, as the genetic inhibition of HMGCR is unclear. METHODS: We constructed genetic scores composed of independently inherited variants in the genes encoding ATP citrate lyase (ACLY) and HMGCR to create instruments that mimic the effect of ATP citrate lyase inhibitors and HMGCR inhibitors (statins), respectively. We then compared the associations of these genetic scores with plasma lipid levels, lipoprotein levels, and the risk of cardiovascular events and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 654,783 participants, including 105,429 participants who had major cardiovascular events, were included in the study. The ACLY and HMGCR scores were associated with similar patterns of changes in plasma lipid and lipoprotein levels and with similar effects on the risk of cardiovascular events per decrease of 10 mg per deciliter in the LDL cholesterol level: odds ratio for cardiovascular events, 0.823 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.87; P = 4.0×10-14) for the ACLY score and 0.836 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.87; P = 3.9×10-19) for the HMGCR score. Neither lifelong genetic inhibition of ATP citrate lyase nor lifelong genetic inhibition of HMGCR was associated with an increased risk of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic variants that mimic the effect of ATP citrate lyase inhibitors and statins appeared to lower plasma LDL cholesterol levels by the same mechanism of action and were associated with similar effects on the risk of cardiovascular disease per unit decrease in the LDL cholesterol level. (Funded by Esperion Therapeutics and others.).

Variation in PCSK9 and HMGCR and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic inhibitors of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) are being evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. The effect of lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels by inhibiting PCSK9 on the risk of cardiovascular events or diabetes is unknown. METHODS: We used genetic scores consisting of independently inherited variants in the genes encoding PCSK9 and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase (HMGCR; the target of statins) as instruments to randomly assign 112,772 participants from 14 studies, with 14,120 cardiovascular events and 10,635 cases of diabetes, to groups according to the number of LDL cholesterol-lowering alleles that they had inherited. We compared the effects of lower LDL cholesterol levels that were mediated by variants in PCSK9, HMGCR, or both on the risk of cardiovascular events and the risk of diabetes. RESULTS: Variants in PCSK9 and HMGCR were associated with nearly identical protective effects on the risk of cardiovascular events per decrease of 10 mg per deciliter (0.26 mmol per liter) in the LDL cholesterol level: odds ratio for cardiovascular events, 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.89) for PCSK9 and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.90) for HMGCR. Variants in these two genes were also associated with very similar effects on the risk of diabetes: odds ratio for each 10 mg per deciliter decrease in LDL cholesterol, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.19) for PCSK9 and 1.13 (95% CI, 1.06 to 1.20) for HMGCR. The increased risk of diabetes was limited to persons with impaired fasting glucose levels for both scores and was lower in magnitude than the protective effect against cardiovascular events. When present together, PCSK9 and HMGCR variants had additive effects on the risk of both cardiovascular events and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, variants in PCSK9 had approximately the same effect as variants in HMGCR on the risk of cardiovascular events and diabetes per unit decrease in the LDL cholesterol level. The effects of these variants were independent and additive. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

The importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement and control as performance measures: A joint Clinical Perspective from the National Lipid Association and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

Despite the established role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the persistence of CVD as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, national quality assurance metrics no longer include LDL-C measurement as a required performance metric. This clinical perspective reviews the history of LDL-C as a quality and performance metric and the events that led to its replacement. It also presents patient, healthcare provider, and health system rationales for re-establishing LDL-C measurement as a performance measure to improve cholesterol control in high-risk groups and to stem the rising tide of CVD morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular care disparities, and related healthcare costs.

The importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement and control as performance measures: A joint clinical perspective from the National Lipid Association and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

Despite the established role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the persistence of CVD as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, national quality assurance metrics no longer include LDL-C measurement as a required performance metric. This clinical perspective reviews the history of LDL-C as a quality and performance metric and the events that led to its replacement. It also presents patient, healthcare provider, and health system rationales for re-establishing LDL-C measurement as a performance measure to improve cholesterol control in high-risk groups and to stem the rising tide of CVD morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular care disparities, and related healthcare costs.

Effect of Switching From Statin Monotherapy to Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Combination Therapy Compared With Other Intensified Lipid-Lowering Strategies on Lipoprotein Subclasses in Diabetic Patients With Symptomatic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease may not achieve adequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on statin monotherapy, attributed partly to atherogenic dyslipidemia. More intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy can be considered for these patients. A previous randomized, controlled study demonstrated greater LDL-C lowering in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease who switched from simvastatin 20 mg (S20) or atorvastatin 10 mg (A10) to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (ES10/20) therapy, compared with statin dose-doubling (to S40 or A20) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10). The effect of these regimens on novel biomarkers of atherogenic dyslipidemia (low- and high-density lipoprotein particle number and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 [Lp-PLA2]) was assessed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Treatment effects on low- and high-density lipoprotein particle number (by NMR) and Lp-PLA2 (by ELISA) were evaluated using plasma samples available from 358 subjects in the study. Switching to ES10/20 reduced low-density lipoprotein-particle number numerically more than did statin dose-doubling and was comparable with R10 (-133.3, -94.4, and -56.3 nmol/L, respectively; P>0.05). Increases in high-density lipoprotein particle number were significantly greater with switches to ES10/20 versus statin dose-doubling (1.5 and -0.5 µmol/L; P<0.05) and comparable with R10 (0.7 µmol/L; P>0.05). Percentages of patients attaining low-density lipoprotein particle number levels <990 nmol/L were 62.4% for ES10/20, 54.1% for statin dose-doubling, and 57.0% for R10. Switching to ES10/20 reduced Lp-PLA2 activity significantly more than did statin dose-doubling (-28.0 versus -3.8 nmol/min per mL, P<0.05) and was comparable with R10 (-28.0 versus -18.6 nmol/min per mL; P>0.05); effects on Lp-PLA2 concentration were modest. CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients with dyslipidemia, switching from statins to combination ES10/20 therapy generally improved lipoprotein subclass profile and Lp-PLA2 activity more than did statin dose-doubling and was comparable with R10, consistent with its lipid effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00862251.

Limitations of real-world treatment with atorvastatin monotherapy for lowering LDL-C in high-risk cardiovascular patients in the US.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy. METHODS: Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%-34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL), and 72.0%-78.0% achieved LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses. CONCLUSION: In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%-40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.

Therapeutic practice patterns related to statin potency and ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapies in lowering LDL-C in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Statin combination therapy and statin uptitration have been shown to be efficacious in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and are recommended for patients with high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) who do not reach guideline-endorsed LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This analysis evaluated treatment practice patterns and LDL-C lowering for patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin monotherapy in a real-world practice setting in the United States. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin therapy were identified during 2004 to 2008 in a US managed care database. Prescribing patterns and effect of switching from statin monotherapy to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy vs uptitration to higher statin dose/potency level and no change from initial statin potency on LDL-C lowering were assessed. Percentage of change from baseline in LDL-C levels and odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment were estimated with analyses of covariance and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 27,919 eligible patients on statin therapy, 2671 (9.6%) switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, 11,035 (39.5%) uptitrated statins, and 14,213 (50.9%) remained on the same statin monotherapy. LDL-C reduction from baseline and attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were substantially greater for patients who switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy (-24.0%, 81.2%, and 35.2%, respectively) than for patients who titrated (-9.6%, 68.0%, and 18.4%, respectively) or remained on initial statin therapy (4.9%, 72.2%, and 23.7%, respectively). The odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were also higher for patients who switched than for patients who uptitrated and had no therapy change than for patients who titrated vs no therapy change. Similarly, among a subgroup of patients not at LDL-C <100 mg/dL on baseline therapy, attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL was greater for patients who switched than for statin uptitration vs no change, as well as for patients who uptritrated statins vs no therapy change. CONCLUSION: In this study, LDL-C lowering and goal attainment rates improved substantially for patients with high-risk CHD on statin monotherapy who switched to combination ezetimibe/statin or uptitrated their statin therapies; however, approximately one-third of these patients still did not attain the optional recommended LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL. Moreover, these higher efficacy lipid-lowering therapies were infrequently prescribed, indicating the need for further assessment of barriers to LDL-C goal attainment in actual practice settings.

Lipid abnormalities in patients with chronic kidney disease: implications for the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis.

Cardiovascular disease is increased in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is the principle cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. In patients with stage 5 CKD, structural changes in the myocardium have been implicated as the principle cardiovascular processes leading to this increase in morbidity and mortality, while atherosclerotic events including acute myocardial infarction and strokes are responsible for approximately 10-15% of cardiovascular deaths. Dyslipidemia is common in CKD patients and is usually not characterized by elevated cholesterol levels, except in patients with marked proteinuria. Increased triglyceride levels in conjunction with decreased high-density lipoprotein levels are the commonest qualitative abnormality. Characteristically, abnormalities in the metabolism of apolipoprotein (apo) B-containing lipoproteins have been described, including both gut derived (apoB-48) as well as those produced by hepatic synthesis (apoB-100). A decrease in enzymatic delipidation as well as reduced receptor removal of these lipoproteins both contribute to the increased levels of these apo-B-containing particles and their remnants (which are believed to be highly atherogenic). Abnormalities in the metabolism of apoA-containing lipoproteins are also present and these changes contribute to the lower levels of HDL seen. Qualitative abnormalities of these HDL particles may be associated with cellular oxidative injury and contribute to a pro-inflammatory, pro-thrombotic milieu that is frequently present in CKD patients.

Impact of adding ezetimibe to statin to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal (from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation [COURAGE] trial).

In the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) study, a revascularization strategy trial with optimal medical therapy in both arms, the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal was 60 to 85 mg/dl; this was revised to <70 mg/dl in 2004. COURAGE patients (n = 2,287) were titrated with increasing statin doses to achieve the initial LDL cholesterol goal using a prespecified protocol. Ezetimibe was not available when study enrollment began in 1999 but became available after approval in 2003. After maximizing statin dose, ezetimibe was added to reach the LDL cholesterol goal in 34% of patients (n = 734). Median baseline LDL cholesterol was higher in patients who received ezetimibe than in those who did not (109 vs 96 mg/dl). At baseline, 18% of patients who would later receive ezetimibe had LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl, and 8% had LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl. On maximum tolerated statin (with or without other lipid-lowering drugs), 40% had LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl and 23% had LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl before starting ezetimibe. At the final study visit, 68% of ezetimibe patients achieved LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl, and 46% achieved LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl. Using Cox regression analysis, the most significant factors associated with achieving LDL cholesterol goals were lower baseline LDL cholesterol, average statin dose, and ezetimibe use. In conclusion, after maximizing statin dose, the addition of ezetimibe results in a substantial increase in the percentage of patients who reach LDL cholesterol goal, a key component of optimal medical therapy.

Changes in lipoprotein particle number with ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministered with extended-release niacin in hyperlipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) and extended-release niacin (N) has been reported to be safe and efficacious in concomitantly reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in hyperlipidemic patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. This analysis evaluated the effect of E/S coadministered with N on low-density lipoprotein particle number (LDL-P) and high-density lipoprotein particle number (HDL-P) as assessed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy in patients with type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an analysis of a previously reported 24-week randomized, double-blind study in type IIa/IIb hyperlipidemic patients randomized to treatment with E/S (10/20 mg/day)+N (titrated to 2 g/day) or N (titrated to 2 g/day) or E/S (10/20 mg/day). Samples from a subset of patients (577 of 1220) were available for post hoc analysis of LDL-P and HDL-P by NMR spectroscopy. Increases in HDL-P (+16.2%) and decreases in LDL-P (-47.7%) were significantly greater with E/S+N compared with N (+9.8% for HDL-P and -21.5% for LDL-P) and E/S (+12.8% for HDL-P and -36.8% for LDL-P). In tertile analyses, those with the lowest baseline HDL-P had the greatest percent increase in HDL-P (N, 18.4/7.9/2.1; E/S, 19.3/12.2/5.3; and E/S+N, 26.9/13.8/6.9; all P<0.001). Individuals in the highest tertile of LDL-P had the greatest percent reduction in LDL-P (N, 18.3/23.1/24.6; E/S, 29.7/38.3/41.8; and E/S+N, 44.3/49.0/50.5; all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that E/S+N improves lipoprotein particle number, consistent with its lipid-modifying benefits in type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia patients and may exert the greatest effect in those with high LDL-P and low HDL-P at baseline.

Treatment pattern changes in high-risk patients newly initiated on statin monotherapy in a managed care setting.

BACKGROUND: For high-risk patients who do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels, more intensive treatment including statin-uptitration to higher doses or potency, as well as combination therapy may be considered. A better understanding of statin treatment patterns in real-world clinical practice may contribute to improved lipid-lowering management in these patients. OBJECTIVE: We determined treatment pattern changes among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal on statin monotherapy. METHODS: Treatment pattern changes were evaluated among patients newly initiated on statins between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2009, in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Rates and mean time to first and second treatment changes were examined in patients with claims for coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), and diabetes mellitus during 12 months before index, who were not at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at their first-eligible LDL-C test (≥ 4 weeks after index). Therapy change was assessed for 12 months after the LDL-C result. RESULTS: Of 11,473 eligible subjects, 61.3% had diabetes, 26.6% had CHD and AVD, and 12.1% had CHD and AVD and diabetes. At index, patients were prescribed medium-potency levels of statins, including simvastatin (44.7%), atorvastatin (31.5%), and other statins (23.8%). Mean ± SD LDL-C before statin initiation was 138 ± 34 mg/dL, and at the first-eligible LDL-C result after index, it was 101 ± 25 mg/dL. During follow-up, 7444 subjects (64.9%) experienced a first treatment change, with mean time to change of 93.8 ± 92 days, whereas 4029 (36.1%) had no treatment change. Discontinuation of index therapy occurred in 46.9% of subjects and medication switches or titration in 18.0% (index statin titration, switch to other statins, other lipid-lowering therapies [LLT], including ezetimibe). Of the discontinuers, 27.4% restarted LLT. Of subjects with a first treatment change who did not discontinue, 48.9% experienced a second therapy change. Results were similar between the 3 high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this managed-care setting, among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at LDL-C goal, statins were usually started at medium-potency doses without being titrated up, whereas nearly one-half had a discontinuation of LLT within 12 months. These treatment patterns indicate the need for better patient and provider education as well as other system-wide modifications to improve medication adherence.

Lipid abnormalities in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Cardiovascular disease is increased in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is the principle cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Dyslipidemia, while common in these patients, is usually not characterized by elevated cholesterol, except in those patients with massive proteinuria. Qualitatively, increased triglycerides and reduced high-density lipoproteins (HDL) are most frequently described. Extensive abnormalities in the metabolism of apolipoprotein (apo) B-containing lipoproteins have been demonstrated, including those derived from the gut (apoB-48) as well as those derived from hepatic synthesis (apoB-100). Decreased enzymatic delipidation, in addition to reduced receptor removal of these lipoproteins, results in increased concentrations of these apoB-containing moieties, and in particular, their atherogenic remnants. Abnormalities in apoA-containing lipoproteins are also present and these changes may contribute not only to the lower levels of HDL seen, but also to the proinflammatory state that is frequently present in CKD patients. As a result, therapeutic strategies designed to modify atherosclerotic-caused outcomes in CKD may require multiple approaches.

Effects of ezetimibe on atherosclerosis in preclinical models.

Ezetimibe (Zetia(®), Ezetrol(®), Merck, Whitehouse Station, NJ) is a potent inhibitor of sterol absorption, which selectively blocks the uptake of biliary and dietary cholesterol in the small intestine. Clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effects of ezetimibe on the reduction of atherogenic lipoproteins and the attainment of guideline-recommended lipid levels. Direct evidence that these improvements translate to a reduction in atherosclerosis or cardiovascular events is limited, although reductions in major atherosclerotic events that are consistent with the LDL-C lowering achieved have recently been presented for patients with chronic kidney disease treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20mg in the SHARP trial. Animal models of atherosclerosis have played a central role in defining the mechanisms involved in initiation and development of disease and have been used in drug development to evaluate potential therapeutic efficacy. The effect of ezetimibe on atherosclerosis has been examined in several of these animal model systems. ApoE knockout mice develop severe hypercholesterolemia and premature atherosclerosis with features similar to that seen in humans and techniques ranging from gross visualization of plaque to high-resolution MRI have demonstrated the consistent ability of ezetimibe to significantly inhibit atherosclerosis. sr-b1(-/-)/apoE(-/-) double knockout mice exhibit additional characteristics common to human coronary heart disease (CHD), and the one study of ezetimibe in sr-b1(-/-)/apoE(-/-) mice showed a significant reduction in aortic sinus plaque (57%), coronary arterial occlusion (68%), myocardial fibrosis (57%), and cardiomegaly (12%) compared with untreated controls. The effects of ezetimibe have also been evaluated in ldlr(-/-)/apoE(-/-) double knockout mice, demonstrating that functional LDL receptors were not required for ezetimibe-mediated reduction of plasma cholesterol or atherosclerosis. For the few studies that have been conducted in rabbits, ezetimibe has been shown to significantly inhibit diet and vascular-injury-induced atherosclerosis as measured by intima/media thickness, atherosclerotic lesion composition, and thrombosis. The current body of preclinical evidence consistently demonstrates that ezetimibe reduces atherosclerosis in animals, presumably due primarily to the decrease in circulating levels of atherogenic lipoproteins that the drug produces. Demonstration that ezetimibe-mediated lowering of atherogenic lipoproteins in humans has a similar effect on atherosclerosis and cardiovascular risk awaits additional results from recently completed and ongoing outcomes trials.

Switching from high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapies to simvastatin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in coronary heart disease/coronary heart disease-equivalent patients.

BACKGROUND: The availability of generic simvastatin in 2006 has prompted substantial changes in formulary recommendations for lipid-management agents. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of switches from high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapy to simvastatin on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and goal attainment in coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk-equivalent patients in a managed care setting. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we estimated the least squares mean difference in the percent change from baseline LDL-C and the odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment rates (<100 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) at follow-up for each baseline high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapy with the analysis of covariance and logistic regressions, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 18,061 patients who, between September 1, 2004 and October 31, 2008, were either switched from or remained on their initial high-efficacy LDL-C lowering therapy: ezetimibe/simvastatin fixed-dose combination (E/S), rosuvastatin, or atorvastatin. The difference in percent change in LDL-C levels from baseline were 25.2 (95% confidence interval 21.2-29.2), 13.0 (6.0-20.0), and 3.1 (0.3-5.9) greater in switchers to simvastatin in the E/S, rosuvastatin, and atorvastatin comparisons, respectively, after adjusting for age, sex, and starting dose of the initial therapy. For switchers, the percent of patients at LDL-C <100 mg/dL at follow-up decreased from 83.5% to 63.8% in the E/S, 67.7% to 52.7% in the rosuvastatin, and 65.1% to 60.2% in the atorvastatin cohorts. The percent of patients at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at follow-up was lower for all switcher groups compared with nonswitchers. CONCLUSIONS: Among CHD/CHD risk-equivalent patients, switching to simvastatin was associated with increases in LDL-C levels and lower LDL-C goal attainment rates. The public health impact of this phenomenon on population risk and CHD events remains to be determined.

Loss of early gains in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment among high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement of <70 mg/dL as a reasonable goal in high-risk patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD). METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined LDL-C goal attainment monthly trends from January 1, 2004, to August 31, 2008, in a large, managed-care claims database in the United States. High-risk CHD or AVD patients who had at least one LDL-C test during that time period were included (N = 284,915). Average LDL-C values and percent of patients not achieving LDL-C goal (LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL) were obtained by averaging patient level LDL-C values for each month. A linear trend analysis with first-order autocorrelated errors was conducted. RESULTS: The proportion of patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy gradually increased from 58.5% in 2004 to 70.5% in 2008. Mean LDL-C values in patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy decreased from 100.4 to 96.4 mg/dL, whereas LDL-C remained relatively constant in untreated patients (114.3 mg/dL). In treated patients, the percentage with LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL decreased from 87.5% in January 2004 to 73.8% in December 2006 (P < .0001), then gradually declined between January 2007 (79.6%) and August 2008 (76.2%; P < .0001). Among untreated patients, 92.9% had LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL in January 2004 and 93.0% in August 2008. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the percentage of high-risk patients with CHD or AVD treated with lipid-lowering therapy who achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL levels has increased since 2004, although a large proportion of these patients still do not meet this goal. Additionally, 1 of 4 high-risk patients otherwise eligible for lipid-lowering therapy remains untreated. These data suggest the need for renewed efforts to support guideline-based LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.