Polycystic ovary syndrome: A review of diagnosis and management, with special focus on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrinopathy worldwide with a heterogeneous clinical presentation including reproductive, metabolic, and endocrine elements. However, the assessment and management of PCOS remains inconsistent, with many women undiagnosed and untreated. We now also understand that the management of PCOS should extend throughout a woman's lifespan as many elements of the syndrome persist after menopause. Management has traditionally focused on the treatment of hyperandrogenism and oligomenorrhea. Women with PCOS often have dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, and metabolic syndrome, which may be worsened by the hormonal abnormalities, and are therefore at higher risk for cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, a risk that increases after menopause. While treatment with hormonal therapy, in particular combined oral contraceptives, may improve cardiovascular risk factors, management plans should incorporate specific diagnosis and management of these factors, if present, because of the strong contribution to the risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Given the complexities of the syndrome, optimal management often requires a multi-disciplinary approach including the lipid and cardiometabolic specialist to provide counseling and support for lifestyle modification along with pharmacologic therapy as indicated to address the full range of any reproductive, endocrine, and cardiometabolic abnormalities.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Cost-effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl for High-risk Patients With Hypertriglyceridemia Despite Statin Treatment.

Importance: The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial (REDUCE-IT) demonstrated the efficacy of icosapent ethyl (IPE) for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least 1 other risk factor who were treated with statins. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of IPE compared with standard care for high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: An in-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using patient-level study data from REDUCE-IT, and a lifetime analysis was performed using a microsimulation model and data from published literature. The study included 8179 patients with hypertriglyceridemia despite stable statin therapy recruited between November 21, 2011, and May 31, 2018. Analyses were performed from a US health care sector perspective. Statistical analysis was performed from March 1, 2018, to October 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to IPE, 4 g/d, or placebo and were followed up for a median of 4.9 years (IQR, 3.5-5.3 years). The cost of IPE was $4.16 per day after rebates using SSR Health net cost (SSR cost) and $9.28 per day with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct health care costs (2019 US dollars), and cost-effectiveness. Results: A total of 4089 patients (2927 men [71.6%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive IPE, and 4090 patients (2895 men [70.8%]; median age, 64.0 years [IQR, 57.0-69.0 years]) were randomly assigned to receive standard care. Treatment with IPE yielded more QALYs than standard care both in trial (3.34 vs 3.27; mean difference, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]) and over a lifetime projection (10.59 vs 10.35; mean difference, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.15-0.33]). In-trial, total health care costs were higher with IPE using either SSR cost ($18 786) or WAC ($24 544) than with standard care ($17 273; mean difference from SSR cost, $1513 [95% CI, $155-$2870]; mean difference from WAC, $7271 [95% CI, $5911-$8630]). Icosapent ethyl cost $22 311 per QALY gained using SSR cost and $107 218 per QALY gained using WAC. Over a lifetime, IPE was projected to be cost saving when using SSR cost ($195 276) compared with standard care ($197 064; mean difference, -$1788 [95% CI, -$9735 to $6159]) but to have higher costs when using WAC ($202 830) compared with standard care (mean difference, $5766 [95% CI, $1094-$10 438]). Compared with standard care, IPE had a 58.4% lifetime probability of costing less and being more effective when using SSR cost and an 89.4% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using SSR cost and a 72.5% probability of costing less than $50 000 per QALY gained when using WAC. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, both in-trial and over the lifetime, IPE offers better cardiovascular outcomes than standard care in REDUCE-IT participants at common willingness-to-pay thresholds.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARYComplete Appendix to Guidelines available at http://journals.aace.com.

OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Each Recommendation is based on a diligent review of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 Recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 202 (29.1 %) are evidence level (EL) 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 237 (34.1%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies and health-related organizations can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of patients with various lipid disorders. These recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously recommended and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to patients with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and pediatric patients with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome AHA = American Heart Association ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG = clinical practice guidelines CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia hsCRP = high-sensitivity C-reactive protein LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The CardioMetabolic Health Alliance: Working Toward a New Care Model for the Metabolic Syndrome.

The Cardiometabolic Think Tank was convened on June 20, 2014, in Washington, DC, as a "call to action" activity focused on defining new patient care models and approaches to address contemporary issues of cardiometabolic risk and disease. Individual experts representing >20 professional organizations participated in this roundtable discussion. The Think Tank consensus was that the metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a complex pathophysiological state comprised of a cluster of clinically measured and typically unmeasured risk factors, is progressive in its course, and is associated with serious and extensive comorbidity, but tends to be clinically under-recognized. The ideal patient care model for MetS must accurately identify those at risk before MetS develops and must recognize subtypes and stages of MetS to more effectively direct prevention and therapies. This new MetS care model introduces both affirmed and emerging concepts that will require consensus development, validation, and optimization in the future.