Implementation of cardiovascular secondary prevention guidelines in clinical practice: a nationwide survey in Italy

Efficacy, safety, adherence and persistence of PCSK9 inhibitors in clinical practice: A single country, multicenter, observational study (AT-TARGET-IT)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) are recommended in patients at high and very-high cardiovascular (CV) risk, with documented atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), and for very-high risk patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia not achieving LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) goal while receiving maximally tolerated dose of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). However, single country real-life data, reporting the use of PCSK9i in clinical practice, are limited. Therefore, we designed AT-TARGET-IT, an Italian, multicenter, observational registry on the use of PCSK9i in clinical practice.

METHODS

All data were recorded at the time of the first prescription and at the latest observation preceding inclusion in the study.

RESULTS

798 patients were enrolled. The median reduction in LDL-C levels was 64.9%. After stratification for CV risk, 63.8% achieved LDL-C target; of them, 83.3% took LLTs at PCSK9i initiation and 16.7% did not. 760 patients (95.2%) showed high adherence to therapy, 13 (1.6%) partial adherence, and 25 (3.1%) poor adherence. At 6 months, 99.7% of patients enrolled in the study remained on therapy; there were 519 and 423 patients in the study with a follow-up of at least 12 and 18 months, respectively. Persistence in these groups was 98.1% and 97.5%, respectively. Overall, 3.5% of patients discontinued therapy. No differences in efficacy, adherence, and persistence were found between alirocumab and evolocumab.

CONCLUSIONS

PCSK9i are safe and effective in clinical practice, leading to very high adherence and persistence to therapy, and achievement of recommended LDL-C target in most patients, especially when used as combination therapy.

Available oral lipid-lowering agents could bring most high-risk patients to target: an estimate based on the Dyslipidemia International Study II-Italy

AIMS

The analysis evaluated the contemporary percentage of patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) reaching the European guidelines recommended LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels of less than 70 mg/dl and the threshold required for proprotein convertase subtlisin/kexin type 9 reimbursement in Italy (100 mg/dl). It also assessed how these percentages would change in case of diffuse use of ezetimibe.

METHODS

The Dyslipidemia International Study II enrolled CHD patients aged at least 18 either on lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) for at least 3 months or not on LLT at the time of the lipid profile. Distribution of LLTs and LDL-C target attainment were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated predictors of LDL-C target attainment. A 24% LDL-C lowering was modeled in patients not taking ezetimibe to assess its potential effects.

RESULTS

Among 676 Italian CHD patients enrolled, LDL-C concentrations were lower among the 631 patients (93.3%) who were on LLT (82 versus 118 mg/dl; P < 0.001). The LDL-C target was attained by 35.4% of patients. Statin dose (median atorvastatin dose 40 mg/day) was the sole significant predictor of LDL-C target attainment. The simple addition of ezetimibe in the model reduced the percentage of patients more than 70 and 100 mg/dl from 64.6 to 37.9% and from 25.1 to 11.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite treatment in more than 90%, only one-third of Italian stable CHD patients attained the recommended LDL-C target. Statin dose was the sole predictor of the target achievement. The addition of ezetimibe would almost double patients at target and halve the potential candidates for reimbursement of more expensive agents such as proprotein convertase subtlisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors.

Impact of treatment with rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on cardiovascular outcomes: evidence from the Archimedes-simulated clinical trials

Objective

No clinical trials have been conducted to directly compare the effect of the two high-intensity statins, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, on cardiovascular outcomes. However, three such trials have been computer-simulated using the Archimedes model, an individual-based simulation of human physiology and behaviors, treatment interventions, and health care systems. The results are reviewed here.

Methods

The first simulated trial assessed clinical outcomes in patients receiving available doses of the two drugs. The second assessed the impact of initial treatment decisions, while the third assessed the effect of switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin.

Results

In the first simulated trial, treatment with rosuvastatin was estimated to result in greater reductions than treatment with atorvastatin in major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates at 5 years and 20 years at all doses examined (relative risk [RR]: 0.897, 0.888, and 0.930 at 5 years for rosuvastatin 20 mg vs atorvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 40 mg vs atorvastatin 80 mg, and rosuvastatin 20 mg vs atorvastatin 80 mg, respectively; all P<0.05). In the second simulated trial, outcomes were significantly better in patients initially prescribed rosuvastatin than in those initially prescribed atorvastatin (RR of MACE at 5 years: 0.918; P<0.001). In the third simulated trial, risk of MACE was significantly greater in patients switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin than in those remaining on rosuvastatin (RR at 5 years: 1.109; P<0.001).

Conclusion

The results of these simulated clinical trials suggest improved outcomes among patients receiving rosuvastatin relative to patients receiving atorvastatin in various clinical settings.

Care manager to control cardiovascular risk factors in primary care: the Raffaello cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This cluster randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of a disease and care management (D&CM) model in cardiovascular (CVD) prevention in primary care.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eligible subjects had ≥ 1 among: blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg; glycated hemoglobin ≥ 7%; LDL-cholesterol ≥ 160 or ≥ 100 mg/dL (primary or secondary prevention, respectively); BMI ≥ 30; current smoking. The D&CM intervention included a teamwork including nurses as care managers for the implementation of tailored care plans. Control group was allocated to usual-care. The main outcome was the proportion of subjects achieving recommended clinical targets for ≥ 1 of uncontrolled CVD risk factors at 12-month. During 2008-2009 we enrolled 920 subjects in the Abruzzo/Marche regions, Italy. Following the exclusion of L'Aquila due to 2009 earthquake, final analyses included 762 subjects. The primary outcome was achieved by 39.1% (95%CI: 34.2-44.2) and 25.2% (95%CI: 20.9-29.9) of subjects in the intervention and usual-care group, respectively (p < 0.001). The D&CM intervention significantly increased the proportion of subjects who achieved clinical targets for both diabetes and hypertension, with no differences in hypercholesterolemia, smoking status and obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

The D&CM intervention was effective in controlling cardiovascular risk factors, in particular hypertension and diabetes. Numbers needed to treat were small. Such intervention may deserve further consideration in clinical practice.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12611000813987.