Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Sotalol Versus Dronedarone After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Background Atrial tachyarrhythmias are common after atrial fibrillation ablation, so adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy is often used. Data on the effectiveness and safety of dronedarone and sotalol after AF ablation are limited. Here, we compared health outcomes of ablated patients treated with dronedarone versus sotalol. Methods and Results A comparative analysis of propensity score-matched retrospective cohorts was performed using IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Patients treated with dronedarone after atrial fibrillation ablation were matched 1:1 to patients treated with sotalol between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2018. Outcomes of interest included cardiovascular hospitalization, proarrhythmia, repeat ablation, and cardioversion. This study was exempt from institutional review board review. Among 30 696 patients who underwent atrial fibrillation ablation, 2086 were treated with dronedarone and 3665 with sotalol after ablation. Propensity-score matching resulted in 1815 patients receiving dronedarone matched 1:1 to patients receiving sotalol. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was lower with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.61-0.97]), 6 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.93]), and 12 months after ablation (aHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.66-0.93]). Risk of repeat ablation and cardioversion generally did not differ between the 2 groups. A lower risk of proarrhythmia was associated with dronedarone versus sotalol at 3 months (aHR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64-0.90]), 6 months (aHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.93]), and 12 months (aHR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.94]) after ablation. Conclusions These data suggest that dronedarone may be a more effective and safer alternative after ablation than sotalol.

Discordant responses of plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) to alirocumab: A pooled analysis from 10 ODYSSEY Phase 3 studies.

AIMS: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors consistently reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 50-60% and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) by 20-30%, but the mechanism of Lp(a) lowering remains unclear. If Lp(a) is cleared by the LDL receptor, similar to LDL-C, then one would expect PCSK9 inhibition to induce a concordant LDL-C/Lp(a) response in an approximately 2:1 ratio. We aim to determine the prevalence of discordant plasma LDL-C/Lp(a) response to the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab. METHODS: This is a post hoc, pooled analysis of 10 randomized controlled trials from the ODYSSEY Phase 3 clinical trial program for alirocumab. Patients enrolled in the trials were high cardiovascular risk and/or with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. The primary end point was prevalence of discordant LDL-C/Lp(a) response to alirocumab at 24 weeks. Discordant response was defined as LDL-C reduction >35% and Lp(a) reduction ≤10%, or LDL-C reduction ≤35% and Lp(a) reduction >10%. RESULTS: Of the 1709 patients in the pooled study cohort, 62.4% were male, and the mean age was 59.2 (SD: 11.0) years. Baseline mean LDL-C was 126.5 (SD: 46.3) mg/dL and baseline median Lp(a) was 46.9 (interquartile range: 21.8-89.0) mg/dL. Total prevalence of discordant LDL-C/Lp(a) response was 21.5% (12.6% with LDL-C >35% reduction and Lp(a) ≤10% reduction; 8.9% with LDL-C ≤35% reduction and Lp(a) >10% reduction). Baseline Lp(a) and familial hypercholesterolemia status did not affect discordance. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of discordant LDL-C/Lp(a) response was observed with alirocumab, further suggesting that PCSK9 inhibitor therapy with alirocumab reduces plasma Lp(a) through alternative pathways to LDL receptor clearance.

US Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: An Insurance Claims-Based Report.

Background Current American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society guidelines and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation. We assessed the concordance between healthcare provider real-world practice and current guidelines with respect to first-line AAD rhythm management. Methods and Results Administrative claims data from the deidentified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database were used. Patients were included if they were initiated on an AAD in 2015 to 2016, had 1 year of continuous data availability before their first AAD pharmacy claim, and had a diagnosis for atrial fibrillation within that period. Concordance was assessed by comparing the AAD initiated by the healthcare provider against guideline recommendations for first-line treatment, given the presence of heart failure, coronary artery disease, both, or neither (as determined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision [ICD-9 and ICD-10] codes). Concordance was also assessed by provider type using Medicare taxonomy codes. For the 15 445 patients included, 51% of healthcare providers initiated AAD treatments with amiodarone, 18% flecainide, 15% sotalol, 8% dronedarone, 5% propafenone, and 2% dofetilide. The overall rate of guideline concordance was 61%, with differences by provider type: 67% for electrophysiologists, 61% for cardiologists, and 60% for others (internal medicine, etc). Conclusions There continues to be a sizable gap in concordance between practice and guidelines in first-line rhythm management of patients with atrial fibrillation. Further research is needed to identify possible explanations for non-guideline-recommended use of AADs, in addition to enhanced AAD educational strategies for practitioners.

Efficacy and safety of dronedarone by atrial fibrillation history duration: Insights from the ATHENA study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) burden increases with increasing duration of AF/AFL history. HYPOTHESIS: Outcomes with dronedarone may also be impacted by duration of AF/AFL history. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of ATHENA, efficacy and safety of dronedarone vs placebo were assessed in groups categorized by time from first known AF/AFL episode to randomization (ie, duration of AF/AFL history): <3 months (short), 3 to <24 months (intermediate), and ≥ 24 months (long). RESULTS: Of 2859 patients with data on duration of AF/AFL history, 45.3%, 29.6%, and 25.1% had short, intermediate, and long histories, respectively. Patients in the long history group had the highest prevalence of structural heart disease and were more likely to be in AF/AFL at baseline. Placebo-treated patients in the long history group also had the highest incidence of AF/AFL recurrence and cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization during the study. The risk of first CV hospitalization/death from any cause was lower with dronedarone vs placebo in patients with short (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.96]) and intermediate (0.72 [0.56-0.92]) histories; a trend favoring dronedarone was also observed in patients with long history (0.84 [0.66-1.07]). A similar pattern was observed for first AF/AFL recurrence. No new drug-related safety issues were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with long AF/AFL history had the highest burden of AF/AFL at baseline and during the study. Dronedarone significantly improved efficacy vs placebo in patients with short and intermediate AF/AFL histories. While exploratory, these results support the potential value in initiating rhythm control treatment early in patients with AF/AFL.

Impact of electrical cardioversion on quality of life for patients with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation: Is there a treatment expectation effect?

It is assumed that electrical cardioversion (ECV) improves the quality of life (QoL) of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) by restoring sinus rhythm (SR). OBJECTIVE: We examined the effect of ECV and rhythm status on QoL of patients with symptomatic persistent AF in a randomized controlled trial. METHOD: The elective cardioversion for prevention of symptomatic atrial fibrillation trial examined the efficacy of dronedarone around the time of ECV in maintaining SR. Quality of life was measured with the University of Toronto Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale. The primary outcome was the change in AF symptom severity (∆AFSS) score over 6 months (0-35 points, with higher scores reflecting worse QoL and a minimal clinically important difference defined as ∆AFSS ≥3 points). Multivariable linear regression was performed to identify factors associated with changes in QoL. RESULTS: We included 148 patients with complete AFSS scores at baseline and 6 months. Over 6 months, QoL improved irrespective of rhythm status (ΔAFSS scores for patients who (i) maintained SR; (ii) had AF relapse after successful ECV; and (iii) had unsuccessful ECV were -6.8 ±â€¯6.4 points, -4.1 ±â€¯6.2 points, and -4.0 ±â€¯5.8 points respectively, P < .01 for all subgroups). After adjustment of baseline covariates, maintenance of SR was associated with QoL improvement (ΔAFSS: -3.8 points, 95% CI: -6.0 to -1.6 points, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance of SR was associated with clinically relevant improvement in patients' QoL at 6 months. Patients with AF recurrence had a small but still relevant improvement in their QoL, potentially due to factors other than sinus rhythm.

Beliefs, risk perceptions, and lipid management among patients with and without diabetes: Results from the PALM registry.

Intensive lipid management is critical to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We performed an observational study of 7628 patients with (n = 2943) and without DM (n = 4685), enrolled in the Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry and treated at 140 outpatient clinics across the United States in 2015. Patient self-estimated CV risk, patient-perceived statin benefit and risk, observed statin therapy use and dosing were assessed. RESULTS: Patients with DM were more likely to believe that their CV risk was elevated compared with patients without DM (39.1% vs 29.3%, P < .001). Patients with DM were more likely to receive a statin (74.2% vs 63.5%, P < .001) but less likely to be treated with guideline-recommended statin intensity (36.5% vs 46.9%, P < .001), driven by the low proportion (16.5%) of high risk (ASCVD risk ≥7.5%) primary prevention DM patients treated with a high intensity statin. Patients with DM treated with guideline-recommended statin intensity were more likely to believe they were at high CV risk (44.9% vs 38.4%, P = .005) and that statins can reduce this risk (41.1% vs 35.6%, P = .02), compared with patients treated with lower than guideline-recommended statin intensity. Compared with patients with an elevated HgbA1c, patients with well-controlled DM were no more likely to be on a statin (77.9% vs 79.3%, P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, the majority of patients with DM were treated with lower than guideline-recommended statin intensity. Patient education and engagement may help providers improve lipid therapy for these high-risk patients.

Dronedarone treatment following cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation/flutter: A post hoc analysis of the EURIDIS and ADONIS trials.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 EURIDIS and ADONIS studies evaluated dronedarone for atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence in patients with nonpermanent AF. Here we assessed whether patient characteristics and/or treatment outcomes in these studies differed based on the need for cardioversion before randomization. METHODS: Time to adjudicated first AF/AFL recurrence, symptomatic recurrence, cardiovascular hospitalization/death, and AF hospitalization, and safety were assessed by cardioversion status. RESULTS: Of 1237 patients randomized (2:1 dronedarone:placebo), 364 required baseline cardioversion (dronedarone 243, placebo 121). Patients requiring cardioversion had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and shorter times to first AF/AFL recurrence compared with those not requiring cardioversion. Dronedarone was associated with longer median time to first AF/AFL recurrence vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status (cardioversion: 50 vs 15 days, hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.97; P = .02; non-cardioversion: 150 vs 77 days, HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.90; P < .01). Dronedarone was similarly associated with prolonged median time to symptomatic recurrence vs placebo in the cardioversion (347 vs 87 days, HR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87) and non-cardioversion (288 vs 120 days, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) populations. Risk of cardiovascular hospitalization/death and first AF hospitalization was lower with dronedarone vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status, but differences were not statistically significant. The safety of dronedarone was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring baseline cardioversion represent a distinct population, having more underlying cardiovascular disease and experiencing a shorter time to AF/AFL recurrences. Dronedarone was associated with improved efficacy vs placebo regardless of cardioversion status.

Statin Therapy and Risk of Incident Diabetes Mellitus in Adults With Cardiovascular Risk Factors.

The association between statins and diabetes mellitus (DM) remains controversial. The Kaiser Permanente CHAMP Study identified adults without DM who had cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and no previous lipid lowering therapy (LLT) between 2008 and 2010. The CV risk factors included known atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥190 mg/dl, or a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol between 70 and 189 mg/dl and an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. Incident DM was defined as ≥2 abnormal tests (i.e., A1C ≥6.5% or a fasting blood glucose ≥126 mg/dl) or ≥1 abnormal test result plus a new diagnostic code or medication for DM. Among 213,289 eligible adults, 28,149 patients initiating statins were carefully matched to an equal number of patients who remained off LLT during follow-up. Compared with matched patients not receiving statins, those initiating statin therapy had the same mean age (67.9 ± 9.4 years) and gender (42.8% women). The crude rate (per 100 person-years) of incident DM was low (0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52 to 0.59) but was marginally higher in patients who were treated with a statin (0.69, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.74) versus no LLT (0.42, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.46). After additional adjustment, statin therapy was associated with a modestly increased risk of incident DM (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.34). In conclusion, in adults without DM at increased ASCVD risk, initiation of statin therapy was independently associated with a modestly higher risk of incident DM.

Efficacy and safety of dronedarone in patients with a prior ablation for atrial fibrillation/flutter: Insights from the ATHENA study.

BACKGROUND: The role of antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) after catheter ablation is not well established. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that changing the myocardial substrate by ablation may alter the responsiveness to dronedarone. METHODS: We assessed the efficacy and safety of dronedarone in the treatment of paroxysmal/persistent atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) post-ablation, based on a post hoc analysis of the ATHENA study. A total of 196 patients (dronedarone 90, placebo 106) had an ablation for AF/AFL before study entry. In these patients, the effect of treatment on the first hospitalization because of cardiovascular (CV) events/all-cause death was assessed, as was AF/AFL recurrence in individuals with sinus rhythm at baseline. The safety of dronedarone vs placebo was also determined. RESULTS: In patients with prior ablation, dronedarone reduced the risk of AF/AFL recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42, 1.00]; P < .05) as well as the median time to first AF/AFL recurrence (561 vs 180 days) compared with placebo. The HR for first CV hospitalization/all-cause death with dronedarone vs placebo was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.53; P = .91). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 83.1% vs 75.5% and rates of serious TEAEs were 27.0% vs 18.9% in the dronedarone and placebo groups, respectively. One death occurred with dronedarone (not treatment-emergent) and five occurred with placebo. CONCLUSION: In patients with prior ablation for AF/AFL, dronedarone reduced the risk of AF/AFL recurrence compared with placebo, but not the risk of first CV hospitalization/all-cause death. Safety outcomes were consistent with those of the overall ATHENA study.

Intensity of Lipid Lowering With Statin Therapy in Patients With Cerebrovascular Disease Versus Coronary Artery Disease: Insights from the PALM Registry.

Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients' perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) versus cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) versus both CAD and CeVD (CAD&CeVD). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with CeVD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and CeVD&CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient-perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with CeVD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.91), or guideline-recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45-0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with CeVD only were also less likely to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL (59.2% versus 69.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) than individuals with CAD alone. There were no significant differences in the use of any statin therapy or guideline-recommended statin intensity between individuals with CAD&CeVD and those with CAD only. Conclusions Despite lack of significant differences in patient-perceived cardiovascular risk or statin beliefs, patients with CeVD were significantly less likely to receive higher intensity statin or achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL than those with CAD only.

Sex Differences in the Use of Statins in Community Practice.

BACKGROUND: Female patients have historically received less aggressive lipid management than male patients. Contemporary care patterns and the potential causes for these differences are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Examining the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry-a nationwide registry of outpatients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-we compared the use of statin therapy, guideline-recommended statin dosing, and reasons for undertreatment. We specifically analyzed sex differences in statin treatment and guideline-recommended statin dosing using multivariable logistic regression. Among 5693 participants (43% women) eligible for 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline-recommended statin treatment, women were less likely than men to be prescribed any statin therapy (67.0% versus 78.4%; P<0.001) or to receive a statin at the guideline-recommended intensity (36.7% versus 45.2%; P<0.001). Women were more likely to report having previously never been offered statin therapy (18.6% versus 13.5%; P<0.001), declined statin therapy (3.6% versus 2.0%; P<0.001), or discontinued their statin (10.9% versus 6.1%; P<0.001). Women were also less likely than men to believe statins were safe (47.9% versus 55.2%; P<0.001) or effective (68.0% versus 73.2%; P<0.001) and more likely to report discontinuing their statin because of a side effect (7.9% versus 3.6%; P<0.001). Sex differences in both overall and guideline-recommended intensity statin use persisted after adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors, clinical characteristics, patient beliefs, and provider characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P<0.001; and odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P<0.01, respectively). Sex differences were consistent across primary and secondary prevention indications for statin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Women eligible for statin therapy were less likely than men to be treated with any statin or guideline-recommended statin intensity. A combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, while declining and discontinuing treatment more frequently, accounted for these sex differences in statin use.

Alirocumab efficacy and safety by race and ethnicity: Analysis from 3 ODYSSEY phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Differences in lipid and cardiovascular risk profiles have been observed in African-American/black (AA/B), white (W), and Hispanic/Latino (H/L) individuals. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, may vary by race and ethnicity and has not been analyzed. OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated alirocumab efficacy and safety vs control in 3 pooled ODYSSEY phase 3 trials (COMBO I, COMBO II, and LONG TERM) by race (AA/B [n = 154] vs W [n = 1982]) and ethnicity (H/L [n = 174] vs non-H/L [n = 3149]). METHODS: Patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) despite maximally tolerated statin received alirocumab (75 mg up to 150 mg every 2 weeks [COMBO I & II] or 150 mg every 2 weeks [LONG TERM]) or control (placebo [COMBO I and LONG TERM] or ezetimibe [COMBO II]). RESULTS: At baseline, LDL-C levels were similar across treatment groups; median lipoprotein(a) levels were higher in AA/B (33.0-120.0 mg/dL) vs W (7.1-66.3 mg/dL) and lower in H/L (5.0-38.3 mg/dL) vs non-H/L (7.7-69.0 mg/dL). At week 24, alirocumab significantly reduced LDL-C vs control. Alirocumab also reduced lipoprotein(a) compared with control across the subgroups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between alirocumab (68.9-85.0%) and control (70.6-82.4%) regardless of race and ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Alirocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and Lp(a) levels compared with control, regardless of race and ethnicity, with overall safety comparable to control across most of the racial and ethnic groups analyzed.

Practice-level variation in statin use and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control in the United States: Results from the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to guideline-recommended statin recommendations in the United States is suboptimal. Patients' likelihood to be treated according to guidelines may vary by the practice in which they are treated. METHODS: Variation in the use of statin therapy in 5445 patients, with known or at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and meeting a statin treatment indication, was examined across 74 US Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry clinics. Multivariable generalized linear mixed modeling was used to determine the median odds ratio (MOR) for statin use and 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline-recommended statin intensity by practice. MOR quantifies between-practice variation by comparing the odds of receiving guideline-recommended statin treatment in a patient from a randomly selected practice with a similar patient from another random practice. Risk-adjusted low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control (<100 and <70 mg/dL) was compared among practice tertiles based on percentage of eligible patients receiving recommended statin intensity. RESULTS: Among 74 practices (43.2% cardiology) comprised of 300 healthcare providers enrolling 5445 patients (56.2% with ASCVD), statin use at the guideline-recommended intensity at practices varied widely (12.7-71.4%; adjusted MOR 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-1.64). Results were consistent when evaluated for any statin use overall (adjusted MOR 1.75, 95% CI 1.48-1.99) and when stratified by primary versus secondary prevention patients. Relative to practices with lowest or mid-tertile statin use of statins, highest tertile clinics were more frequently cardiology practices (68.0% vs 48.0% vs 12.5%, P < .001). Compared with lowest tertile clinics, patients at highest tertile clinics were more likely to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.08-2.04) and <100 mg/dL (adjusted OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.41-2.25). CONCLUSIONS: US clinics varied widely in their adherence to guideline recommendations for statin therapy, which contributed to significant differences in LDL-C levels.

Impact of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab in Patients with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: This post-hoc analysis examined whether age modified the efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a PCSK9 inhibitor, in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), using pooled data from four 78-week placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (ODYSSEY FH I, FH II, LONG TERM, and HIGH FH). METHODS: Data from 1257 patients with HeFH on maximally tolerated statin ± other lipid-lowering therapies were analyzed by an alirocumab dose regimen and by age subgroups (18 to < 45, 45 to < 55, 55 to < 65, and ≥ 65 years). In the FH I and II trials, patients received 75 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks (Q2W), with dose increase to 150 mg Q2W at week 12 if week 8 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was ≥ 70 mg/dl. In HIGH FH and LONG TERM, patients received 150 mg alirocumab Q2W. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups across all age groups; the proportion of males decreased whereas the proportion of patients with coronary heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and declining renal function increased with increasing age. Mean LDL-C reductions at week 24 were consistent across age groups (50.6-61.0% and 51.1-65.8% vs. placebo for the 75/150 and 150 mg alirocumab dose regimens, respectively; both non-significant interaction P-values). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in similar frequency in alirocumab- and placebo-treated patients regardless of age, except for injection-site reactions, which were more common in alirocumab than placebo but declined in frequency with age. CONCLUSIONS: Alirocumab treatment resulted in significant LDL-C reductions at weeks 12 and 24 and was generally well tolerated in patients with HeFH across all age groups studied.

Efficacy and safety of alirocumab among individuals with diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the ODYSSEY phase 3 trials.

AIMS: Individuals with both diabetes mellitus (DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are at very high risk of cardiovascular events. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab among 984 individuals with DM and ASCVD pooled from 9 ODYSSEY Phase 3 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and other lipids from baseline to Week 24 were analysed (intention-to-treat) in four pools by alirocumab dosage (150 mg every 2 weeks [150] or 75 mg with possible increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks [75/150]), control (placebo/ezetimibe) and background statin usage (yes/no). RESULTS: At Week 24, LDL-C changes from baseline in pools with background statins were -61.5% with alirocumab 150 (vs -1.0% with placebo), -46.4% with alirocumab 75/150 (vs +6.3% with placebo) and -48.7% with alirocumab 75/150 (vs -20.6% with ezetimibe), and -54.9% with alirocumab 75/150 (vs +4.0% with ezetimibe) without background statins. A greater proportion of alirocumab recipients achieved LDL-C < 70 and < 55 mg/dL at Week 24 vs controls. Alirocumab also resulted in significant reductions in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and lipoprotein(a) vs controls. Alirocumab did not appear to affect glycaemia over 78-104 weeks. Overall safety was similar between treatment groups, with a higher injection-site reaction frequency (mostly mild) with alirocumab. CONCLUSION: Alirocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and other atherogenic lipid parameters, and was generally well tolerated in individuals with DM and ASCVD.

Efficacy and safety of lipid lowering by alirocumab in chronic kidney disease.

Individuals with chronic kidney disease are at increased risk of premature cardiovascular disease. Among them, many with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are unable to achieve optimal LDL-C on statins and require additional lipid-lowering therapy. To study this, we compared the LDL-C-lowering efficacy and safety of alirocumab in individuals with hypercholesterolemia with impaired renal function, defined as eGFR 30-59 ml/min/1.73 m2, to those without impaired renal function eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2. A total of 4629 hypercholesterolemic individuals without or with impaired renal function, pooled from eight phase 3 ODYSSEY trials (double-blind treatments of 24-104 weeks), were on alirocumab 150 mg or 75/150 mg every two weeks vs. placebo or ezetimibe. Overall, 10.1% had impaired renal function and over 99% were receiving statin treatment. Baseline LDL-C in alirocumab and control groups was comparable in subgroups analyzed. LDL-C reductions at week 24 ranged from 46.1 to 62.2% or 48.3 to 60.1% with alirocumab among individuals with or without impaired renal function, respectively. Similar reductions were observed for lipoprotein (a), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides. Safety data were similar in both treatment subgroups, regardless of the degree of CKD. Renal function did not change over time in response to alirocumab. This post hoc efficacy analysis is limited by evaluation of alirocumab treatment effects on renal and lipid parameters by serum biochemistry. Thus, alirocumab consistently lowered LDL-C regardless of impaired renal function, with safety comparable to control, among individuals with hypercholesterolemia who nearly all were on statin treatment.

Alirocumab in high-risk patients: Observations from the open-label expanded use program.

BACKGROUND: The alirocumab expanded use program provided open-label access to alirocumab before its commercial availability to patients with severe hypercholesterolemia not controlled with maximally tolerated doses of standard-of-care lipid-lowering therapy. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety and lipid-lowering efficacy of alirocumab in high-risk patients who were likely to be early users of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors after approval. METHODS: Patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of ≥160 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy were enrolled and received alirocumab 150 mg every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Patients were permitted use of all available statins; those not taking any dose of statin could also be enrolled. RESULTS: Of 100 enrolled patients, 93 were white, 62 were women, and overall mean age was 58 years; 61 had HeFH, 3 had unknown type of familial hypercholesterolemia, 66 had CHD, and 30 had both familial hypercholesterolemia and CHD. Sixty-four patients were identified by their providers to have some level of statin intolerance; of these, 47 were not on statin. Alirocumab reduced LDL-C on average from 221 mg/dL at baseline to 102 mg/dL by week 24 (-55%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced in 61% of patients and treatment-emergent adverse events leading to permanent treatment discontinuation in 3% of patients; no deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Safety and efficacy observations from the open-label alirocumab expanded use program of very high-risk patients with HeFH and/or CHD and baseline LDL-C of ≥160 mg/dL uncontrolled by maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy were consistent with those in the placebo/ezetimibe-controlled ODYSSEY trials.

Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab in High-Risk Patients With Clinical Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and/or Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (from 5 Placebo-Controlled ODYSSEY Trials).

Patients with previous atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and/or heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) are at high risk of future cardiovascular events. Despite maximally tolerated doses of statins, many patients still have elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of alirocumab in patients with ASCVD and/or HeFH on a maximally tolerated dose of statin (rosuvastatin 20 or 40 mg, atorvastatin 40 or 80 mg, or simvastatin 80 mg, or lower doses with an investigator-approved reason) ± other lipid-lowering therapies from 5 placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (52 to 78 weeks). Patients with (n = 2,449) and without (n = 1,050) ASCVD were pooled from the FH I, FH II, HIGH FH, LONG TERM, and COMBO I trials. Patients with HeFH with (n = 575) and without ASCVD (n = 682) were pooled from all trials except COMBO I. High-intensity statins were utilized in 55.7% to 59.0% and in 72.4% to 87.6% of the ASCVD and the HeFH groups, respectively. Efficacy end points included LDL-C percent change from baseline to week 24 stratified by alirocumab dose. Mean baseline demographics and lipid levels were comparable in alirocumab- and placebo-treated patients. LDL-C reductions from baseline at week 24 ranged from 46.6% to 51.3% for alirocumab 75/150 mg and from 54.1% to 61.9% for alirocumab 150 mg in ASCVD and HeFH groups and were sustained for up to 78 weeks. LDL-C reductions with alirocumab were independent of ASCVD and/or HeFH status (interaction p value >0.05). Concordant results were observed for other lipids analyzed. The overall safety in the subgroups analyzed was similar in both treatment arms. Injection-site reactions were observed more frequently with alirocumab versus placebo.