C67 CARDIOVASCULAR RISK CLASSIFICATION AND LIPID LOWERING TREATMENT PRESCRIPTIONS IN A REAL–WORLD: INSIGHT FROM ITALIAN COMMUNITY COHORT

Abstract

Abstract Background Lipid lowering treatment (LLT) and LDL–C target across CV risk categories might prompt consideration on further lower LDL–C levels advocated by last EAS/ESC guidelines. Aim The aim of the study was to provide current prevalence, clinical characteristics, LLT across different CV risk classes at the time of publication of current ESC/EAS Guidelines. Short–term prognosis was also addressed. Methods and Results This community–based study enrolled 6851 patients (mean age 71 years) with an LDL–C measurement and cardiological evaluation from 01–Jan–2018 until 31–Dec–2018. Of those, 4578 (67%) patients were at very high risk, 1494 (22%) at high risk, 420 (6%) at moderate risk, and 359 (5%) at low risk according to EAS/ESC 2019 guidelines. Dyslipidemia was present in three quarter of patients, and 3888 (57%) received LLT. High Efficacy (potency to reduce LDL–C ≥ 50%) LLT was prescribed in 21% of patients (23% and 10% in very high and high risk categories). There was a statistically significant difference between CV categories with respect to demographic, CV risk factors, and comorbidities. Patients at very high risk were more frequently elderly with a high proportion of patients affected by atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) and non–cardiac comorbidities. 394 (9%) patients at very high risk and 102 (7%) patients at high risk presented LDL–C at target. Among very high risk patients, 439 (10%) were treated with ezetimibe. At 24 months of follow–up, death occurred in 676 (8%) patients. In survival curves, adjusted for age and comorbidities, an increased risk of death and CV hospitalization was confirmed in the high risk and very high risk categories. Similar trend was confirmed considering composite endpoint of myocardial infarction and stroke. Conclusion In a contemporary population the strategy to achieve the ambitious LDL–C target of current Guidelines continue to be largely suboptimal and LLT is widely underused. This underlines the huge unmet need when assessed more aggressive LDL–C target advocated in current EAS/ESC guidelines.