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

Limitations Of Real-World Treatment With Atorvastatin Monotherapy For Lowering Ldl-C In High-Risk Cardiovascular Patients In The Us

Background: Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy. Methods: Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date. Results: Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%-34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels\u3c1.8 mmol/L (,70 mg/dL), and 72.0%-78.0% achieved LDL-C\u3c2.6 mmol/L (,100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses. Conclusion: In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels\u3e1.8 mmol/L (\u3e70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%-40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients. © 2014 Marrett et al

Incidence of Cancer and Mortality in Patients from the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) Trial.

The Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) clinical trial, including 1,873 patients found an increased risk for cancer with lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day, relative to placebo. In a registry-based follow-up study over 21 months from the conclusion of the SEAS trial, new incident cancer and total mortality were investigated in the SEAS study cohort from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Among 1,359 subjects eligible for follow-up (73% of the original total cohort), 1,194 had no history of cancer (primary follow-up cohort). New cancers and deaths were identified in the national cancer and mortality registries and classified by an Expert Review Committee. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional-hazards models of new cancers and mortality during follow-up according to treatment group assigned in the SEAS base study and with age, gender, smoking history, and previous cancers as covariates. The primary follow-up cohort had 12 patients with new cancers in the ezetimibe/simvastatin group and 22 in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.11), indicating no significant difference between the treatment groups. During follow-up, 43 patients assigned to ezetimibe/simvastatin and 33 assigned to placebo died (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 2.03). In conclusion, in this registry-based observational follow-up study of the original SEAS study patient population, treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin was not associated with an increased risk for cancer or mortality in the 21-month period after the completion of the original SEAS study