Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Target Attainment in Patients Surviving an Acute Coronary Syndrome in Thailand: Results From the Dyslipidaemia International Study (DYSIS) II.

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events. Effective management of hyperlipidaemia in such patients is essential. We aimed to document the use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target achievement in patients hospitalised with an ACS in Thailand. METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) II was a multinational, observational study that enrolled patients over 18 years of age who were hospitalised with an ACS in 2013-2014 and survived until discharge. Patients were analysed according to whether or not they were treated with LLT prior to hospital admission. A lipid profile was carried forward from blood taken within the first 24 hours after admission, and attainment of the LDL-C target of <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) for very high-risk subjects was reported. Details of LLTs were collected. Lipid levels, LLT use and cardiovascular events since discharge were collected at a follow-up interview 4 months later. RESULTS: A total of 320 ACS patients were enrolled from seven sites across Thailand, 188 (58.8%) of whom were being treated with LLT prior to the acute event. The mean LDL-C levels of the LLT and no LLT patients were 106.2 ± 39.4 mg/dL (2.75 ± 1.02 mmol/L) and 139.8 ± 46.6 mg/dL (3.62 ± 1.21), respectively, with 15.4% and 4.5% having an LDL-C level below 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). Lipid-lowering therapy consisted mainly of statins, with an atorvastatin-equivalent daily dosage of 17 ± 13 mg/day. At the 4-month follow-up, LDL-C target attainment remained low at 26.7% for the initial LLT group and 24.1% for the no LLT group. Although most patients were being treated with LLT at this point, the dosage was still low (28 ± 16 mg/day) and there was little use of combination therapy. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of Thai ACS patients, LDL-C levels were highly elevated, placing them at extreme risk of recurrent adverse cardiovascular events. Lipid-lowering therapy was widely used after the ACS; however, treatment was rarely optimised. Huge improvements are required in the management of hyperlipidaemia in Thailand.

Body mass index impacts the choice of lipid-lowering treatment with no correlation to blood cholesterol - Findings from 52 916 patients in the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS).

A high body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. We sought to identify whether BMI influences the choice of lipid-lowering treatment in a large, real-world cohort of 52 916 patients treated with statins. The Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) is a cross-sectional, observational, multicentre study in statin-treated patients ≥45 years of age from 30 countries; 1.1% were underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2 ), 33.1% had normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 ), 41.5% were overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 ), 17.1% had class I obesity (BMI 30.0-34.9 kg/m2 ), 5.0% had class II obesity (BMI 35-39.9 kg/m2 ), and 2.1% had class III obesity (≥40 kg/m2 ). BMI correlated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (Spearman's ρ: -0.147 and 0.170, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both); however, there was no correlation with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; ρ: 0.003; P = 0.51). Statin intensity increased with increasing BMI (ρ: 0.13; P < 0.001), an association that held after adjustment for comorbidities (OR: 2.4; 95% CI: 2.0-3.0) on BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 for atorvastatin equivalent ≥40 mg/d.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. METHODS: T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied. RESULTS: LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

Patient and physician factors influence decision-making in hypercholesterolemia: a questionnaire-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Goal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians' treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians' treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy. METHODS: Physicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks' treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians' treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks' treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians' treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients' pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change). RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into physicians' perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians' treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036.

Prevalence of dyslipidemia in statin-treated patients in the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania): results of the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Baltic nations (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) are profoundly affected by cardiovascular disease (CVD). Studies have indicated that patients may experience persistent dyslipidemia despite chronic statin treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors for dyslipidemia despite statin-treatment in a large dataset from the Baltic nations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients in primary care centers across the Baltic nations were enrolled into the cross-sectional, observational Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS). Patients were ≥ 45 years old and had been treated with statins for at least three months. Patient characteristics and lipid measurements were used to determine variables contributing to dyslipidemia (abnormal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], or total triglyceride [TG] values). RESULTS: We enrolled 1797 patients with a mean age of 66.1 years and 59.1% being female. Overall 63.4% had cardiovascular disease, 30.1% were diabetic and 77.8% at high risk for cardiovascular complications. LDL-C was not at target level for 80.7%; low HDL-C levels were observed for 26.0%, and elevated TG levels were found in 35.0% of all patients. Multivariate analyses indicated that a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.45-3.08) and hypertension (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.1 6-5.10) were strongly associated with dyslipidemia (involving all three lipids) during statin therapy while age ≥ 70 years (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.94) and female gender (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33-0.68) conferred reduced risk. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate many statin-treated patients in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania did not meet target lipid levels and had a very high risk of CVD. Combating other well-known CVD risk factors such as obesity and hypertension is vital to reduce the exceptionally high risk for CVD mortality seen in the Baltic nations.

Consistency of effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in obese and non-obese diabetic subjects.

PURPOSE: This post hoc analysis assessed switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subgroups of obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m2) diabetic subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of adults 18-79 years with cardiovascular disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 and ≤160 mg/dl. Percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was estimated. RESULTS: In obese subjects (n = 466), percent changes in LDL-C and most other lipids were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin. In non-obese subjects (n = 342), percent changes in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, Apo B and Apo A-I were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin; and treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in greater changes in triglycerides vs rosuvastatin and HDL-C vs doubling the baseline statin dose. The safety profiles were generally similar. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of baseline obesity status, switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective at reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and Apo B vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg.

Outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area < 1.0 cm² and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" stenosis (defined as aortic valve area < 1.0 cm² and mean gradient ≤ 40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcome in patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm²; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67 ± 10 years; ejection fraction, ≥ 55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182 ± 64 versus 212 ± 68 g; P < 0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P = 0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P = 0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P = 0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (≤ 35 mL/m²; n = 223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Hyperlipidemia has been suggested as a risk factor for stenosis of the aortic valve, but lipid-lowering studies have had conflicting results. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving 1873 patients with mild-to-moderate, asymptomatic aortic stenosis. The patients received either 40 mg of simvastatin plus 10 mg of ezetimibe or placebo daily. The primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events, including death from cardiovascular causes, aortic-valve replacement, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris, heart failure, coronary-artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and nonhemorrhagic stroke. Secondary outcomes were events related to aortic-valve stenosis and ischemic cardiovascular events. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 52.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 333 patients (35.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 355 patients (38.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.12; P=0.59). Aortic-valve replacement was performed in 267 patients (28.3%) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group and in 278 patients (29.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P=0.97). Fewer patients had ischemic cardiovascular events in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (148 patients) than in the placebo group (187 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.97; P=0.02), mainly because of the smaller number of patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting. Cancer occurred more frequently in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group (105 vs. 70, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin and ezetimibe did not reduce the composite outcome of combined aortic-valve events and ischemic events in patients with aortic stenosis. Such therapy reduced the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but not events related to aortic-valve stenosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677.)

Low incidence of paradoxical reductions in HDL-C levels in dyslipidemic patients treated with fenofibrate alone or in combination with ezetimibe or ezetimibe/simvastatin.

BACKGROUND: Fibrates have been reported to cause paradoxical decreases in HDL-C in certain patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: This post-hoc analysis explored the frequency/magnitude of HDL-C reductions in a pooled database of mixed dyslipidemic patients (LDL-C:3.4-5.7 mmol/L;TG:1.7-5.7 mmol/L) receiving placebo (PBO), fenofibrate (FENO), ezetimibe plus FENO (EZE+FENO), or EZE/simvastatin plus FENO (EZE/SIMVA+FENO) for 12 weeks. RESULTS: PBO-treated patients had the highest incidence of HDL-C reductions from baseline (45%) compared with patients taking FENO (14%), EZE+FENO (9%), or EZE/SIMVA+FENO (9%). Reductions <30% reflected natural variability since the largest reduction in HDL-C approached 30% in the PBO group. Only 3 patients exhibited HDL-C reductions ≥30% (i.e., 2 patients in the FENO group and 1 in the EZE+FENO group). There were no differences in demographic/biochemical characteristics between patients with and without HDL-C reductions. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of paradoxical HDL-C reductions was low in mixed dyslipidemic patients receiving FENO alone or combined with EZE or EZE/SIMVA.

Projected cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with doubling the statin dose in the United Kingdom: findings from the INFORCE study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) compared with doubling the submaximal statin doses, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in the INFORCE study. METHODS: Lifetime treatment costs and benefits were computed using a Markov model. Model inputs included each patient's cardiovascular risk factor profile and actual lipid values at baseline and 12 weeks (endpoint). Cardiovascular event and drug costs were discounted at 3.5%. Age-specific utilities were based on UK literature values and non-coronary heart disease mortality rates on the Office of National Statistics data. In the INFORCE study, 384 patients taking statins at stable doses for ≥6 weeks before hospital admission were stratified by statin dose/potency (low, medium, and high) and then randomized to doubling the statin dose or switching to Eze/Simva 10/40mg for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The Eze/Simva group (n=195) had a higher mean baseline total cholesterol than the double-statin group (n=189). Analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics. In the INFORCE study, Eze/Simva reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by ∼30% (vs. 4% with doubling statin doses) and significantly enhanced LDL-C goal attainment. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, Eze/Simva conferred 0.218 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a discounted incremental cost of £2524, for an ICER of £11,571/QALY (95% confidence interval=£8181-£18,600/QALY). The ICER was £13,552/QALY, £11,930/QALY, and £10,148/QALY in the low-, medium-, and high-potency strata, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to Eze/Simva 10/40 mg is projected to be a cost-effective treatment (vs. double-statin) in UK patients with ACS.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients stratified by prior statin treatment potency.

OBJECTIVE: This post-hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZ/Simva) versus Rosuvastatin 10 mg (Rosuva) in patients stratified by statin potency/dose prior to randomization. METHODS: Patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) despite prior statin treatment (n=618) were randomized 1:1 to EZ/Simva 10/20 mg or Rosuva 10 mg for 6 weeks. Percent change from baseline in lipids and attainment of lipid targets were assessed within each subgroup (low potency n=369, high potency n=249). Consistency of the treatment effect across subgroups was evaluated by testing for treatment-by-subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made. RESULTS: Significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction occurred for LDL-C (p=0.013), total cholesterol (p=0.025), non-HDL-C (p=0.032), and apolipoprotein B (p=0.016) with greater between-treatment differences in favor of EZ/Simva observed in patients from the high potency stratum vs low potency stratum. Individual and triple target attainment was higher for Eze/Simva compared with Rosuva in both strata. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Rosuva, switching to EZ/Simva provided greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B and higher target attainment in patients on prior statin treatment, regardless of potency, although patients treated with higher potency statins prior to randomization experienced greater between treatment differences in favor of EZ/Simva. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00479713.

Prevalence of Lipid Abnormalities and Cholesterol Target Value Attainment in Patients with Stable and Acute Coronary Heart Disease in the United Arab Emirates.

BACKGROUND: Careful management of lipid abnormalities in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) can reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. The extent of hyperlipidemia in these very high-risk patients in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), along with the treatment strategies employed, is not clear. METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study II was a multinational observational analysis carried out from 2012 to 2014. Patients were enrolled if they had either stable CHD or an ACS. Patient characteristics, lipid levels, and use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were recorded at enrollment. For the ACS patients, the LLT used during the 4 months' follow-up period was documented, as were any cardiovascular events. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients were recruited from two centers in the UAE, 216 with stable CHD and 200 hospitalized with an ACS. Comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors were extremely common. A low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of <70 mg/dl, recommended for patients at very high cardiovascular risk, was attained by 39.3% of the LLT-treated CHD patients and 33.3% of the LLT-treated ACS patients at enrollment. The mean atorvastatin-equivalent daily statin dose was 29 ± 15 mg for the CHD patients, with 13.7% additionally using ezetimibe. For the ACS patients, the daily dosage was 23 ± 13 mg at admission, rising to 39 ± 12 mg by the end of the 4-month follow-up. The use of nonstatin agents was extremely low in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite LLT being widely used, hyperlipidemia was found to be prevalent in ACS and CHD patients in the UAE. Treatment strategies need to be significantly improved to reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in these very high-risk patients.

Attainment of cholesterol target values in Greece: results from the Dyslipidemia International Study II.

INTRODUCTION: Current European guidelines recommend treatment with lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) to a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target of < 70 mg/dl for patients at very high risk. LDL-C target attainment and use of LLTs in these patients in Greece is not known. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) II was a multicenter observational study. The coronary heart disease (CHD) cohort was divided into two groups based on treatment status (on LLT for ≥ 3 months or not on LLT). The acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohort was evaluated at the time of admission and again 120 ±15 days after admission. RESULTS: In the CHD cohort (n = 499), 457 (91.6%) patients were on LLT. The LDL-C target value was attained by 26.5% of LLT users. Statin monotherapy was used by 77.5% of treated patients, with a mean ± SD atorvastatin dose equivalent of 24 ±16 mg/day. In the ACS cohort (n = 200), 159 (79.5%) patients were on LLT at admission. Mean ± SD LDL-C levels were 108 ±40 mg/dl at admission and 86 ±25 mg/dl at follow-up. LDL-C target value attainment rates were 16.2% at admission and 25.0% at follow-up. At admission, statin monotherapy was used by 86.8% of treated patients. The mean ± SD atorvastatin dose equivalent increased from 20 ±14 mg/day at admission to 29 ±15 mg/day at follow-up. The statin dose was associated with higher odds of LDL-C target value attainment (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: The LDL-C target attainment by very high risk patients in Greece is suboptimal. Increasing the statin dose or combining it with non-statins may improve target value attainment.

Cholesterol goal achievement and lipid-lowering therapy in patients with stable or acute coronary heart disease in Singapore: results from the Dyslipidemia International Study II.

INTRODUCTION: Dyslipidaemia is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). There is a lack of data on the extent of lipid abnormalities and lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in Singapore. METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) II was a multinational observational study of patients with stable CHD and hospitalised patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A full lipid profile and use of LLT were documented at baseline, and for the ACS cohort, at four months post-hospitalisation. RESULTS: 325 patients were recruited from four sites in Singapore; 199 had stable CHD and 126 were hospitalised with an ACS. At baseline, 96.5% of the CHD cohort and 66.4% of the ACS cohort were being treated with LLT. In both cohorts, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were lower for the treated than the non-treated patients; accordingly, a higher proportion of patients met the LDL-C goal of < 70 mg/dL (CHD: 28.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.10; ACS: 20.2% vs. 0%, p < 0.01). By the four-month follow-up, a higher proportion of the ACS patients that were originally not treated with LLT had met the LDL-C goal (from 0% to 54.5%), correlating with the increased use of medication. However, there was negligible improvement in the patients who were treated prior to the ACS. CONCLUSION: Dyslipidaemia is a significant concern in Singapore, with few patients with stable or acute CHD meeting the recommended European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society goal. LLT was widely used but not optimised, indicating considerable scope for improved management of these very-high-risk patients.

Frequency and predictors of cholesterol target attainment in patients with stable coronary heart disease in Belgium: results from the Dyslipidemia International Study II (DYSIS II CHD).

Objectives: To document the frequency and predictors of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target value attainment among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in Belgium. Methods: The second Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS II) was an observational study of the prevalence of dyslipidemias and lipid target value attainment. Patients in this analysis were aged ≥ 18, had documented CHD, and had a full lipid profile. Use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), lipid profile, and LDL-C target value attainment (< 70 mg/dL) were assessed cross-sectionally at the enrollment visit. The distribution of LLTs was assessed among treated patients. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables predictive of LDL-C target value attainment in treated patients. Results: We identified 409 patients with CHD in Belgium, 387 (94.6%) of whom were on LLT at the time of the lipid profile. Among treated patients, the rate of LDL-C target value attainment was 40.6%, and statin monotherapy was the most commonly used LLT (79.3%). Among users of statin monotherapy or combination therapy, simvastatin was the most commonly used treatment (41.6% of patients). Diabetes was associated with higher odds of LDL-C target value attainment (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.33-3.93), and female gender was associated with lower odds (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.97). Conclusion: Rates of LDL-C target value attainment are low in patients with CHD in Belgium. Intensifying statin therapy or combining it with non-statins is essential in Belgian patients for optimal LDL-C reduction.

Dyslipidemia and Rate of Under-Target Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease in Korea.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate under target rates of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in Korean patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in real world practice. METHODS: Dyslipidemia International Study II was an international observational study of patients with stable CAD or an ACS. Lipid profiles and use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were documented at enrollment, and for the ACS cohort, 4 months follow-up was recommended. Rates of under target LDL-C as per European guidelines, were evaluated, and multivariate regression was performed to identify predictive factors of patients presenting under the target. RESULTS: A total of 808 patients were enrolled in Korea, 500 with stable CAD and 308 with ACS. Of these, 90.6% and 52.6% were being treated with LLT, respectively. In the stable CAD group, 40.0% were under target LDL-C, while in ACS group, the rate was 23.7%. A higher statin dose was independently associated with under target LDL-C in both groups (OR, 1.03; p=0.046 [stable CAD] and OR, 1.05; p=0.01 [ACS]). The mean statin dosage (atorvastatin equivalent) was 17 mg/day. In the 79 ACS patients who underwent the follow-up examination, the LDL-C under target rate rose to 59.5%. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of patients with stable CAD or ACS were under their target LDL-C level at enrollment. The statin dose was not sufficient in the majority of patients. These results indicate a considerable LLT gap in Korean patients with established CAD.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target achievement in patients surviving an acute coronary syndrome in Hong Kong and Taiwan - findings from the Dyslipidemia International Study II.

BACKGROUND: Individuals are at increased risk for cardiovascular events following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Effective management of hyperlipidemia, an associated risk factor, is essential for improving outcomes. We aimed to quantify the extent of hyperlipidemia and its treatment in ACS survivors in Hong Kong and Taiwan. METHODS: The multinational, observational Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) II included patients hospitalized for an ACS. Lipid levels and use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) were evaluated at baseline and 4 months post-discharge. The proportions of patients attaining the recommended LDL-C target for individuals at very high cardiovascular risk (<70 mg/dL) was assessed and potential predictors of this outcome evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 270 patients were enrolled, 125 (46.3%) of which were being treated with LLT prior to hospitalization. Of these, 28.8% had an LDL-C level < 70 mg/dL, compared to only 6.9% of those not being treated. Statin monotherapy was the most commonly employed LLT, with a mean atorvastatin-equivalent dosage of 14 mg/day. By 4-month follow-up, target attainment had risen to 45.1% for patients treated with LLT at baseline, and 43.3% for those who had not been treated. LLT was being used by 88.4% of patients at follow-up, with a mean atorvastatin dosage of 18 mg/day. Use of statins in combination with ezetimibe/other non-statin was scarce. No predictors of LDL-C target attainment were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized with an ACS, rates of LDL-C target achievement were poor. While LLT was widely employed, statin intensity was low and combination therapy underused, indicating scope for improvement.

Prevalence of lipid abnormalities and cholesterol target value attainment in Egyptian patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Effective management of hyperlipidemia is of utmost importance for prevention of recurring cardiovascular events after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Indeed, guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of <70 mg/dL for such patients. The Dyslipidemia International Study II (DYSIS II) - Egypt was initiated in order to quantify the prevalence and extent of hyperlipidemia in patients presenting with an ACS in Egypt. METHODS: In this prospective, observational study, we documented patients presenting with an ACS at either of two participating centers in Egypt between November 2013 and September 2014. Individuals were included if they were over 18 years of age, had a full lipid profile available (recorded within 24 h of admission), and had either been taking lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) for ≥3 months at time of enrollment or had not taken LLT. Data regarding lipid levels and LLT were recorded on admission to hospital and at follow-up 4 months later. RESULTS: Of the 199 patients hospitalized for an ACS that were enrolled, 147 were on LLT at admission. Mean LDL-C at admission was 127.1 mg/dL, and was not significantly different between users and non-users of LLT. Only 4.0% of patients had an LDL-C level of <70 mg/dL, with the median distance to this target being 61.0 mg/dL. For the patients with LDL-C information available at both admission and follow-up, LDL-C target attainment rose from 2.8% to 5.6%. Most of the LLT-treated patients received statin monotherapy (98.6% at admission and 97.3% at follow-up), with the mean daily statin dose (normalized to atorvastatin) increasing from admission (30 mg/day) to follow-up (42 mg/day). CONCLUSIONS: DYSIS II revealed alarming LDL-C goal attainment, with none of the patients with follow-up information available reaching the target of LDL-C <70 mg/dL, either at hospital admission or 4 months after their ACS event. Improvements in guideline adherence are urgently needed for reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease in Egypt. Strategies include the effective use of statins at high doses, or combination with other agents recommended by guidelines.

Do acute coronary events affect lipid management and cholesterol goal attainment in Germany? : Results from the Dyslipidemia International study II.

OBJECTIVE: To document utilization of lipid-lowering therapy, attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target values, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome in Germany. METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study II was a multicenter, observational study of the prevalence of dyslipidemia and lipid target value attainment in patients surviving any acute coronary syndrome event. Among patients on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥3 months, use of lipid-lowering therapy and lipid profiles were assessed at admission and again at 120 ± 15 days after admission (the follow-up time point). Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables predictive of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment in patients using lipid-lowering therapy. RESULTS: A total of 461 patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome were identified, 270 (58.6%) of whom were on lipid-lowering therapy at admission. Among patients on lipid-lowering therapy, 90.7% and 85.9% were receiving statin monotherapy at admission and follow-up, respectively. Mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients on lipid-lowering therapy were 101 (40) mg/dl and 95 (30) mg/dl at admission and follow-up, respectively. In patients with data at both admission and follow-up (n = 61), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment rates were the same (19.7%) at both time points. Smoking was associated with a 77% lower likelihood of attaining the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization for an acute event does not greatly alter lipid management in acute coronary syndrome patients in Germany. Both lipid-lowering therapy doses and rates of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target value attainment remained essentially the same several months after the event.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target attainment in patients with stable or acute coronary heart disease in the Asia-Pacific region: results from the Dyslipidemia International Study II.

BACKGROUND: As mortality due to cardiovascular disease increases throughout the world, accurate data on risk factors such as hyperlipidemia are required. This is lacking in the Asia-Pacific region. DESIGN: The observational Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) II was established to quantify the extent of hyperlipidemia in adults with acute and stable coronary heart disease globally. METHODS: Patients with stable coronary heart disease or hospitalised with an acute coronary syndrome were enrolled across nine Asia-Pacific countries from July 2013 to October 2014. Lipid-lowering therapy and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target attainment (<70 mg/dL) were assessed. The acute coronary syndrome cohort was followed up 4 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Of the 4592 patients enrolled, 2794 had stable coronary heart disease and 1798 were admitted with an acute coronary syndrome. In the coronary heart disease cohort, the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 86.9 mg/dL, with 91.7% using lipid-lowering therapy and 31% achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of less than 70 mg/dL. In the acute coronary syndrome cohort at admission, the corresponding values were 103.2 mg/dL, 63.4% and 23.0%, respectively. Target attainment was significantly higher in lipid-lowering therapy-treated than non-treated patients in each cohort (32.6% vs. 12.9% and 31.1% vs. 9.0%, respectively). Mean atorvastatin-equivalent dosages were low (20 ± 15 and 22 ± 18 mg/day, respectively), with little use of non-statin adjuvants (13.0% and 6.8%, respectively). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target attainment had improved by follow-up for the acute coronary syndrome patients, but remained low (41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients in Asia at very high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events had a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level above the recommended target. Although lipid-lowering therapy was common, it was not used to its full potential.