Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommendations for residual risk reduction in ASCVD: a simulation study from DA VINCI

Purpose Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (< 70 vs. < 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. Methods DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of < 70 or < 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. Results Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C < 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81–115) mg/dl and 32% (25–43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12–46) and 39 (27–91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7–25%) and 22% (15–32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2–7%) and 6% (4–9%), respectively. Conclusion In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach

Overview of the current status of familial hypercholesterolaemia care in over 60 countries - The EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration (FHSC)

PubMed: 302700542-s2.0-85053666909Background and aims: Management of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) may vary across different settings due to factors related to population characteristics, practice, resources and/or policies. We conducted a survey among the worldwide network of EAS FHSC Lead Investigators to provide an overview of FH status in different countries. Methods: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management. Results: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ?2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ?60% countries, although access is limited. Conclusions: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed. © 2018 Elsevier B.V.Universidade de São Paulo, USP European Atherosclerosis Society, EAS Amgen Merck Sharp and Dohme, MSDThe ELSA Study suggests heterozygous FH (HeFH) may affect 1:263 Brazilians (?766,000 individuals). Currently, the only active genetic cascade screening program in Brazil is Hipercol Brasil in Sao Paulo (genetic testing for adults with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ?230?mg/dL, to maximise cost-effectiveness), with 1719 heterozygotes, 25 homozygotes, 13 compound-heterozygotes and one double-heterozygote identified by March 2018. To date, 4340 individuals from 440 families were screened. Genetic testing is funded by a government tax reduction programme (PROADI-SUS), and cascade screening by partnering between Samaritano Hospital and Heart Institute (InCor) University of Sao Paulo. Most FH patients are under non-specialist care and currently under-treated.Prevalence is unknown but assumed at 1:250. There is no state programme and few patients were diagnosed before the Latvian FH Registry was established in 2015. To date, the Registry has identified 181 cases (2.3% of 7876 estimated HeFH cases; no HoFH). Cascade screening is performed in first-degree relatives of index cases with probable/definite FH. Genetic testing is not reimbursed but has been funded by research grants for a few patients/relatives. About 5% of patients had LDL-C at target before inclusion in the Registry [ 61 ]. Statins are reimbursed 50% in primary prevention; statins and ezetimibe, 75–100% in secondary prevention; PCSK9i are available, but not reimbursed.Estimated prevalence is 1:250 (based on a meta-analysis of 6 observational studies) or 136,300 adults (only 2% diagnosed) [ 69 , 70 ]. Based on LIPIDOGRAM studies (2004–2015, ?50,000 participants), prevalence might be?<?1:200 [ 71 , 72 ]. Five HoFH cases are described [ 73 , 74 ]. Patients with DLCN ?3 are referred for genetic testing, funded by the National Health Program. The National Centre for FH at University Clinical Hospital, Medical University of Gdansk, was established in 2017, financed by the Ministry of Health. From August 2017, 345 patients underwent genetic testing (153 positive, including 46 relatives; 1 HoFH). Since 1999, 1884 patients (562 families) have undergone genetic testing and cascade diagnosis (data from the National Polish FH Registry, Medical University of Gdansk, established in 2000). PCSK9i are not reimbursed (under discussion with the Ministry of Health).The EAS FHSC project has received support from a Pfizer Independent Grant for Learning & Change 2014 (No: 16157823 ) and from investigator-initiated unrestricted research grants to the European Atherosclerosis Society from Amgen , MSD , and Sanofi-Aventis

To Correct or not to Correct (for treatment): Estimating Pre-treatment LDL-C Concentrations in Genetically Characterized Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolaemia on Lipid-lowering Medication

Background and Aims: Pretreatment LDL-C measurements aid familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) diagnosis, and are crucial in epidemiologic studies investigating FH, but are often unavailable because individuals are already on lipid-lowering medication (LLM). Several formulae have been reported to estimate pre-treatment LDL-C in people on LLM by ‘correcting’ their LDL-C concentrations for LLM type and dosage, based on observational or trial evidence of drug efficacy. We compared 4 published correction factors in estimating pre-treatment LDL-C in patients with FH. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of adults with pathogenic/likely-pathogenic FH variants in the EAS-FH Studies Collaboration (FHSC) Registry. At the time of LDL-C measurement, N=3012 participants were not on LLM (Untreated group), and N=3226 were on LLM monotherapy, with information on LLM type and dosage allowing estimation of pre-treatment LDL-C (Corrected group) based on correction factors by Ruel 2018, Ellis 2016, Haralambos 2015 and Besseling 2014. We compared the groups for clinical characteristics and LDL-C by gene and variant. Results: The Corrected group was older than the Untreated group (median[IQR]: 50[39,63] vs. 38[28,50]y), with similar proportion of women (54.5% vs. 56.8%;p=0.14) but more comorbidities (all pAPOB>PCSK9 gene variants, but Corrected was still higher than Untreated LDL-C within each gene group. The difference in Corrected vs. Untreated LDL-C varied by variant, from +0.6 to +3.5mmol/L (20 commonest variants). The LDL-C differences persisted after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities. Conclusions: Application of current LDL-C correction factors appears to overestimate pre-treatment LDL-C in epidemiologic settings, or the Untreated and Corrected groups might have inherently different LDL-C profiles. The accuracy of using LDL-C correction factors in FH therefore warrants further investigation.N/

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Purpose Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (= 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of = 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively.Conclusion In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach.Cardiolog

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Purpose Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (= 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of = 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively.Conclusion In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Purpose: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (&lt; 70 vs. &lt; 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. Methods: DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of &lt; 70 or &lt; 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. Results: Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C &lt; 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81–115) mg/dl and 32% (25–43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12–46) and 39 (27–91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7–25%) and 22% (15–32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2–7%) and 6% (4–9%), respectively. Conclusion: In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.] © 2022, The Author(s)

Overview of the current status of familial hypercholesterolaemia care in over 60 countries - The EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration (FHSC)

Background and aims: Management of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) may vary across different settings due to factors related to population characteristics, practice, resources and/or policies. We conducted a survey among the worldwide network of EAS FHSC Lead Investigators to provide an overview of FH status in different countries. Methods: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management. Results: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in ∼2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in ∼60 countries, although access is limited. Conclusions: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed. © 2018 Elsevier B.V