Real-World Data on Comparison of Lipid-Lowering Effects between Alirocumab and Evolocumab in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia.

Background: Even though the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, alirocumab and evolocumab, have been approved to reduce plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in high-risk patients, real-world data showing comparisons of the lipid-lowering effects between alirocumab and evolocumab are scarce because of the low prescription rates of PCSK9 inhibitors in clinical practice. Methods: Between Feb 2018 and Sep 2021, 22 patients who received alirocumab and 22 patients who received evolocumab at a tertiary medical center were enrolled. The patients' baseline characteristics, prescribed medications, plasma LDL-C levels, and percentages of reduction in LDL-C were compared between alirocumab users and evolocumab users. Results: The alirocumab users more frequently received ezetimibe treatment (72.7% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.03) and had higher baseline LDL-C (165.6 ± 63.2 mg/dL vs. 130.8 ± 56.3 mg/dL, p = 0.04) compared with the evolocumab users. At 6 months of follow-up, the plasma LDL-C levels in the alirocumab users were similar to those in the evolocumab users (79.3 ± 64.0 mg/dL vs. 63.5 ± 44.1 mg/dL, p = 0.48). Additionally, the percentages of LDL-C reduction following treatment were similar between the alirocumab users and evolocumab users (-47.0% ± 45.0% vs. -49.8 ± 24.9%, p = 0.66). Conclusions: The LDL-C lowering effects of alirocumab are similar to those of evolocumab in clinical practice.

Rhythm control without catheter ablation may have benefits beyond stroke prevention in rivaroxaban-treated non-permanent atrial fibrillation.

The current treatment paradigm for atrial fibrillation (AF) prioritizes rate control over rhythm control; however, rhythm control has shown benefits over other AF strategies. This study compares the outcomes of rivaroxaban with and without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), using propensity score matching to correct for statistical effects of baseline discrepancies. This multi-center retrospective study included 1,477 patients with non-permanent AF who took rivaroxaban for at least one month between 2011 and 2016 and had not received catheter ablation. Concomitant AAD use was compared against clinical outcome endpoints for effectiveness, safety, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Associations with concomitant AAD use were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Patients were divided into two matched groups: rivaroxaban alone (n = 739) and with concomitant AADs (n = 738). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.308), effectiveness (p = 0.583), and MACE (p = 0.754) were similar between the two groups, and multivariate analysis showed no significant differences. The new thromboembolism and all-cause death rates were higher in rivaroxaban alone (2.7% vs 0.8%, p = 0.005; and 10% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.032, respectively). The heart failure readmission rate was higher in the concomitant-AAD group (8.4% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.003). The concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well-tolerated, with lower rates of thromboembolism and all-cause death, but is associated with more occurrences of congestive heart failure.

Pathological and Immunohistochemical Characteristics of Granuloma and Lymphatics in Cheilitis Granulomatosa.

ABSTRACT: Cheilitis granulomatosa (CG) is an idiopathic, rare, and chronic granulomatous disorder involving the lips. We characterized the pathological and immunohistopathological findings of these granulomas and their relationship with the lymphatic vessels. Pathologically confirmed cases of primary CG from 2001 to 2016 were collected. Cases of inflammatory cheilitis without the presence of granuloma were included in the control group. Demographic data, clinical presentation, response to therapy, and pathological differences were compared. Periodic acid-Schiff and acid-fast stains excluded patients having infections. CD68, CD163, and D2-40 stains demonstrated features of granuloma, macrophage polarization, and the relationship between granuloma and lymphatic vessels. Thirteen patients diagnosed with CG were enrolled. Thirteen people were enrolled in the control group. The granulomas were either mononuclear or sarcoidal. They were predominantly positive for CD68 but negative for CD163. Perilymphatic granulomas were found in all patients. Intralymphatic histiocytosis and lymphatic dilatation were more commonly observed in patients diagnosed with CG than those in controls (54% vs. 15%, P = 0.03 and 92% vs. 23%, P < 0.01). TH1 immune response due to CD68+ M1 macrophages results in CG. Perilymphatic aggregation of macrophages and intralymphatic histiocytosis were important pathological clues for diagnosis.

Management of Patients with Type V Hyperlipoproteinemia: An Uncommon Phenotype of Dyslipidemia with Chylomicronemia and Severe Hypertriglyceridemia.

Hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) remains a risk-enhancing factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. We aimed to report real-world data on the management of patients with type V hyperlipoproteinemia (HLP5), an uncommon phenotype of dyslipidemia characterized by fasting chylomicronemia and severe HTG. Between July 2018 and May 2021, 90 patients with HTG, including 83 patients with type IV hyperlipoproteinemia (HLP4) and 7 patients with HLP5, were identified by plasma apolipoprotein B (apoB) and lipoprotein electrophoresis. Patients with HLP5 were younger, had higher total cholesterol (TC) (264.9 ± 26.7 mg/dL vs. 183.9 ± 26.1 mg/dL; p < 0.01) and higher triglyceride (TG) (1296.7 ± 380.5 mg/dL vs. 247.6 ± 96.1 mg/dL; p < 0.01), and had lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (30.6 ± 4.8 mg/dL vs. 40.5 ± 8.7 mg/dL; p < 0.01) and lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (62.9 ± 16.4 vs. 103.0 ± 21.1 mg/dL; p < 0.01) compared with patients with HLP4. Despite an aggressive use of statin and fenofibrate with greater reductions in TG (-65.9 ± 13.7% vs. -27.9 ± 30.5%; p < 0.01) following 6 months of treatment, patients with HLP5 had persistent HTG (440.1 ± 239.0 mg/dL vs. 173.9 ± 94.8 mg/dL; p < 0.01) and an increase in LDL-C (28.3 ± 57.2% vs. -19.5 ± 32.0%; p < 0.01) compared with patients with HLP4. Our findings highlight that the lack of novel TG-lowering medications and management guidelines remains an unmet medical need in patients with HLP5. Closely monitoring lipid profiles, full assessment of individual's risk of cardiovascular disease, and emphasis on medication adherence are of clinical importance.

Exploratory Evaluation of Rhythm Control by Dronedarone in Combination With Low-Dose Rivaroxaban, Warfarin, Antiplatelet, or None of the Antithrombotic Therapy in High-Risk Patients With Non-Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

The emerging data supports rhythm control to prevent major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Limited data demonstrated rivaroxaban 10 mg combining dronedarone seemed feasible. This study aimed at investigating clinical events in a dronedarone-treated cohort. This exploratory, retrospective chart review was conducted in nonpermanent AF patients receiving dronedarone for ≥ 3 months between 2009/1 and 2016/2. In Taiwan, dronedarone's labeled indication was strict to age ≥ 70 or 65 to 70 years with either hypertension, diabetes, prior stroke, or left atrium >50 mm. We divided all into 4 groups using antithrombotic strategies to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints. A total of 689 patients (mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 3.8 ± 1.4) were analyzed: rivaroxaban 10 mg (n = 93, 13.5%), warfarin (n = 89, 12.9%), antiplatelet (n = 331, 48.0%), and none (n = 176, 25.5%). During the follow-up period (mean 946 ± 493.8 days), the rivaroxaban group did not report any stroke or thromboembolism (ishcmeic stroke rate: antiplatelet [0.6%], none [1.1%]; hemorrahgic stroke rate: warfarin [2.2%]; thromboembolism rate: warfarin [2.2%]). There was no significant difference in safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between groups. Also, >104 weeks of dronedarone use was the independent predictor for MACE after adjusting the strategy and other covariates (hazard ratio 0.14 [95% confidence interval 0.04-0.44], P = .001). Our findings warrant concomitant rivaroxaban 10 mg and dronedarone for further investigation. Regardless of antithrombotic strategies, a more extended persistence of dronedarone was associated with fewer MACE.

Safety and Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban in Combination with Various Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Patients with Non-Permanent Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Rivaroxaban reduces the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, who often also receive antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm. Current guidelines contraindicate concomitant use of rivaroxaban with the popular AAD dronedarone, despite little data demonstrating interactions with AADs. This study investigates the outcomes of concomitant rivaroxaban and AAD drug use in a real-world cohort. METHODS: This retrospective study included 1777 non-permanent AF patients taking rivaroxaban for ≥ 1 month between 2011 and 2016 from a multicenter cohort in Taiwan, and compared concomitant AAD use against clinical outcome endpoints for safety, effectiveness, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between concomitant AAD use and outcomes. RESULTS: Patients were divided into rivaroxaban alone (n = 1205) and with concomitant amiodarone (n = 177), dronedarone (n = 231), or propafenone (n = 164) groups. The proportion of patients using rivaroxaban 10 mg was highest in the concomitant dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 53.6%; with amiodarone, 57.6%; with dronedarone, 77.1%; and with propafenone, 46.3% (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.892), effectiveness (p = 0.336), and MACE (p = 0.674) were similar between the four groups; however, there were significantly fewer new systemic thromboembolisms in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 2.5%; with amiodarone, 0.6%; with dronedarone, 0%; and with propafenone, 1.2% (p = 0.029). The all-cause death rate was also lowest in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 9.0%; with amiodarone, 9.6%; with dronedarone, 3.0%; and with propafenone: 6.1% (p = 0.013). After covariate adjustment, there were no differences in the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between patients receiving or not receiving AADs. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well tolerated, warranting further investigation into the apparent benefits of a reduced dose of rivaroxaban combined with dronedarone.