Titration to High-Intensity Statin Therapy Following Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients With and Without Diabetes Mellitus

Short- and long-term mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes after myocardial infarction- a nationwide registry study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes has traditionally been a risk factor for worse prognosis after myocardial infarction (MI), but major advances have been made in its treatment, and the use of secondary preventive measures has intensified. We evaluated the short- and long-term mortality rates of patients with type 2 diabetes after MI and explored the associations between the characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes and MI mortality.

METHODS

Mortality rates among consecutive MI patients with type 2 diabetes using oral antidiabetic medication (n = 13,152; 40% female; mean age 73.6 years) and MI patients without diabetes (n = 77,669) treated in Finland from 2004 to 2018 were retrospectively studied using a combination of national registries (median follow-up 5.7 years). Differences between groups were balanced with multivariable adjustments and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Mortality was higher in patients with type 2 diabetes than in the propensity score-matched controls without diabetes at 30 days (12.6% versus 12.0%: p = 0.013), at 1 year (22.4% versus 21.4%; p = 0.001), and at 15 years (83.2% vs. 73.4%; HR 1.20; 95% CI 1.17-1.24; p < 0.0001) after MI. In subgroup analyses, type 2 diabetes was associated with a poorer prognosis across the spectrum of MI patients. The excess mortality risk was attenuated by increasing age but was similar in both sexes. Male sex, age, cardiovascular and noncardiovascular co-morbidities, lack of revascularization, a longer duration of diabetes, and baseline insulin therapy were associated with increased mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. The one-year prognosis of patients with type 2 diabetes improved during the study period, but the mortality gap compared to patients without diabetes was not altered.

CONCLUSIONS

Type 2 diabetes had a negative impact on both short- and long-term outcome after MI, but effect sizes were relatively small. Patients with longer duration of diabetes or need for insulin therapy are still at particular risk.

Comparative efficacy and safety among high-intensity statins. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. Materials & methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the effect sizes in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared high-intensity statins. Results: Based on 44 articles, similar effectiveness was observed across the statins in reducing LDL levels from baseline. All statins were observed to have similar adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although higher dosages were associated with more ADRs. Based on a pooled quantitative analysis of atorvastatin 80 mg versus rosuvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin was statistically more effective in reducing LDL. Conclusion: This review further confirms that high-intensity statins reduce LDL by ≥50%, favoring rosuvastatin over atorvastatin. Additional data are needed to confirm the clinical significance on cardiovascular outcomes using real-world studies.

Statin dose titration patterns and subsequent major cardiovascular events in very high-risk patients: estimates from Swedish population-based registry data

AIMS

Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of intensive statin therapy in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular (CV) events. Our objective was to examine statin titration patterns and the association between titration patterns and subsequent CV events in very high-risk patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using Swedish national population-based registry data, we identified 192 435 patients with very high risk of atherosclerotic CV disease initiated on moderate-intensity statin therapy between 2006 and 2013. Outcomes of interest were titration to high-intensity therapy and the major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composite (myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and CV death) outcome. Cumulative incidence of MACE was assessed by titration status 1-year post-treatment initiation in patients adherent to treatment during the first year, using a 12-week cut-off from initiation to define early, delayed and no up-titration to high-intensity statins. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). In 144 498 eligible patients, early titration was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE in the subsequent 2 years compared to no up-titration (HR 0.76, P < 0.01]. Delayed up-titration was associated with a smaller reduction (HR 0.88, P = 0.08). The majority of patients did not up-titrate.

CONCLUSION

Early up-titration to high-intensity statins was independently associated with lower risk of subsequent CV events compared to no up-titration. Delayed up-titration was not associated with the same benefit. Despite the higher risk associated with no up-titration, few patients at very high CV risk who started treatment on moderate-intensity up-titrated to high intensity, indicating a potential need for more aggressive lipid management of these patients in clinical practice.

Quality of Diabetes Care in the USA

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current quality of diabetes care in the USA, discuss barriers to guideline-recommended treatment adherence, and outline strategies for the improvement in care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current treatment guidelines highlight the importance of glycemic control, use of novel medications with proven cardiovascular efficacy, and multifactorial cardiovascular risk factor intervention for the treatment of diabetes and associated complications. Albeit proven evidence for these guidelines, the vast majority of patients with diabetes remain insufficiently treated. Interventions to improve outcomes require focus on care delivery systems, physician behavior, and patient-centered approaches. De-fragmenting care systems to form collaborative, multi-specialty teams, use of standardized and comprehensive treatment algorithms, development of quality assessment tools, avoiding physician therapeutic inertia, and addressing patient barriers, including lack of perceived benefit, insufficient diabetes education and access to care, and medication costs, represent key objectives to improve diabetes care and outcomes. Clinical research in standardized trials has proven the feasibility to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with diabetes. Implementing models of care to disseminate these encouraging research findings to the wider population and to overcome barriers to achieving guideline-recommended treatment goals should be the objective to improve our current quality of diabetes care in the USA.

Utilization of High-Intensity Statins in Patients at Risk for Cardiovascular Events: A National Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines, which identified four groups of patients at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, departed from the target-based approach to managing cholesterol. The impact of these guidelines on high-intensity statin use across the United States is unclear.

STUDY QUESTION

The primary objective was to evaluate the rate of high-intensity potential (HIP) statin use before and after the 2013 guidelines. The secondary objective was to identify predictors of HIP statin use within the study population.

STUDY DESIGN

A national cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Office visits involving patients aged 21-75 years where criteria for HIP statin therapy were met were included. Visits involving pregnant patients were excluded.

MEASURES AND OUTCOMES

Prescribing trends of HIP statins were measured from National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data before and after the 2013 guidelines. Multivariate logistic regression identified variables associated with prescribing HIP statins.

RESULTS

A total of 48,884 visits were included, representing more than 940 million office visits nationally. HIP statins were listed in 9.5% and 16.5% of visits before and after 2013, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-2.20). The strongest predictors of HIP statin use were antihypertensive use (OR 5.38, 95% CI 4.67-6.20), comorbid hyperlipidemia (OR 2.93, 95% CI 2.62-3.29), Black race (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.81), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing rates for HIP statins increased after the release of the 2013 guidelines. The prescribing rates were lower than expected, especially in Black and Hispanic patients. These observations signify opportunities to improve the quality of care for patients who are at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events in the United States.

Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: primary results of the randomised controlled BANTING study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The study aimed to examine the efficacy of 12 weeks of monthly evolocumab or placebo in lowering LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia and on a maximum-tolerated statin of at least moderate intensity.

METHODS

For this randomised, placebo-controlled outpatient study, eligible individuals were ≥18 years old with type 2 diabetes, HbA_1c <10% (86 mmol/mol), had been on stable pharmacological therapy for diabetes for ≥6 months and were taking a maximum-tolerated statin dose of at least moderate intensity. Lipid eligibility criteria varied by history of clinical cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomised 2:1 to evolocumab 420 mg s.c. or placebo. Randomisation was performed centrally via an interactive web-based or voice recognition system. Allocation was concealed using the centralised randomisation process. Treatment assignment was blinded to the sponsor study team, investigators, site staff and patients throughout the study. Co-primary endpoints were mean percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 12 and to the mean of weeks 10 and 12. Additional endpoints included LDL-C <1.81 mmol/l, LDL-C reduction ≥50% and other lipids. Exploratory analyses included percentage changes in fasting and post mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) lipoproteins and lipids, glucose metabolism variables and inflammatory biomarkers.

RESULTS

In total, 421 individuals were randomised and analysed, having received evolocumab (280 participants) or placebo (141 participants) (mean [SD] age 62 [8] years; 44% women; 77% white). Evolocumab decreased LDL-C by 54.3% (1.4%) at week 12 (vs 1.1% [1.9%] decrease with placebo; p < 0.0001) and by 65.0% (1.3%) at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (vs 0.8% [1.8%] decrease with placebo; p < 0.0001); it also decreased non-HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) by 46.9% (1.3%) at week 12 (vs 0.6% [1.8%] decrease with placebo) and by 56.6% (1.2%) at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (vs 0.1% [1.6%] decrease with placebo). Evolocumab significantly improved levels of other lipids and allowed more participants to reach LDL-C <1.81 mmol/l or a reduction in LDL-C levels ≥50%. After an MMTT (120 min), there were favourable changes (p < 0.05; nominal, post hoc, no multiplicity adjustment) in chylomicron triacylglycerol (triglycerides), chylomicron cholesterol, VLDL-C and LDL-C. Evolocumab had no effect on glycaemic variables and was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

In statin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia, evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and non-HDL-C. Favourable changes (p < 0.05) were observed in postprandial levels of chylomicrons, VLDL-C and LDL-C.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02739984 FUNDING: This study was funded by Amgen Inc.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Qualified researchers may request data from Amgen clinical studies. Complete details are available at www.amgen.com/datasharing .