Effect on Fasting Serum Glucose Levels of Adding Ezetimibe to Statins in Patients With Nondiabetic Hypercholesterolemia

n/

Prevalence Of Potential Familial Hypercholesteremia (Fh) In 54,811 Statin-Treated Patients In Clinical Practice

Background and aims: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a life-threatening disease, characterized by elevated LDL-C levels and a premature, increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) that is globally underdiagnosed. The percentage of patients with possible or probable FH in various countries was examined in the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS). Methods: DYSIS is a multinational, cross-sectional observational study of 54,811 adult outpatients treated with statin therapy. The percentages of patients with high levels of LDL-C, and with possible or probable FH, were assessed using the Dutch scoring method for FH across 29 countries, in age subgroups for the analysis population and among diabetes patients. Results: Despite statin therapy, 16.1% (range 4.4-27.6%) of patients had LDL-C > 3.6 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) across countries and the prevalence of possible FH was 15.0% (range 5.5-27.8%) and 1.1% (range 0.0-5.4%) for probable FH. The highest percentages of probable FH occurred in Egypt (5.4%), the Baltic states (4.2%), Russia (3.2%), and Slovenia (3.1%), with the lowest rates in Israel (0.0%), Canada (0.2%), and Sweden (0.3%). Rates of FH were the highest in younger patients (45-54 years) for secondary prevention, regardless of the presence/absence of diabetes. Conclusions: Despite statin therapy, high LDL-C levels and rates of possible and probable FH were observed in some countries. The prevalence of FH was the highest in younger age patients, and > 60% of patients with probable FH displayed CHD. Earlier diagnosis and treatment of patients with FH are needed to reduce CHD risk in these patients. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd

Patient and physician factors influence decision-making in hypercholesterolemia: a questionnaire-based survey

Abstract Background Goal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians’ treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians’ treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy. Methods Physicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks’ treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians’ treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100–105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians’ treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients’ pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change). Results Questionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43–52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations. Conclusions This study provides insight into physicians’ perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians’ treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0115403

Time-related trends in variability of cIMT changes in statin trials

This brief article provides complementary data supporting the results reported in “Changing Characteristics of Statin-related cIMT Trials from 1988 to 2006” [1]. That article described time-related trends in baseline factors and study characteristics that may have influenced the variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) endpoints (mean of mean and maximum common carotid artery [CCA]/cIMT) in published statin trials. In this brief report, additional details for the studies included in the analysis, and further supporting data, including mean of the maximum CCA/cIMT changes and subgroup data (mean and maximum CCA/cIMT) are provided. For the analysis, study-level data was extracted from 17 statin cIMT trials conducted during 1988–2006, selected on the basis of having at least one statin monotherapy arm in the absence of mixed therapy, and baseline- and study-end values for mean mean and mean maximum CCA/cIMT endpoints. The baseline mean CCA/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Interestingly, all 8 studies conducted before 2000 were significant for cIMT change in which patients did not receive prior LLT; whereas after 2000, the results were more variable and in 4 of 6 trials that did not show a significant cIMT change, patients had received prior treatment. Baseline mean maximum cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized changes in studies conducted before 2000 were higher than those conducted after 2000, similar to the results reported in the original article for the mean mean cIMT endpoint. These findings were consistent across study populations of patients with CHD risk versus those without, and in studies with greater LDL-C reductions and with thickened baseline cIMT at study entry for both mean and maximum cIMT changes. Taken together, these results are consistent with trends in recent years toward greater use of lipid-lowering therapy and control of LDL-C that may have impacted the variability in the results of cIMT studies

Patient and physician factors influence decision-making in hypercholesterolemia: a questionnaire-based survey

Background Goal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians’ treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians’ treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy. Methods Physicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks’ treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day NCT01154036. Physicians’ treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100–105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks’ treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians’ treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients’ pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change). Results Questionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43–52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations. Conclusions This study provides insight into physicians’ perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians’ treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose