Rationale, Design, and Implementation of Intensive Risk Factor Treatment in the CREST2 Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The CREST2 trial (Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis) is comparing intensive medical management (IMM) alone to IMM plus revascularization with carotid endarterectomy or transfemoral carotid artery stenting for preventing stroke or death within 44 days after randomization or ipsilateral ischemic stroke thereafter. There are extensive clinical trial data on outcomes after revascularization of asymptomatic carotid stenosis, but not for IMM. As such, the experimental treatment in CREST2 is IMM, which is described in this article.

METHODS

IMM consists of aspirin 325 mg/day and intensive risk factor management, primarily targeting systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg (initially systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg) and LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol <70 mg/dL. Secondary risk factor targets focus on tobacco smoking, non-HDL (high-density lipoprotein), HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c), physical activity, and weight. Risk factor management is performed by site personnel and a lifestyle coaching program delivered by telephone. We report interim risk factor data on 1618 patients at baseline and last follow-up through 24 months.

RESULTS

The mean baseline LDL of 80.5 mg/dL improved to 66.7 mg/dL. The mean baseline systolic blood pressure of 139.7 mm Hg improved to 130.3 mm Hg. The proportion of patients in-target improved from 43% to 61% for systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg and from 45% to 67% for LDL<70 mg/dL (both changes P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The rigorous multimodal approach to intensive stroke risk factor management in CREST2 has resulted in significant improvements in risk factor control that will enable a comparison of cutting-edge medical care to revascularization in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02089217.

Achievement of English National Service Framework lipid-lowering goals: pooled data from recent comparative treatment trials of statins at starting doses

Despite the importance of reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, detailed in guidelines in many countries, repeated surveys show poor physician performance in attaining guideline lipid targets, which is associated with reluctance by physicians to up-titrate statins from starting doses. Data from randomised, double-blind trials comparing common starting doses of atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin for 12 weeks in hypercholesterolaemic patients were therefore analysed for achievement of lipid-lowering goals recommended by the England National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD). In three pooled trials, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol more significantly than atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) (p < 0.001). NSF goals were achieved by 83% of rosuvastatin patients vs. 55% of atorvastatin patients (p < 0.001) at relevant starting doses. In two pooled trials, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) reduced LDL-C and total cholesterol more significantly than simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (p < 0.001). NSF goals were achieved at starting doses by 83% of rosuvastatin patients vs. 51% of simvastatin patients and 19% of pravastatin patients (p < 0.001 vs. each comparator). This improved achievement of NSF lipid target, at starting doses, was also seen in high-risk patients (those eligible for secondary prevention or primary prevention because of a 10-year CVD risk of >30%) with 84% patients on rosuvastatin vs. 58% on atorvastatin and 75% of patients on rosuvastatin vs. 49% on simvaststin and 24% on pravastatin. In summary, there are considerable and clinically significant variations in the achievement of lipid goals between common starting doses of statins in hypercholesterolaemic patients.

Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Europe: the Return on Expenditure Achieved for Lipid Therapy (REALITY) study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been conducted in actual clinical practice settings to evaluate the ways in which dyslipidemia is managed using lipid-modifying therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine lipid-modifying therapy practices and their effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and/or total cholesterol (TC) goal attainment in Europeans based on prevailing guidelines at the time of therapy in each country.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analysis involving 58,223 patients initiated on lipid-modifying therapies in 10 European countries, with a median patient follow-up on lipid-modifying therapy of 15.3 months. Data on prescriptions of lipid-modifying therapies, laboratory data including LDL-C and TC, achievement of cholesterol goals for LDL-C and/or TC, and hospitalizations were obtained from healthcare administrative databases and/or patient chart reviews.

RESULTS

Across Europe, statin monotherapy was the initial lipid-modifying treatment in 51,786 (89.3%) of 58,009 patients with available data. In addition, 38,853 (89.5%) of 43,410 patients with available follow-up statin potency data were initiated on statin regimens of medium or lower equipotency. Low-equipotency regimens include atorvastatin 5 mg, simvastatin 10 mg, and pravastatin 20 mg, whereas medium-equipotency regimens include atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg. Regimens were adjusted to higher equipotency via either up-titration or switches to combination regimens in 16.2% of patients. On average, 40.5% of patients across Europe who were not initially at guideline recommended cholesterol goals (either LDL-C or TC) and had follow-up data attained recommended cholesterol levels, including <30% of patients in Spain, Italy, or Hungary. In many countries, the likelihood of goal attainment was inversely associated with baseline cardiovascular risk and/or LDL-C levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipid management strategies in Europe during the study period were dominated by statin monotherapy. Even after prolonged follow-up on lipid-modifying therapy, approximately 60% of Europeans studied did not achieve guideline recommended cholesterol goals. Future emphasis must be placed on subsequent lipid panel monitoring, as well as the use of more efficacious, well-tolerated lipid-modifying therapies such as dual cholesterol inhibitors to enable more European patients to attain their recommended cholesterol goals.

Status of lipid-lowering therapy prescribedbased on recommendations in the 2002 report of the Japan Atherosclerosis Society Guideline for Diagnosis and Treatment of Hyperlipidemia in Japanese Adults: A study of the Japan Lipid Assessment Program (J-LAP)

BACKGROUND

In its 1997 Guideline for Diagnosis and Treatment of Hyperlipidemia in Japanese Adults and subsequent revisions, the Japan10 Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) recommends serum lipid management goals (SLMGs) based on a coronary heart disease (CHD) risk classification. A literature search revealed that the status of lipid-lowering therapy based on the current JAS recommendations in Japan has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of current lipid-lowering 10 regimens, and to provide the best possible therapeutic strategies for patients with hyperlipidemia by identifying risk factors for the development of CHD, based on the current JAS recommendations.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study was conducted using data 10 from patients under the care of physicians at 12,500 randomly selected institutions across Japan. Physicians received a survey concerning lipid-lowering therapy, on which each physician provided data from 10 consecutive adult patients with hyperlipidemia who had been prescribed lipid-lowering therapy for at least 3 months before the survey was administered, and who were undergoing routine follow-up on an outpatient basis. Physicians provided patients' demographic and clinical data, including JAS-defined CHD risk classification coronary risk factors and pre- and posttreatment (after ≥3 months) serum lipid levels, and the types and dosages of drugs in patients' current and prior treatment regimens. These data were used to assess the efficacy of lipid-lowering regimens and rates of patients achieving the SLMGs recommended by the JAS.

RESULTS

A total of 2540 physicians participated in the survey, and data from 10 24,893 Japanese patients (mean [SD] age, 65.8 [10.5] years) with hyperlipidemia were included in the study. Patients with familial hyperlipidemia (845/24,893 [3.4%]) were excluded from most of the analyses, leaving 24,048 patients with primary hyperlipidemia. The most prevalent coronary risk factors included age (21,902 [91.1%]), hypertension (14,275 [59.4%]), diabetes mellitus type 2 and/or impaired glucose tolerance (6346 [26.4%]), and smoking (3841 [16.0%]). A total of 20,948 patients (87.1%) had a CHD risk classification of B (ie, ≥1 coronary risk factor but no history of CHD). At the time of the survey, the lipid-lowering regimens of 22,080 patients (91.8%) included a statin. The rates of achievement of SLMGs were as follows: total cholesterol (TC), 12,659/23,840 patients (53.1%); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), 14,025/22,121 (63.4%); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, 19,702/21,279 (92.6%); and triglycerides (TG), 14,892/ 23,569 (63.2%). TC and LDL-C goals were achieved by most patients (≥61.1%) in risk categories A, B1, and B2 (ie, 0-2 coronary risk factors; low to moderate risk) but by a low percentage of patients (≤45.4%) in risk categories B3, B4, and C (ie, ≥3 coronary risk factors or history of CHD; high risk). In the high-risk group (n = 10,515), the TC goal was achieved by 4059 patients (38.6%). The TC and LDL-C goals were achieved by significantly higher percentages of patients prescribed atorvastatin (5133/7928 [64.7%] and 5487/7426 [73.9%], respectively) compared with the rates of patients prescribed any other statin at the recommended starting doses (all, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study of Japanese patients undergoing lipid-lowering 10 therapy for the prevention of CHD, prescribed based on the recommendations in the JAS guideline, suggest insufficient reduction of TC, LDL-C, and TG in patients at high risk for CHD and the need for more aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in such patients.

Achieving lipid goals in Europe: how large is the treatment gap?

Despite the established benefits of decreasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in reducing morbidity and mortality from coronary heart disease, not all patients who would benefit from lipid-lowering therapy are being managed appropriately. An in-depth review of the literature (2000-2003) demonstrates that the 'treatment gap' varies across different clinical settings. Although the use of lipid-lowering agents has increased in recent years, there continues to be a widespread failure in the achievement of recommended lipid levels. A combination of the use of the most efficacious statins, together with intervention strategies to ensure that all eligible individuals receive appropriate treatment to achieve lipid goals, are important considerations in minimizing the burden of dyslipidemia in Europe.

Improving lipid management--to titrate, combine or switch

Despite the benefits of statin therapy, cholesterol management remains suboptimal and many patients do not achieve their recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. The use of insufficient doses, limited drug effectiveness and poor patient compliance may contribute to the treatment gap. Options for improving lipid management include dose titration, combination therapy or prescribing a more efficacious statin. LDL-C reductions are generally modest when patients' current statin dose is titrated, and there may be an increased potential for adverse effects. Combining statin therapy with another lipid-modifying agent can provide additional LDL-C reductions, but cost, tolerability and compliance should be considered. In general, switching to a more efficacious statin is a cost-effective way of enabling more patients to achieve recommended targets without increasing dosages. When considering the options available, physicians should balance efficacy, cost and safety to enable more patients to attain LDL-C goals and achieve greater therapeutic gain from statin treatment.

Cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in the management of coronary artery disease: the problem of under-treatment

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors significantly reduce the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) events and CAD-related mortality in patients with and without established CAD. Consequently, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors have a central role within recommendations for lipid-modifying therapy. However, despite these guidelines, only one-third to one-half of eligible patients receive lipid-lowering therapy and as few as one-third of these patients achieve recommended target serum levels of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol. The underuse of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in eligible patients has important implications for mortality, morbidity and cost, given the enormous economic burden associated with CAD; direct healthcare costs, estimated at US $16-53 billion (2000 values) in the US and 1.6 billion pound (1996 values) in the UK alone, are largely driven by inpatient care. Hospitalization costs are reduced by treatment with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, particularly in high-risk groups such as patients with CAD and diabetes mellitus in whom net cost savings may be achieved. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are underused because of institutional factors and clinician and patient factors. Also, the vast number of patients eligible for treatment means that the use of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is undoubtedly limited by budgetary considerations. Secondary prevention in CAD using HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is certainly cost effective. Primary prevention with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is also cost effective in many patients, depending upon CAD risk and drug dosage. As new, more powerful, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors come to market, and the established HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors come off patent, the identification of the most cost-effective therapy becomes increasingly complex. Research in to the relative cost effectiveness of alternative HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, taking full account of the institutional, clinician and patient barriers to uptake should be undertaken to identify the most appropriate role for the new therapies.

Lipid-lowering therapy: strategies for improving compliance

Lowering cholesterol levels is a primary approach for reducing the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), yet patients rarely achieve the lipid targets recommended by international guidelines. Although high rates of compliance and achievement of lipid targets have been reported in clinical trials, this situation is infrequently reproduced in regular practice. This sub-optimal lipid management has clinical consequences as patients will not gain the full benefit of treatment. Poor compliance with therapeutic lifestyle changes and/or lipid-lowering agents is thought to contribute to the failure of patients in clinical practice to achieve lipid targets, and therefore this problem needs to be addressed. Several approaches may be used to improve compliance, including the prescription of efficacious, well-tolerated agents, educating patients about the necessity of therapy, and regular follow-up to monitor compliance and achievement of goals. However, educating patients to promote compliant behaviour can be time-consuming and therefore the support of other health-care workers, where available, can prove invaluable. Compliance initiatives using educational materials, access to helplines and regular telephone contact with a qualified health-care worker may also improve adherence with therapy. Further studies into the causes of poor compliance and methods of improving adherence with lipid-lowering agents are required.

Optimizing LDL-C Lowering With Statins

Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of statins in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lowering coronary heart disease risk. However, many patients receiving statin therapy in clinical practice are not achieving their LDL-C goals. Generally, statins are initiated at starting doses, and doses should be titrated as needed until the goal of therapy is achieved or a second lipid-lowering drug is required; titration is required in the majority of patients who receive less efficacious agents. Most patients receiving statin therapy in clinical practice are maintained on their starting dose, and this frequently results in inadequate control of elevated cholesterol levels. A number of factors may limit dose titration in clinical practice, including the cost of therapy, safety of prescribing statins at high doses and the additional office visits required for evaluations and monitoring. There may be several solutions to this problem. The choice of statin appears to be one of the important factors influencing the success of therapy. Selecting a statin that provides greater LDL-C lowering enables more patients to achieve LDL-C goals, and the majority of patients can be effectively treated with starting doses of the more efficacious statins. Another factor influencing the success of therapy is the willingness to add other drugs to a statin to enhance LDL-C lowering. Choices here include niacin, a bile acid sequestrant, and ezetimibe, a new cholesterol absorption inhibitor. Of these approaches, use of a more efficacious statin is preferred to combination therapy because of cost, safety, effectiveness, and simplicity issues.

A six-month, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative, prospective, observational study of the efficacy and tolerability of atorvastatin in the primary care setting(estudio del control de las hiperlipidemiasen atención primaria): the cheap study

BACKGROUND

A close relationship exists between high levels of total cholesterol (TC) (particularly low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), which is associated with an increased risk for arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Evidence shows that atorvastatin produces significantly greater reductions in LDL-C and TC than other hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors. However, the results achieved in clinical studies could be different from those found in general clinical practice, where patient follow-up is less thorough and poorer compliance may reduce the effectiveness of the lipid-lowering therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of atorvastatin in achieving the LDL-C levels recommended by several Spanish scientific societies, as well as its tolerability in standard clinical use.

METHODS

This 6-month, open-label, noncomparative, prospective, observational study was conducted in 1351 primary care centers in Spain. All patients were aged 18 to 80 years and had primary hypercholesterolemia (TC >200 mg/dL and triglycerides [TG] <lt;200 mg/dL) or combined hyperlipidemia (TC >200 mg/dL and fasting TG 200-400 mg/dL). All patients also had LDL-C levels higher than those established by the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis [SEA]) according to baseline cardiovascular risk and previous use of lipid-lowering therapy (for patients with low, moderate, or high cardiovascular risk, the recommended LDL-C goals are ≤175 mg/dL, ≤155 mg/dL, and ≤135 mg/dL, respectively; for patients with CVD, the LDL-C goal is ≤100 mg/dL). None of the patients had creatine kinase activity ≥540 U/L or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels ≥60 U/L. Study visits occurred at months 0, 2, and 6 of treatment. Patients received atorvastatin calcium 10 mg/d for 2 months. The dosage was then doubled to 20 mg/d in patients who did not achieve the SEA LDL-C goal and also in those patients whose primary care physicians (PCPs) deemed this higher dosage necessary; this dosage was continued for at least 4 additional months, to complete at least a 6-month course of treatment. The percentage of patients who achieved their goals was used to measure atorvastatin effectiveness. Percentages of change in LDL-C, TC, TG, and HDL-C from baseline to the final study visit also were used as measures of effectiveness. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) per 10,000 patient-months was used for the primary tolerability analysis. A secondary tolerability analysis was performed in all patients treated with atorvastatin who had some recorded follow-up, regardless of whether the patient met inclusion criteria. Information was obtained from data recorded in the case-report forms.

RESULTS

A total of 5317 outpatients (2715 women, 2598 men, 4 sex unknown; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [10.5] years) were enrolled. Among patients receiving known dosages of atorvastatin, 1580 of 4033 (39.2%) and 2378 of 3585 (66.3%) patients met the SEA LDL-C goal after 2 and 6 months of therapy, respectively (P<lt;0.001 for 2 months vs 6 months). Among the patients with low and moderate cardiovascular risk, 85.8% achieved the SEA LDL-C goal compared with 64.4% of high-risk patients (P<lt;0.001). Mean LDL-C decreased by 36.2%. Mean reductions in TC and TG levels were 26.9% and 19.2%, respectively. Mean HDL-C increased 17.0%. One hundred forty-eight patients (2.9%) experienced at least 1 AE and 25 (0.5%) had serious AEs. Eighty-nine patients had 134 AEs considered treatment related. Two of the serious AEs (phlebitis and a severe increase in ALT and AST activity) were considered treatment related. A total of 98.5% and 97.2% of PCPs and patients, respectively, reported excellent or good tolerability with atorvastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, the use of atorvastatin in the primary care setting was associated with high achievement rates of the SEA LDL-C goals and with a substantial decrease in TG levels. In addition, a considerable increase in HDL-C levels occurred. Tolerability with atorvastatin was reported to be excellent or good by most of the patients and PCPs. The incidence of serious AEs was minimal, as reported by both patients and PCPs.

Effects of policosanol on older patients with hypertension and type II hypercholesterolaemia

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of policosanol administered for 12 months on the lipid profile of older patients with hypertension and type II hypercholesterolaemia and no history of coronary heart disease (CHD) or cerebrovascular disease.

PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS

589 older male and female patients with hypertension and type II hypercholesterolaemia and no history of CHD or cerebrovascular disease were included.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in parallel groups treated with policosanol (5 to 10 mg/day) for 1 year. After 6 weeks on a standard step I cholesterol-lowering diet, 589 patients were randomised to policosanol (5 mg) or placebo tablets, to be taken once daily for 12 months. The dosage was doubled to 10 mg/day if total cholesterol values were > 6.1 mmol/L after 6 months of therapy.

RESULTS

Policosanol significantly (p < 0.00001) lowered serum low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) [20.5%], total cholesterol (TC) [15.4%], triglycerides (11.9%), LDL-C/high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio [22.2%] and TC/HDL-C ratio (20.1%), and increased (p < 0.0001) HDL-C (12.7%). The frequency of vascular and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) was lower (p < 0.05) in the policosanol recipients (two vascular SAEs, 0.7%; five all-cause SAEs, 1.7%) than in the placebo recipients (six vascular SAEs, 2.0%; 12 all-cause SAEs, 4.1%). Similarly, total adverse events (AEs) were less frequent in the policosanol-treated group (29; 9.8%) compared with the placebo group (52; 17.7%) [p < 0.01]. Three placebo recipients and no policosanol recipents died during the study as a result of myocardial infarction (two patients) and sudden cardiac arrest (one). Policosanol was well tolerated, and no drug-related disturbances in safety indicators were found. Policosanol significantly decreased systolic blood pressure (BP) compared with baseline and placebo, which could be an additional advantage in this population at high coronary risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Policosanol administered long term is effective in lowering LDL-C and TC as well as increasing HDL-C levels in older patients with hypertension and type II hypercholesterolaemia without a history of CHD or cerebrovascular disease. In addition, policosanol treatment also shows benefits in the occurrence of SAEs of vascular aetiology, on the general AE profile and the reduction of BP in treated patients compared with baseline.