Establishing a multi-specialty consensus in the clinical need for hypercholesterolemia management and its implication for patients access to innovative therapies.

BACKGROUND: Increased level of blood LDL-C has a causal and cumulative effect on advancing atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). European guidelines for treating high LDL-C levels have been recently updated. However, in France, several challenges (e.g., physician and patient awareness, healthcare management) limit the application of management guidelines. The aim of this study was to understand the current opinions and perceived unmet clinical needs in recognising and managing hypercholesterolemia as an ASCVD risk factor, and to explore consensus around factors that support the effective management of elevated LDL-C. METHODS: An expert group of cardiologists, endocrinologists, biology/genetics researchers, and a health technology assessments expert, from France was convened. The current management of hypercholesterolemia and barriers to achieving LDL-C goals in France were discussed and 44 statements were developed. Wider consensus was assessed by sending the statements as a 4-point Likert Scale questionnaire to cardiologists and endocrinologists across France. The consensus threshold was defined as ≥75%. RESULTS: A total of 101 responses were received. Consensus was very high (>90%) in 25 (57%) statements, high (≥75%) in 18 (41%) statements and was not achieved (<75%) only in 1 (2%) of statements. Overall, 43 statements achieved consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Based on consensus levels, key recommendations for improving current guidelines and approaches to care have been developed. Implementation of these recommendations will lead to better concordance with international treatment guidelines and increase levels of education for healthcare practitioners and patients. In turn, this will improve the available treatment pathways for cardiovascular diseases, potentially creating improved patient outcomes in the future.

Filling the gap: Genetic risk assessment in hypercholesterolemia using LDL-C and LPA genetic scores.

Routine genetic testing in hypercholesterolemia patients reveals a causative monogenic variant in less than 50% of affected individuals. Incomplete genetic characterization is partly due to polygenic factors influencing low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C). Additionally, functional variants in the LPA gene affect lipoprotein(a)-associated cholesterol concentrations but are difficult to determine due to the complex structure of the LPA gene. In this study we examined whether complementing standard sequencing with the analysis of genetic scores associated with LDL-C and Lp(a) concentrations improves the diagnostic output in hypercholesterolemia patients. 1.020 individuals including 252 clinically diagnosed hypercholesterolemia patients from the FH Register Austria were analyzed by massive-parallel-sequencing of candidate genes combined with array genotyping, identifying nine novel variants in LDLR. For each individual, validated genetic scores associated with elevated LDL-C and Lp(a) were calculated based on imputed genotypes. Integrating these scores especially the score for Lp(a) increased the proportion of individuals with a clearly defined disease etiology to 68.8% compared to 46.6% in standard genetic testing. The study highlights the major role of Lp(a) in disease etiology in clinically diagnosed hypercholesterolemia patients, of which parts are misclassified. Screening for monogenic causes of hypercholesterolemia and genetic scores for LDL-C and Lp(a) permits more precise diagnosis, allowing individualized treatment.

Assessment of practical applicability and clinical relevance of a commonly used LDL-C polygenic score in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels vary in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) and can be explained by a single deleterious genetic variant or by the aggregate effect of multiple, common small-effect variants that can be captured in a polygenic score (PS). We set out to investigate the contribution of a previously published PS to the inter-individual LDL-C variation and coronary artery disease (CAD) risk in patients with a clinical FH phenotype. METHODS: First, in a cohort of 628 patients referred for genetic FH testing, we evaluated the distribution of a PS for LDL-C comprising 12 genetic variants. Next, we determined its association with coronary artery disease (CAD) risk using UK Biobank data. RESULTS: The mean PS was higher in 533 FH-variant-negative patients (FH/M-) compared with 95 FH-variant carriers (1.02 vs 0.94, p < 0.001). 39% of all patients had a PS equal to the top 20% from a population-based reference cohort and these patients were less likely to carry an FH variant (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.10-0.48) compared with patients in the lowest 20%. In UK Biobank data, the PS explained 7.4% of variance in LDL-C levels and was associated with incident CAD. Addition of PS to a prediction model using age and sex and LDL-C did not increase the c-statistic for predicting CAD risk. CONCLUSIONS: This 12-variant PS was higher in FH/M- patients and associated with incident CAD in UK Biobank data. However, the PS did not improve predictive accuracy when added to the readily available characteristics age, sex and LDL-C, suggesting limited discriminative value for CAD.

The importance of cascade genetic screening for diagnosing autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia: Results from twenty years of a national screening program in Norway.

BACKGROUND: The most cost-effective strategy to diagnose patients with autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia (ADH) is to perform cascade genetic screening. OBJECTIVE: To present the cascade genetic screening program for ADH in Norway. METHODS: A national cascade genetic screening program for ADH in Norway has been operating at Unit for Cardiac and Cardiovascular Genetics, Oslo University Hospital for twenty years. This program has been run by just one genetic counsellor. We now present the main findings of this cascade genetic screening program. RESULTS: After genetic counselling, 8182 at-risk relatives have consented to genetic testing for the mutation that causes ADH in the family. Of these, 3076 (37.6%) relatives have tested positive. Among mutation-positive relatives 31.3% were on lipid-lowering therapy at the time of genetic testing. However, only 9.8% of these relatives had a value for low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol below 2.5 mmol/l (97 mg/dl). At follow-up six months after genetic testing, reductions in the levels of total serum cholesterol and LDL cholesterol of 12% and 17%, respectively were observed. A total of 8811 ADH heterozygotes have been diagnosed in Norway. Thus, the number of patients diagnosed by this modest cascade genetic screening program constitutes 35% of all Norwegian ADH patients provided with a molecular genetic diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Cascade genetic screening for ADH is very effective and should be organized at a national level. Even a modest cascade genetic screening program with small resources, can result in a large number of patients being identified.

Lorlatinib Exposure-Response Analyses for Safety and Efficacy in a Phase I/II Trial to Support Benefit-Risk Assessment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Lorlatinib is a small molecule inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and c-ROS oncogene 1 (ROS1) tyrosine kinases and is approved for the treatment of patients with ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the phase I/II study (NCT01970865), potential exposure-response (E-R) relationships between lorlatinib and selected safety and efficacy end points were evaluated in patients with NSCLC. E-R relationships were assessed for safety end points with incidence > 10% in all treated patients (n = 328). In total, 4 safety end points were assessed: hypercholesterolemia grade ≥ 3, hypertriglyceridemia grade ≥ 3, weight gain grade ≥ 2, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) grade ≥ 3. Using logistic regression, significant relationships were identified between lorlatinib plasma exposure and risk of hypercholesterolemia grade ≥ 3 (odds ratio (OR) 5.256) and risk of TEAE grade ≥ 3 (OR 3.214). The covariates baseline cholesterol and time on study prior to the event (TE) were associated with the probability of hypercholesterolemia grade ≥ 3. Baseline cholesterol and TE were found to have a statistically significant correlation with TEAE grade ≥ 3. Exposure-efficacy relationships were assessed for objective response rate (ORR; n = 197) and intracranial objective response rate (IC-ORR; n = 132). Lorlatinib plasma exposure was not identified as a statistically significant factor related to either efficacy end point. The only significant E-R relationships identified for efficacy were between baseline alkaline phosphatase and baseline amylase with IC-ORR (ORs 0.363 and 1.015, respectively). These findings support the lorlatinib indicated dose and dose modification guidelines regarding the management of lorlatinib-related AEs.

Assessment and Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors Among US Veterans With Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality in patients with prostate cancer, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may worsen cardiovascular risk. Adherence to guideline-recommended assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in patients initiating ADT is unknown. Objective: To describe CVRF assessment and management in men with prostate cancer initiating ADT and overall. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis of 90 494 men treated within the US Veterans Health Administration diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, was conducted. Participants included men with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and treatment with ADT within 1 year of diagnosis. Data analysis was conducted from September 10, 2019, to July 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of comprehensive CVRF assessment, uncontrolled CVRFs, and untreated CVRFs. Comprehensive CVRF assessment was defined as recorded measures for blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels; CVRF control as blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 130 mg/dL, and hemoglobin A1c less than 7%; and CVRF treatment as receipt of cardiac risk-reducing medications. Multivariable risk difference regression assessed the association between ASCVD and initiation of ADT and these outcomes. Results: Of 90 494 veterans, median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 62-70 years); and 22 700 men (25.1%) received ADT. Overall, 68.1% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.3%) of the men received comprehensive CVRF assessment; 54.1% (95% CI. 53.7%-54.4%) of those assessed had uncontrolled CVRFs, and 29.6% (95% CI, 29.2%-30.0%) of those with uncontrolled CVRFs were not receiving corresponding cardiac risk-reducing medication. Compared with the reference group of patients without ASCVD not receiving ADT, patients with ASCVD not receiving ADT had a 10.4% (95% CI, 9.5%-11.3%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 4.0% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.1%) lower risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 22.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-23.3%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs. Similar differences were observed in patients with ASCVD receiving ADT. In contrast, patients without ASCVD receiving ADT had only a 3.0% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.9%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 2.6% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.5%) higher risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.2%-6.6%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that veterans with prostate cancer had a high rate of underassessed and undertreated CVRFs, and ADT initiation was not associated with substantial improvements in CVRF assessment or management. These findings highlight gaps in care and the need for interventions to improve CVRF mitigation in this population.

Lifetime risk assessment in cholesterol management among hypertensive patients: observational cross-sectional study based on electronic health record data.

BACKGROUND: In hypertensive patients, reducing plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (LDL-C) is one of the main interventions for preventing chronic cardiovascular diseases (CVD). However, LDL-C control remains generally insufficient, also in patients with hypertension. We analyzed Electronic Health Record (EHR) data of 7117 hypertensive patients to find the most potential age and sex subgroups in greatest need for improvement in real life dyslipidemia treatment. Taking into account the current discussion on lifetime CVD risk, we focused on the age dependence in LDL-C control. METHODS: In this observational cross-sectional study, based on routine electronic health record (EHR) data, we investigated LDL-C control of hypertensive, non-diabetic patients without renal dysfunction or CVD, aged 30 years or more in Finnish primary care setting. RESULTS: More than half (54% of women and 53% of men) of untreated patients did not meet the LDL-C target of < 3 mmol/l and one third (35% of women and 33% of men) of patients did not reach the target even with the lipid-lowering medication (LLM). Furthermore, higher age was strongly associated with better LDL-C control (p < 0.001) and lower LDL-C level (p < 0.001) in individuals with and without LLM. Higher age was also strongly associated with LLM prescription (p < 0.001). In total, about half of the patients were on LLM (53% of women and 51% of men). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that dyslipidemia treatment among Finnish primary care hypertensive patients is generally insufficient, particularly in younger age groups who might benefit the most from CVD risk reduction over time. Clinicians should probably rely more on the lifetime risk of CVD, especially when treating working age hypertensive patients.

Cardiovascular Risk and Risk Factor Management in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Population-Based Cohort Study Assessing Sex Disparities

BACKGROUND: With recent changes in the United Kingdom's clinical practice for diabetes mellitus care, contemporary estimates of sex disparities in cardiovascular risk and risk factor management are needed. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to hospital and death records for people in England, we identified 79 985 patients with incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) between 2006 to 2013 matched to 386 547 patients without diabetes mellitus. Sex-stratified Cox models were used to assess cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: Compared with women without T2DM, women with T2DM had a higher cardiovascular event risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.28]) with similar corresponding data in men (hazard ratio, 1.12 [1.06-1.19]), leading to a nonsignificant higher relative risk in women (risk ratio, 1.07 [0.98-1.17]). However, some important sex differences in the management of risk factors were observed. Compared with men with T2DM, women with T2DM were more likely to be obese, hypertensive, and have hypercholesterolemia, but were less likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering medication and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, especially if they had cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with men developing T2DM, women with T2DM do not have a significantly higher relative increase in cardiovascular risk, but ongoing sex disparities in prescribing should prompt heightened efforts to improve the standard and equity of diabetes mellitus care in women and men.

Systematic Review for the 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol found little evidence to support the use of nonstatin lipid-modifying medications to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events. Since publication of these guidelines, multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating nonstatin lipid-modifying medications have been published. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to assess the magnitude of benefit and/or harm from additional lipid-modifying therapies compared with statins alone in individuals with known ASCVD or at high risk of ASCVD. We included data from randomized controlled trials with a sample size of >1,000 patients and designed for follow-up >1 year. We performed a comprehensive literature search and identified 10 randomized controlled trials for intensive review, including trials evaluating ezetimibe, niacin, cholesterol-ester transfer protein inhibitors, and PCSK9 inhibitors. The prespecified primary outcome for this review was a composite of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: The cardiovascular benefit of nonstatin lipid-modifying therapies varied significantly according to the class of medication. There was evidence for reduced ASCVD morbidity with ezetimibe and 2 PSCK9 inhibitors. Reduced ASCVD mortality rate was reported for 1 PCSK9 inhibitor. The use of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) reduced the primary outcome by 1.8% over 7 years (hazard ratio: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.84-0.96], 7-year number needed to treat: 56). The PSCK9 inhibitor evolocumab in the FOURIER study (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) decreased the primary outcome by 1.5% over 2.2 years (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; 2.2=year number needed to treat: 67). In ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab), alirocumab reduced the primary outcome by 1.6% over 2.8 years (hazard ratio: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.93; 2.8-year number needed to treat: 63). For ezetimibe and the PSCK9 inhibitors, rates of musculoskeletal, neurocognitive, gastrointestinal, or other adverse event risks did not differ between the treatment and control groups. For patients at high risk of ASCVD already on background statin therapy, there was minimal evidence for improved ASCVD risk or adverse events with cholesterol-ester transfer protein inhibitors. There was no evidence of benefit for the addition of niacin to statin therapy. Direct comparisons of the results of the 10 randomized controlled trials were limited by significant differences in sample size, duration of follow-up, and reported primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review of the evidence for adding nonstatin lipid-modifying therapies to statins to reduce ASCVD risk, we found evidence of benefit for ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors but not for niacin or cholesterol-ester transfer protein inhibitors.

Análisis de Costo de la Enfermedad, del Tratamiento, las Complicaciones e Intervenciones de la Hipercolesterolemia en México en 2016.

OBJETIVOS: Describir los costos y el impacto económico de la atención de pacientes diagnosticados con hipercolesterolemia en México en el año 2016. METODOLOGíA: Se desarrolla una evaluación económica del tipo análisis de costo de la enfermedad donde se cuantifican los recursos médicos utilizados para el tratamiento de la hipercolesterolemia así como para sus complicaciones. Los costos de los recursos médicos utilizados son obtenidos de los costos unitarios por nivel de atención del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) así como de las licitaciones publicadas en el portal de compras del IMSS. El uso de recursos se obtiene mediante un panel de expertos y para el porcentaje de presencia de las complicaciones se efectúa una revisión de literatura. Los costos médicos directos son estimados multiplicando la frecuencia de uso por el costo unitario, agrupándolos y obteniendo así los costos individuales de cada recurso médico. RESULTADOS: Los casos de hipercolesterolemia en prevención secundaria con enfermedad coronaria y enfermedad cardiovascular representan un mayor costo promedio anual ($111,835.19, D.E. $84,276.37), seguido de la hipercolesterolemia en prevención secundaria con enfermedad coronaria sin enfermedad cardiovascular ($56,352.13, D.E. $29,004.04), los cuales no incluyen los costos generados por las complicaciones. El resto de los grupos de hipercolesterolemia representan una carga económica menor. CONCLUSIONES: La carga económica de la hipercolesterolemia representa en promedio por caso al año $258,761.37, esto traducido a los aproximadamente 445,075 de casos diagnosticados y tratados al año representaría un impacto económico en el sistema de salud de más de ciento quince mil millones ($115,168,331,355.11).

Assessment of the 1% of Patients with Consistent < 15% Reduction in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol: Pooled Analysis of 10 Phase 3 ODYSSEY Alirocumab Trials.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials of statins and other lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) often report large inter-individual variations in their effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We evaluated apparent hyporesponsiveness to the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab (defined as < 15% LDL-C reduction from baseline at all timepoints) using data from 10 Phase 3 trials (3120 hypercholesterolemic patients). METHODS: This report assessed the LDL-C percent reduction from baseline at weeks 4-104 (depending on study), and alirocumab serum levels and antidrug antibodies, in patients with apparent hyporesponsiveness. RESULTS: Among the 3120 patients evaluated, 98.9% responded to alirocumab, and 33 (1.1%) had < 15% LDL C reduction at all measured timepoints. Pharmacokinetics data indicated that 13/33 apparent hyporesponders had not received alirocumab; no pharmacokinetics data were available for 14/33, and 6/33 had detectable alirocumab. For the six patients with confirmed alirocumab receipt, the degree of adherence to pre-study concurrent LLTs could not be determined after study start; one of these patients had persistent antidrug antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Apparent hyporesponsiveness to alirocumab appeared to be due to lack of receipt of alirocumab determined by serum alirocumab levels, possible lack of adherence to concurrent LLTs, a theoretical and rare possibility of biological non-responsiveness due to persistent antidrug antibodies, or other causes, as yet unidentified.

Does Identification of Previously Undiagnosed Conditions Change Care-Seeking Behavior?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether identification of previously undiagnosed high cholesterol, hypertension, and/or diabetes during an in-home assessment impacts care seeking among Medicare beneficiaries. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Data from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, which recruited African American and white participants across the continental United States from 2003-2007, were linked to Medicare claims. STUDY DESIGN: We used panel data models to analyze changes in doctor visits for evaluation and management of conditions after participants were assessed, utilizing the study's rolling recruitment to control for secular trends. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: We extracted Medicare claims for the 24 months before through 24 months after assessment via REGARDS for 5,884 participants. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Semi-annual doctor visits for previously undiagnosed conditions increased by 22 percentage points (95 percent confidence interval: 16-28) 2 years following assessment. The effect was similar by gender, race, region, and Medicaid, but it may have been lower among participants who lacked a usual health care provider. CONCLUSIONS: In-home assessment of cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose can increase doctor visits for individuals with previously undiagnosed conditions. However, biomarker assessment may have more limited impact among individuals with low access to care.

2017 Focused Update of the 2016 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Non-Statin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways.

In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C <190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes. Based on feedback and further deliberation, the ECDP writing committee down-graded recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use, recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe. For clarification, the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing. Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence, in which case justification is provided.

Eligibility for alirocumab or evolocumab treatment in 1090 hypercholesterolemic patients referred to a regional cholesterol treatment center with LDL cholesterol ≥70 mg/dL despite maximal-tolerated LDL-cholesterol-lowering therapy.

BACKGROUND: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, Praluent (alirocumab [ALI]) and Repatha (evolocumab [EVO]) have been approved as adjuncts to the standard-of-care maximal-tolerated dose (MTD) of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC)-lowering therapy (LLT), statin therapy, in heterozygous (HeFH) (ALI or EVO) or homozygous (EVO) familial hypercholesterolemia, or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) where LDLC lowering is insufficient (both). Since LDLC lowering has been revolutionized by ALI and EVO, specialty pharmaceutical pricing models will be applied to a mass market. METHODS: We applied US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and insurance eligibility criteria for ALI and EVO to 1090 hypercholesterolemic patients serially referred over 3 years who then received ≥2 months maximal-tolerated dose of standard-of-care LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy (MTDLLT) with follow-up LDLC ≥70 mg/dL. MTDLLT did not include ALI or EVO, which had not been commercially approved before completion of this study. RESULTS: Of the 1090 patients, 140 (13%) had HeFH by clinical diagnostic criteria and/or CVD with LDLC >100 mg/dL despite ≥2 months on MTDLLT, meeting FDA insurance criteria for ALI or EVO therapy. Another 51 (5%) patients were statin intolerant, without HeFH or CVD. CONCLUSION: If 13% of patients with HeFH-CVD and LDLC >100 mg/dL despite MTDLLT are eligible for ALI or EVO, then specialty pharmaceutical pricing models (~$14,300/year) might be used in an estimated 10 million HeFH-CVD patients. Whether the health care savings arising from the anticipated reduction of CVD events by ALI or EVO justify their costs in populations with HeFH-CVD and LDLC >100 mg/dL despite MTDLLT remains to be determined.

Optical Coherence Tomography Assessment of Glucose Fluctuation Impact on the Neointimal Proliferation After Stent Implantation in a Diabetic/Hypercholesterolemic Swine Model.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of glucose fluctuation on neointimal proliferation after stent implantation by optical coherence tomography (OCT) in a diabetic/hypercholesterolemic (DM/HC) swine model.A total of 24 everolimus-eluting stents (EES) were implanted in the right coronary artery (RCA) of the animals using a 20% overstretch ratio. The 24 swines were divided into a DM-high glucose fluctuation (HGF) group (n = 8), DMlow glucose fluctuation (LGF) group (n = 8), and a control group (n = 8). Percent diameter stenosis (%DS), late loss (LL), percent area stenosis (%AS), and neointimal thickness (NIT) were analyzed. The differences in neointimal characteristics and circulating oxidative stress and inflammation biomarkers were assessed and measured.At 28 days, the highest values of %DS, LL, %AS, and NIT were achieved in the HGF group followed by the LGF group (P < 0.05) and the control group (P < 0.05). The highest frequency of the heterogeneous pattern was in the HGF group followed by the LGF group (P < 0.05) and the control group (P < 0.05). This was also the case for the oxidative stress and inflammation biomarkers.DM might have a deleterious impact on neointimal proliferation after EES implantation in this DM/HC swine model. The extent of glucose fluctuation may be related to the degree of neointimal proliferation and this needs to be further confirmed by long-term follow-up and histology.

Effect of Statin Treatment vs Usual Care on Primary Cardiovascular Prevention Among Older Adults: The ALLHAT-LLT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: While statin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention has been associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity, the effect on all-cause mortality has been variable. There is little evidence to guide the use of statins for primary prevention in adults 75 years and older. Objectives: To examine statin treatment among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older when used for primary prevention in the Lipid-Lowering Trial (LLT) component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc secondary data analyses were conducted of participants 65 years and older without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; 2867 ambulatory adults with hypertension and without baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were included. The ALLHAT-LLT was conducted from February 1994 to March 2002 at 513 clinical sites. Interventions: Pravastatin sodium (40 mg/d) vs usual care (UC). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome in the ALLHAT-LLT was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal coronary heart disease combined (coronary heart disease events). Results: There were 1467 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [5.2] years) in the pravastatin group (48.0% [n = 704] female) and 1400 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [5.2] years) in the UC group (50.8% [n = 711] female). The baseline mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 147.7 (19.8) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 147.6 (19.4) mg/dL in the UC group; by year 6, the mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 109.1 (35.4) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 128.8 (27.5) mg/dL in the UC group. At year 6, of the participants assigned to pravastatin, 42 of 253 (16.6%) were not taking any statin; 71.0% in the UC group were not taking any statin. The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the pravastatin group vs the UC group were 1.18 (95% CI, 0.97-1.42; P = .09) for all adults 65 years and older, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85-1.37; P = .55) for adults aged 65 to 74 years, and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.98-1.84; P = .07) for adults 75 years and older. Coronary heart disease event rates were not significantly different among the groups. In multivariable regression, the results remained nonsignificant, and there was no significant interaction between treatment group and age. Conclusions and Relevance: No benefit was found when pravastatin was given for primary prevention to older adults with moderate hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and a nonsignificant direction toward increased all-cause mortality with pravastatin was observed among adults 75 years and older. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.