High Statin Adherence over 5 Years of Follow-up is Associated with Improved Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Results from the IMPRES Study

Impact of statin adherence and interruption within 6 months after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): Results from the real-world regional registry FAST-STEMI

BACKGROUND

The impact of statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes after ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) in real- world patients is understudied.

AIMS

To identify predictors of low adherence and discontinuation to statin therapy within 6 months after STEMI and to estimate their impact on cardiovascular outcomes at one year follow-up.

METHODS

We evaluated real-world adherence to statin therapy by comparing the number of bought tablets to the expected ones at 1 year follow-up through pharmacy registries. A total of 6043 STEMI patients admitted from 2012 to 2017 were enrolled in the FAST STEMI registry and followed up for 4,7 ± 1,6 years; 304 patients with intraprocedural and intrahospital deaths were excluded. The main outcomes evaluated were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, major and minor bleeding events, and ischemic stroke. The compliance cut-off chosen was 80% as mainly reported in literature.

RESULTS

From a total of 5744 patients, 418 (7,2%) patients interrupted statin therapy within 6 months after STEMI, whereas 3337 (58,1%) presented >80% adherence to statin therapy. Statin optimal adherence (>80%) resulted as protective factor towards both cardiovascular (0.1% vs 4.6%; AdjHR 0.025, 95%CI 0.008-0.079, p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (0.3% vs 13.4%; Adj HR 0.032, 95%CI 0.018-0.059, p < 0.001) at 1 year follow-up. Further, a significant reduction of ischemic stroke incidence (1% vs 2.5%, p = 0.001) was seen in the optimal adherent group. Statin discontinuation within 6 months after STEMI showed an increase of both cardiovascular (5% vs 1.7%; AdjHR 2.23; 95%CI 1.37-3.65; p = 0,001) and all-cause mortality (14.8% vs 5.1%, AdjHR 2.32; 95%CI 1.73-3.11; p 〈0,001) at 1 year follow-up. After multivariate analysis age over 75 years old, known ischemic cardiopathy and female gender resulted as predictors of therapy discontinuation. Age over 75 years old, chronic kidney disease, previous atrial fibrillation, vasculopathy, known ischemic cardiopathy were found to be predictors of low statin adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

n our real-world registry low statin adherence and discontinuation therapy within 6 months after STEMI were independently associated to an increase of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality at 1 year follow-up. Low statin adherence led to higher rates of ischemic stroke.

Inclisiran in individuals with diabetes or obesity: Post hoc pooled analyses of the ORION-9, ORION-10 and ORION-11 Phase 3 randomized trials

AIMS

To conduct a pooled analysis of Phase 3 trials investigating the efficacy and safety of inclisiran across glycaemic and body mass index (BMI) strata.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 300 mg inclisiran sodium or placebo twice yearly, after initial and 3-month doses up to 18 months, with background oral lipid-lowering therapy. Analyses were stratified by glycaemic status (normoglycaemia, prediabetes, and diabetes) or BMI (<25, ≥25 to <30, ≥30 to <35, and ≥35 kg/m2). Co-primary endpoints were percentage and time-adjusted percentage change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol from baseline. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms and across strata. Percent LDL cholesterol change (placebo-corrected) with inclisiran from baseline to Day 510 ranged from -47.6% to -51.9% and from -48.8% to -54.4% across glycaemic/BMI strata, respectively. Similarly, time-adjusted percentage changes after Day 90 and up to Day 540 ranged from -46.8% to -52.0% and from -48.6% to -53.3% across glycaemic/BMI strata, respectively. Inclisiran led to significant reductions in proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 and other atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins versus placebo across the glycaemic/BMI strata. The proportions of individuals achieving LDL cholesterol thresholds of <1.8 mmol/L and <1.4 mmol/L with inclisiran increased with increasing glycaemic and BMI strata. Across the glycaemic/BMI strata, a higher proportion of individuals had mild/moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) at the injection site with inclisiran (2.8%-7.7%) versus placebo (0.2%-2.1%).

CONCLUSION

Inclisiran provided substantial and sustained LDL cholesterol lowering across glycaemic/BMI strata, with a modest excess of transient mild-to-moderate TEAEs at the injection site.

An "Inclisiran First" Strategy vs Usual Care in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND

Most patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease fail to achieve guideline-directed low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Twice-yearly inclisiran lowers LDL-C by ∼50% when added to statins.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the effectiveness of an "inclisiran first" implementation strategy (adding inclisiran immediately upon failure to reach LDL-C <70 mg/dL despite receiving maximally tolerated statins) vs representative usual care in U.S. patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

VICTORION-INITIATE, a prospective, pragmatically designed trial, randomized patients 1:1 to inclisiran (284 mg at days 0, 90, and 270) plus usual care (lipid management at treating physician's discretion) vs usual care alone. Primary endpoints were percentage change in LDL-C from baseline and statin discontinuation rates.

RESULTS

We randomized 450 patients (30.9% women, 12.4% Black, 15.3% Hispanic); mean baseline LDL-C was 97.4 mg/dL. The "inclisiran first" strategy led to significantly greater reductions in LDL-C from baseline to day 330 vs usual care (60.0% vs 7.0%; P < 0.001). Statin discontinuation rates with "inclisiran first" (6.0%) were noninferior vs usual care (16.7%). More "inclisiran first" patients achieved LDL-C goals vs usual care (<70 mg/dL: 81.8% vs 22.2%; <55 mg/dL: 71.6% vs 8.9%; P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and serious TEAE rates compared similarly between treatment strategies (62.8% vs 53.7% and 11.5% vs 13.4%, respectively). Injection-site TEAEs and TEAEs causing treatment withdrawal occurred more commonly with "inclisiran first" than usual care (10.3% vs 0.0% and 2.6% vs 0.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

An "inclisiran first" implementation strategy led to greater LDL-C lowering compared with usual care without discouraging statin use or raising new safety concerns. (A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-label Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of an "Inclisiran First" Implementation Strategy to Usual Care on LDL Cholesterol [LDL-C] in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Elevated LDL-C [≥70 mg/dL] Despite Receiving Maximally Tolerated Statin Therapy [VICTORION-INITIATE]; NCT04929249).

Effects of statin therapy on glycemic control and insulin resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To update the evidence about the diabetogenic effect of statins.

METHODS

We searched for randomized-controlled trials reporting the effects of statin therapy on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and/or homeostatic model insulin resistance (i.e., HOMA-IR) as indexes of diabetes. Studies were classified between the ones testing normal vs individuals with already altered glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%; and HOMA-IR ≥ 2.15). Furthermore, studies were separated by statin type and dosage prescribed. Data are presented as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 67 studies were included in the analysis (>25,000 individuals). In individuals with altered glycemic control, statins increased HbA1c levels (MD 0.21%, 95% CI 0.16-to-0.25) and HOMA-IR index (MD 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-to-0.38). In individuals with normal glycemic control, statin increased HbA1c (MD 1.33%, 95% CI 1.31-to-1.35) and HOMA-IR (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-to-0.58) in comparison to the placebo groups. The dose or type of statins did not modulate the diabetogenic effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins, slightly but significantly raise indexes of diabetes in individuals with adequate or altered glycemic control. The diabetogenic effect does not seem to be influenced by the type or dosage of statin prescribed.

The importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement and control as performance measures: A joint Clinical Perspective from the National Lipid Association and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology

Despite the established role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the persistence of CVD as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, national quality assurance metrics no longer include LDL-C measurement as a required performance metric. This clinical perspective reviews the history of LDL-C as a quality and performance metric and the events that led to its replacement. It also presents patient, healthcare provider, and health system rationales for re-establishing LDL-C measurement as a performance measure to improve cholesterol control in high-risk groups and to stem the rising tide of CVD morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular care disparities, and related healthcare costs.

LDL-cholesterol control in the primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: An expert opinion for clinicians and health professionals

AIMS

Although adequate clinical management of patients with hypercholesterolemia without a history of known cardiovascular disease is essential for prevention, these subjects are often disregarded. Furthermore, the scientific literature on primary cardiovascular prevention is not as rich as that on secondary prevention; finally, physicians often lack adequate tools for the effective management of subjects in primary prevention and have to face some unsolved relevant issues. This document aims to discuss and review the evidence available on this topic and provide practical guidance.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Available algorithms and risk charts represent the main tool for the assessment of cardiovascular risk in patients in primary prevention. The accuracy of such an estimate can be substantially improved considering the potential contribution of some additional risk factors (C-reactive protein, lipoprotein(a), family history of cardiovascular disease) and conditions (environmental pollution, sleep quality, socioeconomic status, educational level) whose impact on the cardiovascular risk has been better understood in recent years. The availability of non-invasive procedures to evaluate subclinical atherosclerosis may help to identify subjects needing an earlier intervention. Unveiling the presence of these conditions will improve cardiovascular risk estimation, granting a more appropriate intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The accurate assessment of cardiovascular risk in subjects in primary prevention with the use of algorithms and risk charts together with the evaluation of additional factors will allow physicians to approach each patient with personalized strategies, which should translate into an increased adherence to therapy and, as a consequence, a reduced cardiovascular risk.

The importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measurement and control as performance measures: A joint clinical perspective from the National Lipid Association and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology

Despite the established role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and the persistence of CVD as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, national quality assurance metrics no longer include LDL-C measurement as a required performance metric. This clinical perspective reviews the history of LDL-C as a quality and performance metric and the events that led to its replacement. It also presents patient, healthcare provider, and health system rationales for re-establishing LDL-C measurement as a performance measure to improve cholesterol control in high-risk groups and to stem the rising tide of CVD morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular care disparities, and related healthcare costs.