Statins do not meet expectations for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels when used in clinical practice

Treatment with PCSK9 Inhibitors in Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia Lowers Plasma Levels of Platelet-Activating Factor and Its Precursors: A Combined Metabolomic and Lipidomic Approach

INTRODUCTION

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is characterized by extremely high levels of circulating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and is caused by mutations of genes involved in LDL-C metabolism, including LDL receptor (LDLR), apolipoprotein B (APOB), or proprotein convertase subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9). Accordingly, PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) are effective in LDL-C reduction. However, no data are available on the pleiotropic effect of PCSK9i. To this end, we performed an untargeted metabolomics approach to gather a global view on changes in metabolic pathways in patients receiving treatment with PCSK9i.

METHODS

Twenty-five FH patients starting treatment with PCSK-9i were evaluated by an untargeted metabolomics approach at baseline (before PCSK9i treatment) and after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

All the 25 FH subjects enrolled were on maximal tolerated lipid-lowering therapy prior to study entry. After a 12 week treatment with PCSK9i, we observed an expected significant reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels (from 201.0 ± 69.5 mg/dL to 103.0 ± 58.0 mg/dL, p < 0.001). The LDL-C target was achieved in 36% of patients. After peak validation and correction, after 12 weeks of PCSK9i treatment as compared to baseline, we observed increments in creatine (p-value = 0.041), indole (p-value = 0.045), and indoleacrylic acid (p-value= 0.045) concentrations. Conversely, significant decreases in choline (p-value = 0.045) and phosphatidylcholine (p-value < 0.01) together with a reduction in platelet activating factor (p-value = 0.041) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking advantage of untargeted metabolomics, we first provided evidence of concomitant reductions in inflammation and platelet activation metabolites in FH patients receiving a 12 week treatment with PCSK9i.

Medical Compliance of Fibrate and the Decreased Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration in Dyslipidemia-Related Diseases: A Population-Based Cohort Study

The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the incidence of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) in dyslipidemia-related diseases with or without the use of fibrate. Patients were defined as dyslipidemia-related diseases according to the diagnostic code and lab exam arrangement, then the population was divided into those with fibrate application and those without via 1:2 ratios of propensity-score matching. The primary outcome is the development of AMD after dyslipidemia-related diseases by the Cox proportional hazard regression. Besides, the relationship between the medical compliance of fibrate, presented as medical possession ratio (MPR), and the AMD development was also analyzed. A total of 22,917 patients and 45,834 individuals were enrolled in the study and control groups. There were 572 and 1181 events of any AMD development in the study and control groups which showed identical risk of AMD (aHR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.85–1.04). However, a reduced risk of any AMD was found in those patients reached a baseline MPR more than 20% (aHR: 0.729, 95% CI: 0.599–0.887, p = 0.0016) and overall MPR more than 5% three years after the diagnosis of dyslipidemia-related diseases (aHR: 0.712, 95% CI: 0.557–0.909, p = 0.0065). Besides, a lower risk of dry-AMD was also found in those patients with the above conditions (aHR: 0.736, 95% CI: 0.599–0.906, p = 0.0038 and aHR: 0.721, 95% CI: 0.557–0.934, p = 0.0133, respectively). In conclusion, the use of fibrate with fair initial medical compliance will decrease the incidence of AMD in patients with dyslipidemia-related diseases, especially for the development of dry-AMD.

ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are more likely to achieve lipid-lowering treatment goals: A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with first acute coronary syndromes

Statin nonadherence or discontinuation is associated with increased cardiovascular events. Many factors related to the physicians or the patients are influential in this. We aimed to compare the compliance with statin therapy between the patients who first presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina pectoris (UA) based on the target achievement according to the current dyslipidemia guidelines.We retrospectively acquired all the information about demographic characteristics, in-hospital revascularization procedures, prescribed treatments, and index and up to 6-month follow-up laboratory results of the first acute coronary syndrome patients. Acute coronary syndrome patients were divided into 3 groups as STEMI, NSTEMI, and UA.The STEMI group consisted of 260 patients, NSTEMI group consisted of 560 patients, and UA group consisted of 206 patients. Seventy-six percent of patients underwent percutaneous coronary interventions, 18.3% were managed medically, and 5.7% were referred for coronary artery bypass grafting. There was a significant decrease in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) values with the statin treatment at the follow-up in all 3 groups (for all P < .001). In the STEMI group, the percentage of those achieving the target LDL-C level was significantly higher than those who did not achieve the target according to both The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology dyslipidemia guidelines. The LDL-C target achievement rates were also higher in the STEMI group than in the NSTEMI and UA groups.Our study concluded that statin treatment goals were more attained in STEMI patients than NSTEMI and UA. All physicians should encourage lifelong intensive statin treatment in UA and NSTEMI patients such as STEMI patients.

Awareness of Pleiotropic and Cardioprotective Effect of Statins in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease

Background

Statins are commonly used in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Studies have shown that the rate of statin use is low among patients with coronary artery disease. In this study, we aimed to investigate the reasons for poor patient compliance with statin treatment.

Methods

A total of 504 patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease were included in the study. Patients were asked 5 questions to assess their level of knowledge about statin therapy.

Results

Among the patients not using statins, 42% stated they did not take the medication because their cholesterol was not high or they did not know they should renew their prescription when they ran out and 35% because they were influenced by news reports in the media suggesting that cholesterol-lowering drugs were harmful. When patients who were aware of the pleiotropic/cardioprotective effects of statins were compared with patients who were not, the more knowledgeable patients had lower noncompliance rate and mean LDL-C level and a higher rate of LDL-C level optimization.

Conclusion

We found that patients who are aware of the pleiotropic effects of statins were more compliant with treatment. We believe that spending more time explaining and emphasizing the mechanisms of action, reason for prescribing, and necessary treatment duration of drugs that patients must use will result in greater compliance and improve patient care. In this way, patients may be less influenced by misinformation presented by the media.

Effect of physician characteristics and knowledge on the quality of dyslipidemia management and LDL-C target goal achievement in China: Subgroup analysis of the Dyslipidemia International Study

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the effect of physicians’ characteristics and knowledge of LDL–C target goals on the quality of lipid management in China.

Methods

A total of 25 317 dyslipidemia patients who had taken lipid–lowering medication for >3 months were enrolled in our study. Patients’ demographic data, medical history, lipid profile, their physician’s specialty and professional title and their hospital level as well as their LDL–C goal opinions were recorded.

Results

Questionnaires were completed by 926 physicians with 6 different specialties and 4 professional statuses, in 3 different–level hospitals. Most (74.5%) of the physicians recognized the importance of considering LDL–C serum concentration for treating dyslipidemia, and set target LDL–C goals according to the 2007 Chinese guidelines for 83.4% of their patients. The LDL–C goal achievement rate was significantly higher for patients whose physicians’ knowledge of LDL–C target goals was consistent with guideline recommendations, compared with those whose physicians’ knowledge was inconsistent with the guidelines (60.4% vs 31.1%, P < 0.0001). Physicians working in tier 1 (odds ration (OR) = 2.95; 95% CI 2.37–3.67), (OR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.34–1.81) and tier 2 (OR = 2.53; 95% CI 2.22–2.88), (OR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.06–1.27) hospitals, specialized in neurology (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.93–1.36), (OR = 1.57; 95% CI 1.40–1.77), internal medicine (OR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.90–1.27), (OR = 1.58; 95% CI 1.39–1.80), endocrinology (OR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.87–1.21), (OR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.47–1.82) and being a resident vs attending physician (OR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.92–1.20), (OR = 1.00; 95% CI 1.00–1.19) were independent risk factors for low knowledge of LDL–C target goals and low LDL–C goal achievement.

Conclusion

Chinese physicians’ characteristics and knowledge of LDL–C target goals were associated with patients’ LDL–C goal achievement.

Barriers to medication adherence and links to cardiovascular disease risk factor control: the Framingham Heart Study

BACKGROUND

In the elderly, impaired cognition may weaken medication adherence and compromise treatment for cardiovascular disease (CVD).

AIM

We examined risk factors for medication adherence and the relationship between adherence and levels of CVD risk factors among older participants with hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes in the Framingham Heart Study.

METHODS

The four-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale was administered to 1559 participants, median age 70 years, 53% women. We created an adherence score, ranging from 0 to 4, with low adherence defined as a score ≥2. CVD risk factors were assessed using standard protocols. Cognition was measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and depressive symptoms were measured using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies of Depression (CES-D) scale.

RESULTS

Among participants who self-reported taking antihypertensive, lipid-lowering and/or hyperglycaemic medication(s), 12% (n = 191) had low medication adherence. The risk of low adherence increased by 45% (95% confidence interval (CI): 25-68%, P < 0.001) per five-unit increase in CES-D score. In participants taking antihypertensive medication (n = 1017), low adherence was associated with higher mean diastolic blood pressure (73 mmHg, 95% CI: 71-75 vs 71 mmHg, 95% CI: 70-71; P = 0.04) after adjusting for covariates. Among participants taking lipid-lowering medication (n = 937), low adherence was associated with higher mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (92 mg/dL, 95% CI: 87-96 vs 86 mg/dL, 95% CI: 84-88; P = 0.03). Low adherence was not associated with fasting plasma glucose (P = 0.10) or haemoglobin A1c (P = 0.68) in the subgroup of participants (n = 192) taking hypoglycaemic medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Depressive symptoms might act as a barrier for medication adherence, which exacerbates CVD risk factors in older-aged adults.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a cardiovascular risk prediction algorithm for people with severe mental illness (PRIMROSE)

OBJECTIVES

To determine the cost-effectiveness of two bespoke severe mental illness (SMI)-specific risk algorithms compared with standard risk algorithms for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in those with SMI.

SETTING

Primary care setting in the UK. The analysis was from the National Health Service perspective.

PARTICIPANTS

1000 individuals with SMI from The Health Improvement Network Database, aged 30-74 years and without existing CVD, populated the model.

INTERVENTIONS

Four cardiovascular risk algorithms were assessed: (1) general population lipid, (2) general population body mass index (BMI), (3) SMI-specific lipid and (4) SMI-specific BMI, compared against no algorithm. At baseline, each cardiovascular risk algorithm was applied and those considered high risk (> 10%) were assumed to be prescribed statin therapy while others received usual care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were accrued for each algorithm including no algorithm, and cost-effectiveness was calculated using the net monetary benefit (NMB) approach. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test assumptions made and uncertainty around parameter estimates.

RESULTS

The SMI-specific BMI algorithm had the highest NMB resulting in 15 additional QALYs and a cost saving of approximately £53 000 per 1000 patients with SMI over 10 years, followed by the general population lipid algorithm (13 additional QALYs and a cost saving of £46 000).

CONCLUSIONS

The general population lipid and SMI-specific BMI algorithms performed equally well. The ease and acceptability of use of an SMI-specific BMI algorithm (blood tests not required) makes it an attractive algorithm to implement in clinical settings.

Determinants of the Differences in Ldl-Cholesterol After Initiation of Statin Treatment

Background:

Randomized clinical trials may not accurately predict drug benefit in clinical practice because the patients and conditions of therapy almost always differ between those settings.

Objective:

To determine whether differences in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) time curves between clinical trial results and usual care experience after initiation of statin therapy could be explained fully in terms of observable characteristics of patients and practice in usual care.

Methods:

We compared LDL-C measurements for 3 years after initiation of statin treatment in individuals enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO), with enrollees in the active treatment arm of the CARE (Cholesterol and Recurrent Events) trial. Analysis of the determinants of variation in LDL-C in the HMO cohort was used to adjust the crude results to the distribution of patient and treatment characteristics in the trial.

Results:

The mean percent decrease in LDL-C was lower in the HMO cohort (n = 1245) than in the clinical trial at the end of each 6-month period, with the difference diminishing over time. Adjustment of the HMO time curve to the baseline characteristics of the clinical trial cohort did not significantly change the mean estimates at any time point. Assuming optimal adherence in the HMO cohort raised the curve over time, with 95% confidence intervals including the means observed in CARE after 18 months. Fixing treatment to pravastatin 40 mg/day, as in CARE, brought the estimates in the HMO cohort very close to those of the clinical trial, with 95% confidence intervals including the means observed in CARE at all time points.

Conclusions:

Treatment selection, dosing, and adherence under usual care were the primary reasons for which improvements in LDL-C in practice fell short of expectations that are based on clinical trial findings for statin therapy. Beginning with a low dose of statins and titrating to a satisfactory response can delay effective treatment by 18 months or more. Poor adherence accounts for a further substantial shortfall from maximal effect. Differences between trial populations and the general population of statin users with respect to age, gender, and baseline LDL-C have no measurable impact on discrepancies between predicted and observed LDL-C improvement in usual practice.

Gap between guidelines and practice: attainment of treatment targets in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia starting statin therapy. Results of the 4E-Registry (Efficacy Calculation and Measurement of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events including Physicians' Experience and Evaluation)

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III goals in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia starting statin therapy in clinical practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were collected by 4401 physicians in private practice on 52 848 patients aged 35-65 years (46.3% women, 53.7% men). 56.1% of patients had no manifested atherosclerosis (primary prevention) among whom 34.9% of men and 0.5% of women had a 10-year coronary heart disease risk over 20% (high-risk) as calculated using the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster study (PROCAM) algorithm. After 6 weeks of statins, only 6.9% of these high-risk men and 4.6% of these high-risk women reached their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol target of 2.6 mmol/l or below (100 mg/dl). Even after 9 months, only 8.0% of these men and 6.2% of these women achieved their LDL target. No fewer than 57.3% of treated women had a coronary risk below 10%, and 18.8% of women were already at target before statins were prescribed. Of patients 43.9% had manifest atherosclerosis (secondary prevention). After 6 weeks of therapy, only 12.9% of the women and 16.3% of the men in this secondary prevention group reached LDL target levels of 2.6 mmol/l or below. Even after 9 months, only 21.3% of men and 17.3% of women with manifest atherosclerosis reached target LDL.

CONCLUSIONS

Most high-risk patients do not achieve LDL targets. Overtreatment of low-risk groups is also very common.

Statin adherence and LDL cholesterol levels. Should we assess adherence prior to statin upgrade?

BACKGROUND

Adherence to statin therapy has been shown to be suboptimal. In statin-treated patients with residual elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels the physician must decide whether to switch to a more potent statin or try and achieve better adherence. We examined the association between adherence and LDL-C within low, moderate and high intensity statin groups in a "real world" setting.

METHODS

We assessed annual adherence by the mean MPR (Medication Possession Ratio = number of purchased/prescribed daily doses) in unselected patient group. Statins were stratified (ACC/AHA Guideline) into low, moderate and high intensity groups. The impact of adherence on LDL levels was assessed by LOESS (locally weighted scatter plot smoothing).

RESULTS

Out of 1183 patients 173 (14.6%) were treated with low, 923 (78.0%) with moderate and 87 (7.4%) with high intensity statins. Statin intensity was inversely associated with adherence (MPR 77±21, 73±22 and 69±21% for low, moderate and high intensity respectively, p=0.018). Non-adjusted LDL levels decreased with higher adherence: a 10% adherence increase resulted in LDL decrease of 3.5, 5.8 and 7.1mg/dL in low, moderate and high intensity groups. Analysis of the adherence effect on LDL levels adjusted for age, DM and ischemic heart disease showed that MPR above 80% was associated with an additional decrease in LDL levels only in the high intensity group.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased adherence to statins beyond an MPR of 80% improves LDL levels only among patients given high intensity therapy. Switching from lower to higher intensity therapy may be more effective than further efforts to increase adherence.

Effect of an educational program in primary care: the case of lipid control in cardio-cerebrovascular prevention

Lowering blood cholesterol levels reduces the risk of coronary heart disease. However, the effect of interventions depends on the patients' adherence to treatment. Primary care plays an important role in the detection, treatment and monitoring of disease, therefore different educational programs (EP) have been implemented to improve disease management in general practice. The present study is aimed to assess whether a general practitioner auditing and feedback EP may improve dyslipidaemia management in a primary care setting and to evaluate patients' adherence to prescribed lipid-lowering treatment. The quality of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease prevention before and after the implementation of an EP offered to 25 general practitioners (GPs), was evaluated. Clinical and prescription data on patients receiving at least one lipid-lowering treatment was collected. To evaluate the quality of the healthcare service provided, clinical and biochemical outcomes, and drug-utilization, process indicators were set up. Adherence was evaluated before and after the EP as the "Medication Possession Ratio" (MPR). A correlation analysis was carried out to estimate the effect of the MPR in achieving pre-defined clinical end-points. Prescription data for lipid-lowering drugs was collected in a sample of 839 patients. While no differences in the achievement of blood lipid targets were observed, a slight but significant improvement of the MPR was registered after the EP (MPR >0.8=64.2% vs 60.6%, p=0.0426). Moreover, high levels of statin adherence were associated with the achievement of total blood cholesterol target (OR=3.3 for MPR >0.8 vs MPR <0.5, 95% CI:1.7-6.7) or LDL therapeutic goal (OR=3.3 for MPR >0.8 vs MPR <0.5, 95% CI:1.5-7.2). The EP partially improved the defined clinical targets; probably, a more patient-based approach could be more appropriate to achieve the defined target. Further studies are needed to identify how healthcare services can be improved.

Self-reported adherence by MARS-CZ reflects LDL cholesterol goal achievement among statin users: validation study in the Czech Republic

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Measuring self-reported adherence may contribute to minimizing the risk of therapy failure. Hence, the main aim of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Czech version of Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-CZ) and its appropriateness for use in long-term statin therapy where goal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) should be achieved.

METHODS

Anonymous structured interview was performed to determine self-reported adherence by MARS-CZ in outpatients chronically treated with statins. At the same time, medication records were reviewed for inclusion of patients into groups of those who achieved and do not achieved LDL-c goal according to cardiovascular risk level. Reliability and validity of MARS-CZ were tested as well as the relationship between adherence and LDL-c goal achievement was examined.

RESULTS

A total of 136 (86.6%) patients completed the interview; mean age was 66.1 years; 49.3% were male. The mean score of MARS-CZ was 24.4 and showed positive skewing. Satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.54), strong test-retest reliability (r=0.83, P<0.001; intra-class correlation=0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.81) and positive correlation with eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (r=0.62, P<0.001) were indicated. Low validity values were found between MARS-CZ and 12-item Short Form Health Survey mental and physical subscales. MARS-CZ score significantly correlated with LDL-c goal achievement (P<0.05) when all patients who achieved LDL-c goal (35%) reported high adherence to statin. MARS-CZ score also correlated with cardiovascular risk level and doctor's judgments on adjusting treatment targets for each patient.

CONCLUSION

This study proved MARS-CZ as an acceptable self-reported adherence measure. In routine clinical practice, MARS-CZ could be helpful to reveal medication non-adherence before the alteration of drug regimen and thereby contributing to enhancement of statin therapy management.

Dynamic medication adherence modeling in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a Markov microsimulation methods application

BACKGROUND

Real-world patients' medication adherence is lower than that of clinical trial patients. Hence, the effectiveness of medications in routine practice may differ.

OBJECTIVES

The study objective was to compare the outcomes of an adherence-naive versus a dynamic adherence modeling framework using the case of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease.

METHODS

Statin adherence was categorized into three state-transition groups on the basis of an epidemiological cohort study. Yearly adherence transitions were incorporated into a Markov microsimulation using TreeAge software. Tracker variables were used to store adherence transitions, which were used to adjust probabilities of CV events over the patient's lifetime. Microsimulation loops "random walks" estimated the average accrued quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and CV events. For each 1,000-patient microsimulations, 10,000 outer loops were performed to reflect second-order uncertainty.

RESULTS

The adherence-naive model estimated 0.14 CV events avoided per person, whereas the dynamic adherence model estimated 0.08 CV events avoided per person. Using the adherence-naive model, we found that statin therapy resulted in 0.40 QALYs gained over the lifetime horizon on average per person while the dynamic adherence model estimated 0.22 incremental QALYs gained. Subgroup analysis revealed that maintaining high adherence in year 2 resulted in 0.23 incremental QALYs gained as compared with 0.16 incremental QALYs gained when adherence dropped to the lowest level.

CONCLUSIONS

A dynamic adherence Markov microsimulation model reveals risk reduction and effectiveness that are lower than with an adherence-naive model, and reflective of real-world practice. Such a model may highlight the value of improving or maintaining good adherence.

Centralized Pan-Middle East Survey on the Undertreatment of Hypercholesterolemia

The Centralized pan-Middle East Survey on the undertreatment of hypercholesterolemia (CEPHEUS) survey evaluated the attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals among patients on lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs) according to the updated National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)-Adult Treatment Panel (ATP-III) guideline. The survey was conducted in 6 Arabian Gulf countries. Patients aged ≥18 years on LLDs for at least ≥3 months (stable medication for ≥6 weeks) were recruited. Fasting blood samples were collected at a single visit. In this survey, 5276 (58.2% male) patients were included in the final analysis. The LDL-C goal was attained in 91.1% of low-risk, 52.7% of high-risk, and 32.0% in very-high-risk categories. Goal attainment was directly related to female gender, age <40 years, history of diabetes, and family history of cardiovascular disease. The results of this survey highlight the suboptimal management of hypercholesterolemia across Arabian Gulf countries.

CENTRALISED SURVEY ON THE UNDERTREATMENT OF THE HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA IN RUSSIA (CEPHEUS)

Aim.To assess the percentage of the patients who receive lipid-lowering drug therapy and achieve target levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL–CH), in accordance with the recommendations by the Russian Cardiology Society (RCS) and the 4th Joint European Task Force (4JETF).

Material and methods.The CEPHEUS study is a multi-centre, cross-sectional observational study with the participation of Russian patients. The study participants received lipid-lowering therapy for at least 3 months (no dose modification for ≥6 weeks). The start-date and end-date of the study were Oct 22nd 2010 and Mar 22nd 2011, respectively. The cross-sectional data were collected during a single visit to the clinic.

Results.The study included 1000 Russian patients. Overall, target LDL–CH levels were achieved in 34,5% (RCS criteria) and 48,2% (4JEFT criteria) of the patients who received lipid-lowering therapy in the routine clinical practice. The patients who were treated for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events (CVE) achieved target levels of LDL–CH more often than the patients treated for primary prevention: 38,2% vs. 27,0%, respectively, by the RCS criteria (odds ratio (OR) 1,67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1,22–2,28; p=0,001) and 54,5% vs. 35,4%, respectively, by the 4JEFT criteria (OR 2,19; 95% CI 1,63–2,95; p<0,001).

Conclusion.Target levels of LDL–CH are achieved by <50% of the Russian patients who receive lipid-lowering treatment. This percentage is even lower in patients receiving lipid-lowering treatment for primary CVE prevention.

Budget impact of rosuvastatin initiation in high-risk hyperlipidemic patients from a US managed care perspective

INTRODUCTION

Statins reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, which, when elevated, represent a significant risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Hyperlipidemic patients at risk of CV events initiated on simvastatin or atorvastatin may be less likely to meet LDL-C goals (defined in National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines) and more likely to experience CV events than patients initiated on rosuvastatin. A 3-year budget impact model was developed to estimate the clinical impact and cost to a US managed care organization (MCO) with 1 million members of initiating high-risk hyperlipidemic patients on rosuvastatin rather than simvastatin or atorvastatin.

METHODS

A total of 1000 adult patients were assumed to initiate statins. The average baseline LDL-C level was 189 mg/dL. In scenario 1, all patients were initiated on simvastatin or atorvastatin and titrated to a higher dose, or switched to atorvastatin (if initiated on simvastatin) or rosuvastatin; in scenario 2, 50% of the 520 high-risk patients were initiated on rosuvastatin. Drug acquisition and administration costs were considered. Product labeling, clinical trial results, national prescription claims data, and published literature were used to populate the model.

RESULTS

Over 3 years, 75 additional patients reached their LDL-C goal in scenario 2, compared with scenario 1 (633 vs 558, respectively), at an increased cost of $240,628 ($1,415,516 vs $1,174,888, respectively). The additional per member per month (PMPM) cost of scenario 2 was $0.007.

LIMITATIONS

This analysis assumed that statin efficacy is the same in real life as in trials, and used titration and switching patterns not based on patients' goal attainment. However, sensitivity and scenario analyses showed that the model was less sensitive to these parameters than to cost-related parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating high-risk hyperlipidemic patients on rosuvastatin may increase the number of patients reaching LDL-C goal at a relatively modest increase in PMPM cost to an MCO.

Relation of statin nonadherence and treatment intensification

Failure to intensify medication and failure to adhere to medication have been shown to contribute to suboptimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment. To examine whether nonadherence to statins in 126,903 patients on stable statin therapy is associated with subsequent treatment intensification, we conducted a retrospective analysis using an integrated pharmacy and medical claims database. Pharmacy claims were analyzed to determine whether nonadherence, as measured by proportion of days covered on statins <80%, was associated with intensification of statin treatment over a 360-day follow-up. Of 11,361 patients who had treatment intensification, 44% were previously nonadherent to statins. Patients whose treatment was intensified had slightly lower adherence to statin therapy than those without intensification (76% vs 78%, p <0.0001) and were more likely to be nonadherent as defined by proportion of days covered <80% (44% vs 37%, p <0.0001). After controlling for confounding factors, patients nonadherent to statins were 30% more likely to have treatment intensification compared to adherent patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.36). In addition, patients with statin intensification were more likely to be younger, women, and have coronary artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, or depression. Primary care physicians were more likely to escalate therapy than cardiologists. In conclusion, nearly 1/2 of patients with therapy escalation were nonadherent to statins. Clinicians should inquire about adherence and consider adherence before escalating statin therapy.

Effectiveness of treat-to-target strategy for LDL-cholesterol control in type 2 diabetes: post-hoc analysis of data from the MIND.IT study

BACKGROUND

The paper presents a post-hoc analysis of the intensity of dyslipidaemia care operated in the first 2 years of Multiple-Intervention-in-type-2-Diabetes.ITaly (MIND.IT) study.

DESIGN AND METHODS

MIND.IT is a multicentric, randomized, two-parallel arm trial involving 1461 type 2 diabetic patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk. The study compares the usual care (UC) of CV prevention with a multifactorial intensive care (IC) approach aiming at achieving target values for the main CV risk factors according to a step-wise treat-to-target approach.

RESULTS

Proportion of patients on target for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was about 10% at baseline and increased significantly more with IC than UC (43 vs. 27%; p < 0.001). However, the majority (57%) of patients, in this intended intensively treated cohort, failed to achieve the proposed target. Average LDL-C decreased from 144 ± 35 to 108 ± 31 mg/dl with IC and from 142 ± 28 to 118 ± 32 with UC (p-for-interaction <0.0001). IC was associated with a significantly greater increase in statin prescription and lower withdrawal from treatment than UC (43 vs. 11% and 28 vs. 61%, respectively; both p < 0.001). However, the new treatments were characterized in both groups by the use of low starting doses (≤ 10 mg of atorvastatin, equivalent dose in more than 90% of patients) without increase in case of missed target.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a multifactorial treat-to-target intervention is associated with a significant improvement in LDL-C beyond usual practice. However, the change in LDL-C appears to be more related to an increased number of treated patients and a decreased treatment withdrawal than to a true treat-to-target approach.

Impact of ABCC2, ABCG2 and SLCO1B1 polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics of pitavastatin in humans

Pitavastatin, a 3-hydroxyl-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor is distributed to the liver, a target organ of action and excreted mainly into the bile. To investigate the impact of influx (OATP1B1) and efflux (MRP2, BCRP) transporter alleles on its disposition, the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were compared among the following groups: SLCO1B1 (*15 carrier and non-carrier), ABCC2 (G1249A, C3972T, C-24T, G1549A, and G1774T), and ABCG2 (C421A) single nucleotide polymorphisms in 45 healthy Korean volunteers. Pitavastatin AUC(last) was higher in individuals carrying the SLCO1B1*15 allele than those not carrying it (144.1 ± 55.3 vs. 84.7 ± 25.7 h·ng/mL [mean ± SD], p = 0.002). The AUC(last) varied significantly according to the ABCC2 C-24T allele (103.4 ± 42.2, 80.2 ± 23.8, and 39.0 h·ng/mL in CC, CT and TT, respectively; p = 0.027). Other SNPs of ABCC2 and ABCG2 were not significant. The effect of these transporters and body weight on the AUC(last) and C(max) were tested, and only SLCO1B1 and ABCC2 C-24T genotypes were significant factors by analysis of covariance. These variants accounted for almost 50% of the variation in AUC(last) and C(max) of pitavastatin. Therefore, ABCC2 C-24T was significantly associated with pitavastatin human PK when the known effect of SLCO1B1*15 was also considered.

The burden and management of dyslipidemia: practical issues

The objective of this study is to describe briefly the burden of dyslipidemia, and to discuss and present strategies for health professionals to improve dyslipidemia management, based on a review of selected literature focusing on interventions for dyslipidemia treatment adherence. Despite the availability of effective lifestyle and pharmaceutical therapies for dyslipidemias, they continue to present a significant economic burden in the United States. Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias is unsatisfactory. The reasons for medication nonadherence are complex and specific to each patient. The lack of progress in achieving optimal lipid targets is caused by many factors: patient (medication adherence, cost of medication, literacy), medication (adverse effects, complexity of regimen), provider (lack of adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines, poor communication), and the US healthcare system (being focused on acute care rather than prevention, lack of continuity of care, general lack of use of an electronic health record). Combined interventions that target each part of the system have been effective in improving treatment adherence and achieving lipid goals. Patients, providers, pharmacists, and employers all play a role in management of dyslipidemia. No single approach will solve the complex issue of improving dyslipidemia management. The required lifestyle changes are known and effective medications are available. The challenge is for all interested parties-including nurses, nurse practitioners, doctors, pharmacists, other health care professionals, employers, and health plans-to help patients achieve behavioral changes.

An explanatory randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led, consultation-based intervention to support patients with adherence to taking glucose lowering medication for type 2 diabetes

Background

Failure to take medication reduces the effectiveness of treatment leading to increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the efficacy of a consultation-based intervention to support objectively-assessed adherence to oral glucose lowering medication (OGLM) compared to usual care among people with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

This was a parallel group randomised trial in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA_1c≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), prescribed at least one OGLM. Participants were allocated to a clinic nurse delivered, innovative consultation-based intervention to strengthen patient motivation to take OGLM regularly and support medicine taking through action-plans, or to usual care. The primary outcome was the percentage of days on which the prescribed dose of medication was taken, measured objectively over 12 weeks with an electronic medication-monitoring device (TrackCap, Aardex, Switzerland). The primary analysis was intention-to-treat.

Results

211 patients were randomised between July 1, 2006 and November 30, 2008 in 13 British general practices (primary care clinics). Primary outcome data were available for 194 participants (91.9%). Mean (sd) percentage of adherent days was 77.4% (26.3) in the intervention group and 69.0% (30.8) in standard care (mean difference between groups 8.4%, 95% confidence interval 0.2% to 16.7%, p = 0.044). There was no significant adverse impact on functional status or treatment satisfaction.

Conclusions

This well-specified, theory based intervention delivered in a single session of 30 min in primary care increased objectively measured medication adherence, with no adverse effect on treatment satisfaction. These findings justify a definitive trial of this approach to improving medication adherence over a longer period of time, with clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes to inform clinical practice.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30522359

Adherence to statins, subsequent healthcare costs, and cardiovascular hospitalizations

Statins are the primary agents used to decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Although adherence to statins improves the clinical outcomes, the affect of statin adherence on healthcare costs has not been well studied. To examine the relation among statin adherence, subsequent hospitalizations, and healthcare costs, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 381,422 patients, aged 18 to 61 years, using an integrated pharmacy and medical claims database. We measured adherence using the medication possession ratio (MPR) for 12 months and the healthcare costs and cardiovascular disease-related hospitalizations during the subsequent 18 months. Of those studied, 258,013 (67.6%) were adherent (MPR ≥80%), 65,795 (17.3%) had an MPR of 60% to 79%, and 57,614 (15.1%) had an MPR of <60%. The adjusted all-cause total healthcare costs were lowest in the adherent group at $10,198 ± $39.4 (mean ± SE) versus $10,609 ± $77.7 (p <0.001) for an MPR of 60% to 79%, and $11,102 ± $84.3 (p <0.001) for an MPR of <60%. The adherent group had greater statin costs at $838 ± $1.0 versus $664 ± $2.0 (p <0.001) and $488 ± $2.2 (p <0.001). When evaluated by 5 levels of MPR, 0% to 59% and increments of 10% >60%, the adjusted total healthcare costs were lowest for the MPR 90% to 100% group and significantly greater statistically (p <0.001) for each lower level of adherence. Compared to the statin-adherent patients, cardiovascular disease-related hospitalizations were more likely for the patients with an MPR of 60% to 79% (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.16) and an MPR of 0% to 59% (odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.31). In conclusion, statin adherence is associated with reductions in subsequent total healthcare costs and cardiovascular disease-related hospitalizations.

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus ezetimibe/simvastatin in managing dyslipidemic patients in Mexico

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to study the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral rosuvastatin (RSV) 10 mg/day vs. oral ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) 10/20 mg/day in patients who met the LDL-C goals set out in the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) 2001 and 2004 guidelines, and the percent change in the atherogenic lipid profile in daily outpatient practice in a high specialty Hospital in Mexico City.

METHODS

From January 2004 to December 2005, outpatient medical records in the Cardiology Service were reviewed according to the following criteria: established dyslipidemia diagnosis, triglycerides and serum lipid measurements (TC, LDL-C, HDL-C) taken before receiving drug therapy with either oral RSV 10 mg/day or oral E/S 10/20 mg/day once daily, no other related lipid-lowering treatment administered, and lipid levels recorded at 8 weeks of treatment. A cost analysis was performed from an institutional perspective, using the exchange rate as of October 2006 of 10.9007 pesos / US dollar. A deterministic analysis was performed comparing treatment costs, proportion of patients achieving the ATP III goal, and the percentage decrease in LDL-C. In addition, a stochastic analysis was performed, considering the uncertainty around the estimations for mean cost and mean effectiveness estimations.

RESULTS

Using the ATP III 2001 criteria, the percentage of patients who reached the LDL-C goals was 81.4% for patients who received RSV, while the proportion for patients who received E/S was 58.4% (p < 0.001). Results according to the ATP III 2004 criteria were: RSV, 46.4% vs. E/S, 31.4% (p = 0.04). The cost of a 1% reduction in LDL-C was $2.02 with RSV and $4.09 with E/S. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that RSV might be more cost-effective than E/S, based on patients who achieved the 2004 goals.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this exploratory, non-controlled retrospective analysis, it can be said that in daily clinical practice in high-cardiovascular-risk Mexican patients, treatment with oral RSV 10 mg/day is more effective and less costly than treatment with the fixed-combination oral E/S 10/20 mg/day.

[Lipid profiles and therapy status in the secondary prevention of high risk patients with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes mellitus: the Austrian Hospital Screening Project (HSP)]

Cardiovascular disease is the major cause of morbidity and premature death in most European populations. Due to its prominent role as a risk factor for cardiovascular mortality, lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is the main goal for management of dyslipidemia. To evaluate lipid profiles and management of high risk patients with hyperlipidemia, we performed an observational study in 20 Austrian Departments of Medicine specialized in cardiology, diabetes and/or metabolism from July 2006 to February 2007. Out of 9152 patients [age (mean +/- SD): women 69 +/- 13, men 65 +/- 12 years) 6838 were considered at "very high risk" (group 1; LDL-C: 99 +/- 38 mg/dl) and 2314 at "high risk" (group 2; LDL-C: 108 +/- 39 mg/dl), respectively. Of 4886 patients on statins, 48% of did not reach their LDL-C goals (<70 mg/dl and <100 mg/dl for group 1 and 2, respectively). In 68% of these patients statin therapy was not intensified subsequently. Among patients without lipid-lowering drugs at study entry, 62% did not meet their targets, and despite treatment in the center 1555 of these patients (58%) remained without medication. With regard to national and international guidelines, there is still a need to improve the clinical practice of lowering LDL-C for secondary prevention in high risk patients in Austria.

Therapy modifications and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment rates associated with the initiation of generic simvastatin

OBJECTIVE

The availability of generic simvastatin has changed the relative cost structure within the statin marketplace and has been associated with third-party payer changes to formularies and statin utilization policies. The current study examines simvastatin therapy modification patterns and associated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment rates.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study utilized administrative claims linked to laboratory result data from a national health plan. Patients newly initiated on generic simvastatin from January 2007 to March 2008 were identified. National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) risk categories and goal LDL-C targets were assigned. Simvastatin dose titrations and switches to other statins were described, as were changes in LDL-C values and NCEP ATP III goal attainment rates both before and after therapy modifications.

RESULTS

Of the 1654 patients newly initiated on simvastatin, 84% had no simvastatin therapy modification in the >1-year follow-up period. For patients with no therapy modification, 54.4% did not achieve their LDL-C NCEP ATP III goal at their first lipid panel and goal attainment was strongly associated with the level of cardiovascular risk (goal attainment rate = 75.1%, 51.7%, and 28.6% for low-, moderate- and high-risk categories, respectively). Of patients not achieving NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals (n = 885), 85.4% had no therapy modification. Goal was achieved after therapy modification in 36% (dose titration) and 42% (switchers); high-risk patients goal attainment rates were 23% and 38%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

LIMITATIONS of the study include the observational design, use of an administrative claims database to assess cardiovascular risk, relatively short follow-up time (slightly more than 1 year) and the lack of assessment of adherence to therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the majority of patients initiated on generic simvastatin stayed on their initial starting dose regardless of NCEP ATP III goal attainment status. The findings of low rates of therapy modification irrespective of baseline CV risk and associated low rates of goal attainment, especially in high risk patients treated with simvastatin, indicate an opportunity to encourage clinical decision making based on the needs of the individual patient.

Effectiveness of rosuvastatin in reducing LDL-C and target LDL-C goal attainment in real-world clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

This article reviewed the collective evidence from routine clinical practice to summarize the existing literature on the effectiveness of rosuvastatin in treating hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

A comprehensive Medline literature search identified all published articles, in all languages, from January 2003 through September 2008 on the use of rosuvastatin in the usual-care setting. The search identified 60 articles, and 16 articles were included in this review because they were observational and non-interventional and included sufficient data specific to rosuvastatin. Excluded articles were clinical trials, cost-effectiveness models, safety, reviews, pharmacokinetics, abstracts or editorials only, or all statins combined. Included rosuvastatin articles were categorized as (1) effectiveness in general population and (2) effectiveness in special populations (e.g., elderly, diabetes).

RESULTS

Seven studies consistently showed that diverse patients from different geographic regions who were newly initiated on rosuvastatin had significantly greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (29-52%) compared with patients treated with other statins (16-43%). LDL-C goal attainment as recommended by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III or European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines was consistently and significantly higher among patients treated with rosuvastatin (64-81%) compared with patients treated with other statins (34-73%). Rosuvastatin-treated patients with diabetes or HIV or who were elderly had significantly greater LDL-C reduction and LDL-C goal attainment compared with patients treated with other statins.

LIMITATIONS

Channeling bias or confounding by indication may have influenced the results of the real-world studies, if physicians reserve rosuvastatin for sicker or more difficult to treat patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong and consistent body of evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of rosuvastatin in lowering LDL-C and LDL-C goal attainment in real life compared with other statins at commonly prescribed doses, which reflects the existing evidence from clinical trials.

Statin therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analysis

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are potentially excellent candidate agents for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). They reduce both cardiovascular risks and RA disease activity. To evaluate the potential long-term effects of statin therapy among patients with RA, and to determine their associated cost effectiveness by incorporating both the cardiovascular and the anti-rheumatic benefits. A Markov decision-analytic model was developed to simulate cardiovascular and RA disease profiles over time. The impact of statin therapy was estimated by adjusting the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events and changes in the RA Disease Activity Score (DAS28), based on the results of a randomized trial. The benefits (QALYs) and costs (in year 2005 values) were evaluated from a US payer perspective. A full uncertainty analysis, including a value-of-information (VOI) analysis, was undertaken to evaluate the importance of individual parameters. Using a 10-year time horizon, the additional cost and QALYs of statin therapy were estimated to be USD4690 and 0.44 QALYs, respectively, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of USD10 650 per QALY (95% CI 1525, 156 565). The QALY gain associated with statin therapy depended more on the anti-rheumatic effects of statin therapy than on its cardiovascular prevention effect. The VOI analysis found the long-term benefit of statin therapy (i.e. >or=12 months) and the consequent impact on quality of life to be the most uncertain and, therefore, influential parameters. Our analysis indicates that the dual anti-inflammatory/cardiovascular benefits of statins could make this therapy highly cost effective in RA. However, uncertainties remain in the available data, warranting further research on refining the precise RA disease-activity benefits and health-utility changes associated with statin therapy, at least over a 12-month period.

Strict control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of a strict control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors on coronary risk (CR) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Longitudinal, open and observational study in 530 patients with T2DM. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1C), postprandial capillary glucose (PCG), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were measured; low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and body mass index were calculated; and 10 years CR was predicted before and after 6 months of therapy implementation. The percentage of patients who reached the targets, according to published guidelines, and the use of insulin and various cardioprotective medications were compared before and after therapy implementation.

RESULTS

There was a significant decrease in mean HbA 1C, FPG, PCG, total cholesterol, triglycerides, SBP, DBP, and CR after intervention. The percentage of patients who reached the HbA 1C, FPG, PCG, total cholesterol, triglycerides, SBP, DPB, and CR targets, and the number of subjects taking insulin and cardioprotective drugs increased significantly after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a strict control of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in patients with T2DM in clinical practice has a beneficial effect over predicted CR.

Women tolerate drug therapy for coronary artery disease as well as men do, but are treated less frequently with aspirin, beta-blockers, or statins

BACKGROUND

Women have worse morbidity, mortality, and health-related quality-of-life outcomes associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with men. This may be related to underutilization of drug therapies, such as aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, or statins. No studies have sought to describe the relationship of gender with adverse reactions to drug therapy (ADRs) for CAD in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of ADRs associated with common CAD drug therapies in women and men in clinical practice.

METHODS

In a cohort of consecutive outpatients with CAD, detailed chart abstraction was performed to determine the use of aspirin, beta-blocker, ACE inhibitor, and statin therapy, as well as the ADRs reported for these treatments. Baseline clinical characteristics were also determined to identify the independent association of gender with use of standard drug treatments for CAD.

RESULTS

Consecutive patients with CAD (153 men, 151 women) were included in the study. Women and men were observed to have a similar prevalence of cardiac risk factors and comorbidities, except that men had significantly higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (30 [19.6%] men vs 15 [9.9%] women; P = 0.03) and significantly lower mean (SD) high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations (45 [16] mg/dL for men vs 55 [19] mg/dL for women; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the sexes in the prevalence of ADRs; however, significantly fewer women than men were treated with statins (118 [78.1%] vs 139 [90.8%], respectively; P = 0.003). After adjusting for clinical characteristics, women were also found to be less likely than men to receive aspirin (odds ratio [OR] = 0.164; 95% CI, 0.083-0.322; P = 0.001) and beta-blockers (OR = 0.184; 95% CI, 0.096-0.351; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women and men experienced a similar prevalence of ADRs in the treatment of CAD; however, women were significantly less likely to be treated with aspirin, beta-blockers, and statins than were their male counterparts. To optimize care for women with CAD, further study is needed to identify the cause of this gender disparity in therapeutic drug use.

The comparative effectiveness of rosuvastatin vs. other statins in patients with an increased risk of failure to reach NCEP ATP III goal

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that failure to reach National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal increases the risk of cardiovascular events. Ability to meet goal may be impacted by the choice of statin therapy.

PURPOSE

This study compares rosuvastatin to other statin therapies among patients presenting with risk factors associated with failure to reach NCEP goal.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis using medical and pharmacy claims linked to laboratory results from a national health plan encompassing private and MedicareAdvantage enrollees age > or = 18 years and newly treated with statins from 1 August 2003 to 28 February 2005. Predictors of failure to reach goal were statin treatment group, age, gender, NCEP risk level, per cent reduction required to attain goal and days from index to LDL-C measurement.

RESULTS

Of 11,814 eligible patients, 9.6% were initiated on rosuvastatin, 54.2% atorvastatin, 17.9% simvastatin, 7.1% pravastatin, 2.0% fluvastatin and 9.3% lovastatin. Independent predictors of failure to reach goal included > or = 15% LDL-C reduction required to reach goal, and high and moderate NCEP risk status. In the subset of patients at higher risk of failure to reach goal, rosuvastatin demonstrated a significantly lower rate of failure to achieve goal than atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin or lovastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world factors associated with high risk of failure to reach goal may be used in identifying patients more likely to succeed on rosuvastatin compared with other statins. Low-risk patients needing < 15% LDL-C reduction would be suitable candidates for initiation of most other statins, specifically simvastatin, which has recently become available in the generic form.

Recognizing and improving patient nonadherence to statin therapy

Despite landmark trials demonstrating the benefits of statin therapy for lipid lowering and in the primary and secondary prevention of acute coronary events, many patients do not adhere to medication regimens. Although incremental gains have been made in lowering the absolute levels of total serum cholesterol in the general population, only one third of treated patients are achieving their lipid goals, with fewer than 20% of patients with cardiovascular disease at their target lipid goals. Only half of patients continue taking statins prescribed to them at 6 months, and only 30% to 40% continue taking them at 1 year. Predictors of poor adherence to statins are described, such as female gender and low socioeconomic status. Approaches that are physician focused and patient centered, such as frequent follow-up and serum lipid testing and better education of patients about cardiovascular disease, are suggested to offset a major impediment to achieving the full therapeutic outcomes promised by clinical trials.

Lifestyle or Life-Saving Medicines? A Primary Healthcare Professional and Consumer Opinion Survey on Over-the-Counter Statins

Background:

Over-the-counter (OTC) simvastatin 10 mg became available in the UK in July 2004 with the aim of improving primary prevention of ischemic heart disease.

Objective:

To document the views of the main stakeholders (general practitioners [GPs], community pharmacists, and consumers) on issues pertaining to the reclassification of simvastatin to OTC availability, highlight differences between stakeholder groups, and identify factors likely to influence consumer behavior.

Methods:

A self-administered questionnaire survey of GPs, community pharmacists, and potentially eligible consumers was carried out 8 months after the UK launch of OTC simvastatin. Participants were asked about their awareness of the drug, their willingness to use such medicines, and their views on relevant management practices.

Results:

Awareness of OTC simvastatin was high among GPs but limited among consumers. Although OTC availability was favored by pharmacists, consumers and GPs generally thought it was not a good idea. GPs and pharmacists cited increased consumer choice as the most important likely benefit; consumers thought potential savings to the National Health Service were equally important. Medication misuse and neglect of lifestyle risk factors were unanimously considered to be the most important likely risks. Unlike the majority of pharmacists, most GPs thought that current dosing guidelines were inappropriate, but there was consensus that long-term nonadherence would probably curtail any treatment benefit. Most respondents agreed that GPs should be informed if their patients were using OTC statins but disagreed as to the best way to communicate this information.

Conclusions:

OTC availability of statins did not appear to be considered a popular public health intervention by consumers and GPs, as the drugs were widely perceived as being prone to misuse. However, OTC availability was favored by pharmacists, who saw this as empowering both for consumers and themselves. Key issues in dispensing, managing, and evaluating the public health impact of this intervention remain outstanding.

Effectiveness of statins in Medicare-eligible patients and patients < 65 years using clinical practice data

OBJECTIVE

This study compared effectiveness of rosuvastatin (RSV) with other statins on lowering LDL-C and LDL-C goal attainment among Medicare-eligible patients (age >or= 65 years) and patients with age < 65 years treated in usual clinical practice to provide evidence of real-world effectiveness of statins.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study was conducted in patients, newly prescribed statin therapy during August 2003 to May 2005. Patient inclusion criteria: no prior prescription for dyslipidaemic medication in the preceding 12 months, continuously enrolled for >or= 15 months and >or= 90-day supply of statin. Effectiveness of RSV in reducing LDL-C and attaining LDL-C goal when compared with other statins was evaluated using multivariate regression, adjusting for baseline LDL-C, age, gender, smoking, hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), systolic blood pressure and therapy duration.

RESULTS

Adjusted per cent LDL-C reduction was significantly greater (p < 0.05) with RSV (24.3% for >or= 65 and 28.5% for < 65) compared with ATV (17.5%, 21.3%), SMV (14.8%, 18.4%), PRV (11.3%, 15.8%), FLV (10.7%, 20.6%) and LOV (13.3%, 14.4%). Among patients in both age groups at high or moderate CHD risk, a greater proportion of RSV patients attained LDL-C goal (76.0% for age group >or= 65 years and 78.4% for age group < 65 years) vs. 50.5-73.0% for >or= 65 and 51.3-71.5% for < 65 years of age on other statins (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin is more effective in lowering LDL-C in Medicare-eligible patients and patients < 65 years of age when compared with other statins in usual clinical practice. Moreover, RSV patients had higher LDL-C goal attainment rates when compared with other statins in high- and moderate-risk patients. The study results have implications for clinicians in selecting the optimal statin to meet individual patient care needs.

Effectiveness of rosuvastatin in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel guideline III LDL-C goal attainment compared to other statins among diabetes mellitus patients: a retrospective study using an electronic medical records dataset in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To compare effectiveness of rosuvastatin (RSV) with other statins on lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and LDL-C goal attainment among patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

A retrospective study using US General Electric Medical Systems (GEMS) database of patients with diabetes mellitus (ICD9 code = 250, prescription for anti-diabetic medication or fasting blood glucose level > or = 126 mg/dL in the 12 months preceding statin therapy) treated across clinical practices in the US, who were newly prescribed statin therapy during August 2003-March 2006, was conducted. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used for analyzing prescription data with baseline LDL-C, age, gender, smoking, very high CHD risk, systolic blood pressure, and statin duration as covariates.

RESULTS

Of 4754 diabetes mellitus patients, 5% were prescribed RSV, 59% atorvastatin (ATV), 21% simvastatin (SMV), 5% pravastatin (PRV), 2% fluvastatin (FLV), and 7% lovastatin (LOV). RSV patients had significantly higher (p < 0.05) baseline mean LDL-C levels (138 vs. 117-131 mg/dL), lower average starting dose (11.7 vs. 17.0-63.7 mg) and were younger (p < 0.005) than patients on other statins (mean age 61 vs. 63-69 years). Percent LDL-C reduction was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) with RSV (28.4%) compared to ATV (22.5%), SMV (20.1%), PRV (13.7%), FLV (15.8%), and LOV (17.3%). A greater (p < 0.05) proportion of RSV diabetes patients attained LDL-C goal < 100 mg/dL (72.8%) vs. diabetes mellitus patients on other statins (36.8-67.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin was more effective in lowering LDL-C and achieving LDL-C treatment goals in the diabetes mellitus population as compared to other statins in real-world clinical practice setting. Validating study results in a different diabetes population with dispensed statin prescriptions will help increase generalizability of study findings.

A global survey of physicians' perceptions on cholesterol management: the From The Heart study

AIMS

Guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention cite high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a major risk factor and recommend LDL-C goals for various risk groups. Lifestyle changes are advised as first-line treatment for patients with high cholesterol, and statins are recommended in high-risk patients. The From The Heart study investigated current practice for the diagnosis and treatment of high cholesterol, and attitudes towards management of the condition.

METHODS

Physicians were randomly selected from 10 countries, and completed a confidential, semi-structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 2790 physicians agreeing to participate, 750 (27%) responded. Physicians rated CVD as the leading cause of death, although physicians (80%) perceived that cancer was the most feared illness among patients. Physicians (71%) believed smoking to be the greatest CVD risk factor, while only 50% thought high cholesterol was the greatest risk. Most physicians (81%) used guidelines to set cholesterol goals, primarily their national guidelines (34%) or the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines (24%). Although only 47% of patients reached and maintained their cholesterol goals, 61% of physicians believed that a sufficient number of patients achieved goals, and 53% did not feel frustrated that they could not always effectively treat patients with CVD.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate discrepancies between guideline recommendations and clinical practice. Although physicians appreciate the risk of CVD, the importance of achieving healthy cholesterol levels for CVD prevention does not seem to be widely endorsed. There is a need for improved communication regarding the importance of cholesterol lowering and investigation of initiatives to improve goal achievement among physicians.

Comparative effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus other statin therapies in patients at increased risk of failure to achieve low-density lipoprotein goals

OBJECTIVES

Statins are increasingly used in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Research has shown difficulty in attaining LDL-C goals in routine clinical practice, especially in patients at high risk for coronary events. This study identified risk factors associated with failure to attain LDL-C goals in routine clinical practice and examined the effectiveness of rosuvastatin compared to other statins in patients presenting with these risk factors.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used administrative claims data on patients receiving statins. After stratifying patients into baseline National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) risk categories, logistic regression allowed identification of factors predicting failure to attain LDL-C goal. Separate analyses compared failure rates between rosuvastatin and other statins in patients at an increased risk of goal attainment failure.

RESULTS

Of the 4661 patients identified, 50% and 14% had baseline NCEP ATP III high and moderate risk status, respectively. Risk factors associated with goal attainment failure were percentage change required to achieve goal > or = 30%, NCEP high risk status, percentage change required 15-29%, and NCEP moderate risk status. Patients at an increased risk of failure exhibited significantly higher failure rates in all other statin groups compared to rosuvastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that patients requiring > or = 15% change in LDL-C or NCEP high or moderate risk patients are at a higher risk of goal attainment failure. Rosuvastatin is more effective compared to other statins in patients with these risk factors and given variations in clinical profiles of branded and generic statins, these results may aid in identifying patients most likely to benefit from rosuvastatin compared to other statin therapies. Validating the results of this study in other patient populations would help increase the generalizability of study findings.

Effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing lipid levels and achieving low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol goals in a usual care setting

PURPOSE

The effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing lipid levels and achieving low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals in patients treated in a usual care setting was studied.

METHODS

Electronic medical and pharmacy administrative claims from a western U.S. health plan with approximately 8 million covered members were extracted and used in this retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Patients age 18 years or older who were newly initiated on rosuvastatin or atorvastatin between August 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004, were included. Propensity-score matching on baseline characteristics was used to minimize selection bias between groups. Administrative claims and medical records were used to assign patients a cardiovascular risk status and corresponding LDL cholesterol goal using guidelines from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Changes in lipid levels and attainment rates of goal LDL cholesterol levels were estimated after accounting for baseline covariates using regression techniques.

RESULTS

A total of 453 patients met the study criteria. The mean dose of rosuvastatin was 11 mg compared with 15 mg for atorvastatin. After adjusting for baseline differences between groups, patients receiving rosuvastatin had significantly greater mean percent reductions in LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and non-high-density-lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol than did patients receiving atorvastatin (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). No significant differences were found in HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels between groups. Attainment rates for NCEP LDL cholesterol goals were significantly higher in patients receiving rosuvastatin.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated in a usual care setting with rosuvastatin had significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels compared with those receiving atorvastatin. Patients receiving rosuvastatin were more likely to attain NCEP LDL cholesterol goals compared with patients treated with atorvastatin.

A Projection of the Impact of Lipid-Lowering Therapy on High-Risk Employee Disability and Medical Costs

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the impact of introducing rosuvastatin calcium on direct and indirect costs among patients at high risk for coronary heart disease.

METHODS

An economic simulation model was developed to project the number of cardiovascular events and associated direct and indirect costs under varying treatment scenarios.

RESULTS

In an average-sized commercial health plan with 210,000 covered lives and 9,336 high-risk patients, an uptake of rosuvastatin by 11% of high-risk patients would result in eight fewer cardiovascular events, a net savings of 0.85 million dollars in direct medical costs and a net savings of 36,404 dollars in productivity loss over a period of 5 years. The overall reduction in total costs is equivalent to 1735 dollars per rosuvastatin-treated patient.

CONCLUSIONS

At current statin prices, the use of rosuvastatin could lead to fewer cardiovascular events and lower direct and indirect costs.

Disease knowledge and adherence to treatment in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is one of the most common genetic metabolic disorders and is associated with a high risk of premature coronary heart disease. Primary prevention directed at lifestyle changes, combined with preventive medical treatment, is the most important way to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease in individuals with FH. Knowledge about the condition and adherence to drug treatment may facilitate reaching treatment goals.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe disease knowledge and adherence to treatment in patients with FH.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Seventy-four patients, more than 18 years of age, with FH were asked to participate. A questionnaire on disease knowledge about FH and adherence to drug treatment was sent to the patients. Response rate was 92% (n = 68). Drug treatment, laboratory results, blood pressure, and smoking were also documented.

RESULTS

Most patients knew about cholesterol, prevention, and the reason for drug treatment but were less informed about the risk of genetic transmission and family history. No significant correlation was found between knowledge and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. A significant, negative correlation between adherence and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was found (r = -.354, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with FH had scant understanding about the risk of genetic transmission and family history. High adherence to drug prescription has significant correlation to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level.

Impact of rosuvastatin use on costs and outcomes in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease in US managed care and medicare populations: A data analysis

BACKGROUND

High blood cholesterol is a major modifiable risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the economic impact of rosuvastatin calcium use in patients at high risk for CHD and stroke, according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines.

METHODS

An economic simulation model was developed that used a Markov process to project the number of cardiovascular events and associated costs in a high-risk population in various treatment scenarios. According to the ATP III, high-risk patients are those with CHD, atherosclerosis of peripheral and/or cerebral arteries, diabetes, and/or multiple other risk factors conferring a risk of at least 20% within 10 years. Data on population characteristics and costs of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were obtained from claims data sets from employer-funded commercial and Medicare health plans in the United States. Treatment of lipid disorders was translated into CVD risk reduction based on results from the Heart Protection Study. The estimated efficacies of individual lipid-lowering drugs were based on data published in package inserts. The model generated costs at the health plan level of lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk patients and the number and total costs of cardiovascular events. Estimates were compared for scenarios representing the mix of treatments used before and after the introduction of rosuvastatin. Estimates were generated separately for commercial and Medicare health plans.

RESULTS

For every 1 million members of a commercial health plan, an estimated 44,457 met ATP III criteria for high-risk status. Use of rosuvastatin in place of other 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors ("statins") by 11 % of these patients over a period of 5 years was estimated to result in 36 fewer cardiovascular events and a net savings of US 4.03 million dollars. A Medicare plan of 1 million members with an estimated 433,268 high-risk patients and 7% rosuvastatin use was estimated to avoid 727 events and save US 34.32 million dollars.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this data analysis suggest that increasing the use of rosuvastatin can result in cardiovascular event reduction and cost savings. Because the impact of lipid-modifying therapy on cardiovascular risk has not been thoroughly documented in controlled clinical studies, our model assumed that incremental lipid changes had effects in proportion to the magnitude of change.

Ezetimibe: A First-in-Class, Novel Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitor

Significant numbers of patients at risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) fail to reach National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)-designated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals in spite of the wide range of currently available treatments, including combination therapies. Ezetimibe, the first in a class of novel cholesterol absorption inhibitors, demonstrated lipid-lowering and antiatherosclerotic activity in experimental and clinical hypercholesterolemia. Studies in hypercholesterolemic dogs showed that ezetimibe coadministered with statins caused greater lipid-lowering effects compared to either drug alone. These effects were confirmed in clinical studies of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia where initiation of treatment with ezetimibe plus a statin, or addition of ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy, produced significant incremental reductions in LDL-C, as well as incremental increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and reductions in triglyceride levels. Combination therapy also significantly increased the number of patients attaining LDL-C goal at the end of treatment, compared to statin monotherapy. In studies using simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and lovastatin, addition of ezetimibe to low dose statin was as effective as a 2- to 3-fold upward titration of the corresponding statin dose. Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy provided similar improvements in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, as well as with heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Ezetimibe monotherapy effectively reduced plasma campesterol and sitosterol in patients with homozygous sitosterolemia. Clinical studies showed that ezetimibe was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to placebo when administered as monotherapy and comparable to statin alone when coadministered with a statin. These data provide strong evidence that, through their complementary lipid-lowering mechanisms, ezetimibe coadministered with a statin offers an effective combination treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia, including those with genetically inherited disease.