Current Status of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Target Achievement in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Korea Compared with Recent Guidelines.

Optimal diabetes care and risk factor management are important to delay micro- and macrovascular complications in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Ongoing improvement of management strategies requires the evaluation of target achievement and identification of risk factors in individuals who do (or do not) achieve these targets. Cross-sectional data were collected from adults with T1D visiting six diabetes centers in the Netherlands in 2018. Targets were defined as glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <53 mmol/mol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) <2.6 mmoL/L (no cardiovascular disease [CVD] present) or <1.8 mmoL/L (CVD present), or blood pressure (BP) <140/90 mm Hg. Target achievement was compared for individuals with and without CVD. Data from 1737 individuals were included. Mean HbA1c was 63 mmol/mol (7.9%), LDL-c was 2.67 mmoL/L, and BP 131/76 mm Hg. In individuals with CVD, 24%, 33%, and 46% achieved HbA1c, LDL-c, and BP targets respectively. In individuals without CVD these percentages were 29%, 54%, and 77%, respectively. Individuals with CVD did not have any significant risk factors for HbA1c, LDL-c, and BP target achievement. In comparison, individuals without CVD were more likely to achieve glycemic targets if they were men and insulin pump users. Smoking, microvascular complications, and the prescription of lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication were negatively associated with glycemic target achievement. No characteristics were associated with LDL-c target achievement. Microvascular complications and antihypertensive medication prescription were negatively associated with BP target attainment. Opportunities for improvement of diabetes management exist for the achievement of glycemic, lipid, and BP targets but may differ between individuals with and without CVD.

BackgroundOptimisation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets is one component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend lower LDL-C targets than those released in 2016.AimsTo determine the proportion of patients who met 2019 LDL-C targets and compare these to international standards; examine the effect of the introduction of the recent ESC guidelines on target achievement. Examine the choice of lipid lowering therapy (LLT) used in our cohort.MethodsRetrospective chart review of 163 patients who attended CR in 2019. Baseline LDL-C levels were calculated where applicable. Targets achieved were compared with the contemporary ESC guidance. Required LLT was estimated for those who were unable to meet their LDL-C target.ResultsOverall, 96/163 (59%) patients met their absolute LDL-C targets, which was favourable when compared to international standards. Fewer patients treated using the 2019 ESC guidelines met their absolute, (63% (70/112) vs. 51% (26/51)), or relative LDL-C 43% (22/51) targets. A high intensity statin was prescribed in 63% (89/163) of patients and only 9% (5/163) patients were prescribed ezetimibe therapy; increased use of these agents may have led to a further 20% (33/162) of patients meeting their LDL-C targets. 13% (22/163) of patients likely require PCSK9i therapy.ConclusionsPatients may be more likely to meet LDL-C targets while enrolled in CR compared to standard care. Following the introduction of lower absolute LDL-C targets and additional > 50% LDL-C reduction from baseline requirement, fewer patients are meeting the LDL-C targets set out in the 2019 ESC dyslipidaemia guidelines. Additionally, many patients are not on maximum statin therapy, ezetimibe is under-prescribed, and a guideline-reimbursement gap exists for those who require PCSK9i therapy.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11845-021-02885-9.

ObjectiveAssess achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines.DesignSystematic literature review.Data SourcesMedline, EMBASE, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature.Eligibility CriteriaObservational studies reporting LDL-C levels/target attainment, measured between 1 August 2006 to 31 August 2017, in European adults with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes with target organ damage, familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) or 10-year risk of fatal CVD ≥ 5% (assessed by Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation [SCORE]).Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted relevant studies and assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias for Non-Randomised Studies–Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C targets in the 2011/2016 ESC/EAS guidelines. Where available, patient characteristics were presented as means weighted by sample size. The proportions of patients achieving LDL-C targets in the 5 years before and after publication of the 2011 guidelines were compared using a chi-square test.ResultsAcross 81 eligible studies (303,534 patients), achievement of LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L was poor among patients with established CVD (16%; range 9–56%) and at very high risk of CVD (SCORE ≥ 10% [18%; 14–25%]). In individuals with FH, SCORE 5–10%, or diabetes and target organ damage, LDL-C < 2.5 mmol/L was achieved by 15% (9–22%), 46% (21–55%) and 13% (6–34%), respectively. Comparing the 5 years before/after publication of the 2011 guidelines, target achievement increased significantly over time but remained suboptimal (LDL-C < 1.8, 22% versus 15%; LDL-C < 2.5, 68% versus 61%; both p < 0.001; established CVD group only).ConclusionsThese data show suboptimal LDL-C control among European patients at high risk of CVD. Those at greatest overall risk (clinically established CVD or at least a 10% 10-year risk of fatal CVD) had the lowest achievement of 2011/2016 EAS/ESC LDL-C targets. With lower LDL-C targets advocated in 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines, this unmet need will increase.Protocol RegistrationPROSPERO registration number; CRD77844Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01285-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The clinical outcome of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with or without achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets, has rarely been investigated. This study was performed to investigate the comparison of clinical outcome in STEMI patients with or without achievement LDL-C targets (below 70 mg/dL and/or ≥50% reduction). Between November 2013 and December 2016, 689 STEMI patients underwent primary PCI in our hospital. Patients who were deceased, lost to follow-up, had no follow-up lipid profile, or had no side effects after statin use were excluded. A total of 343 patients were classified into group 1 (with LDL-C target achievement) and 172 patients were classified into group 2 (without LDL-C target achievement). Between the two groups, a higher prevalence of left main coronary artery disease, smaller pre-PCI stenosis, and a larger pre-PCI minimal luminal diameter were noted in group 2. The incidence of post-MI angina (8.7% vs. 6.4%; p = 0.393), target vessel revascularization (2.3% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.566), and recurrent MI (1.5% vs. 1.2%; p = 1.000), showed similar results between the two groups during a one-year follow-up period. Initial LDL-C levels ≥130 mg/dL, left main coronary artery disease, and absence of diabetes mellitus were positively associated with non-achievement of LDL-C targets. After STEMI, 66.6% of patients could achieve LDL-C targets one year later. However, such patients did not show better clinical outcomes. Non-DM, initial LDL-C levels ≥130 mg/dL, and left main coronary artery disease were related to non-achievement of LDL-C targets.

Objective. The main aim of this study is to examine the achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in older patients after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and the secondary aim is to examine sex difference in LDL-C target achievement. Methods. Patients aged ≥60 years with ACS admitted to a tertiary hospital in Vietnam were recruited from December 2019 to August 2020. LDL-C target achievement was defined as having an LDL-C goal of <1.8 mmol/L. Multivariate logistic regression was applied to investigate the predictive factors for LDL-C target achievement. Results. A total of 232 participants were included in this study (mean age 75.5 years, 40.1% were women). Participants had an average of three chronic conditions other than coronary heart disease. All participants were prescribed statin monotherapy at discharge (59.5% on high-intensity statins). After 3 months, 218 (94.0%) of the participants were on statin monotherapy, 14 (6.0%) were on statin combined with ezetimibe. The proportion of participants that achieved LDL-C target after 3 months was 56.5% (40.9% in women and 66.9% in men, p < 0.001). On univariate logistic regression, women were less likely to achieve their LDL-C target compared to men (unadjusted OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20–0.59). This association was still significant in the adjusted model (adjusted OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24–0.78). Other factors that were significantly associated with LDL-C target achievement included age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle, LDL-C level on admission, history of using statin before admission, and high-intensity statin prescribed at discharge. Conclusions. Our study found that nearly a half of older patients with ACS did not achieve their LDL-C target after 3 months, and suboptimal control of LDL-C was more common in women.

High-intensity statin (HIS) therapy is widely recommended for secondary prevention after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) dyslipidemia guidelines have lowered the target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, which necessitates a more frequent use of nonstatin therapies. The objectives of the study were to investigate the rate of LDL-C target attainment for secondary prevention in AMI patients. This retrospective investigation included 1360 patients diagnosed with AMI in a tertiary heart center. Lipid parameters were collected within 24 h of admission and within 1 year after discharge. The medications used were retrieved from medical records, and the lowest LDL-C levels after statin treatment were used to assess the effectiveness of the therapy. LDL-C target attainment was defined according to the 2016 ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guidelines as an LDL-C level of < 70 mg/dL and a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline. In addition, the rate of LDL-C target attainment according to the 2019 fromESC/EAS guidelines was defined as an LDL-C level of < 55 mg/dL and a ≥ 50% reduction baseline. In total, 502 (36.9%) and 247 (18.2%) patients reached the LDL-C targets according to the 2016 and 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines, respectively. The admission LDL-C levels were significantly lower and HIS treatment was used more frequently in patients who subsequently attained the LDL-C goal. Remarkably, 461 (34%) patients failed to reach the LDL-C goals despite HIS treatment. Only 27 (1.9%) patients were prescribed ezetimibe. The rate of LDL-C goal attainment in AMI patients was low, which indicates the need for combination statin and non-statin lipid-lowering therapies.

BackgroundDiabetic dyslipidemia is a risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). American Diabetes Association (ADA) provides internationally accepted guidelines to manage dyslipidemia in T2DM.ObjectiveTo assess if ADA guidelines are followed for managing dyslipidemia in patients with T2DM in India.MethodsThis was a subset analysis of a prospective, cross sectional, observational study (LEADD Study) conducted at 199 sites across India to evaluate dyslipidemia management practices in T2DM patients (N=4002), in a real-world setting. The data was stratified based on age and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and ASCVD risk factors to record the percentages of T2DM patients achieving LDL-C target and treated optimally with the Guideline directed intensity of statin. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics.ResultsAs per ADA 2018 targets: LDL-C levels (<100mg/dL) were seen in 30.6% of participants. High intensity statins were prescribed to 13.4% of the participants with LDL levels ≥100 mg/dL. ASCVD risk assessment details were available for 89.2% of participants. Data was not available for smoking and albuminuria. In participants <40 years of age, 80% and 64.2% with ASCVD and ASCVD risk factors, respectively, did not achieve target LDL-C levels. In this age group, 15.6% and 83.3% of participants with ASCVD risk factors and ASCVD group, respectively, were not receiving statins in the recommended dose. In participants ≥40 years of age, 88.0% and 91.5% with ASCVD and ASCVD risk factors, respectively, did not have LDL-C levels as per ADA 2018 targets. In this age group, 87.2% and 77.9% of participants with ASCVD risk factors and ASCVD, respectively, were not receiving statins in the recommended dose.ConclusionThe sub-analysis of LEADD study shows sub-optimal adherence to ADA 2018 guidelines for management of diabetic dyslipidemia.

Objectives This post-hoc evaluation of the DUALIS study aimed to examine cardiovascular risk and the achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in a virologically suppressed cohort of people living with HIV in Germany. Methods Baseline cardiovascular risk was assessed using the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)-Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2)/SCORE2-Older Persons (OP) and the current ESC guideline-recommended LDL-C targets among participants aged ≥40 years in the DUALIS study. Risk categorization was based on the ESC-SCORE2/SCORE2-OP results and the presence of specific comorbidities indicative of high risk and very high risk of CVD. Participants were enrolled between July 2015 and June 2017. Results The use of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) was low in the DUALIS study, with 12 out of 188 participants (6%) receiving the treatment. The median ESC-SCORE2/SCORE2-OP was 5.0%. Overall, 92 participants (49%) had low-to-moderate CVD risk, 77 (41%) high risk, and 19 (10%) very high risk. Only one participant in the high-risk group and none in the very high-risk group met the guideline-recommended LDL-C targets. Even when using the less stringent LDL-C targets valid at the time of data collection (2016 ESC guideline), only 19.7% of the high-risk and none of the very high-risk participants met these targets. In addition, a strong correlation regarding the estimated CVD risk was observed between the D:A:D (R) and ESC SCORE2/SCORE2-OP scores (r = 0.95). Conclusions The achievement of guideline-recommended LDL-C targets was low in the high- and very high-CVD-risk groups in the DUALIS study, reflecting low utilization of LLT in clinical practice.

Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease after a myocardial infarction (MI). The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend lipid lowering therapy to reach LDL-C treatment targets after an MI. Purpose To assess LDL-C target level attainment according to the ESC guidelines among patients with a recent MI in Sweden. Methods We used data from nationwide registers in Sweden and included patients aged 18–74 years admitted to a hospital with MI (1 January 2013–1 October 2016). Among patients who were alive and had LDL-C data available, we assessed LDL-C target achievement at 6–10 weeks (n=21,505) and 12–14 months (n=17,957) after the MI by category of lipid lowering therapy (no statin; low/moderate-intensity statins; high-intensity statins; any statin plus ezetimibe). The target was defined as an LDL-C of &lt;1.8 mmol/L and a ≥50% reduction from the baseline if LDL-C was 1.8–3.5 mmol/L and the patient was not already receiving statins. Results Most patients were treated with high-intensity statin monotherapy (84.2% and 72.0%) or any statin with ezetimibe (2.1% and 10.4%) at 6–10 weeks and 12–14 months after the MI, respectively. In total, 37.7% (6–10 weeks) and 38.3% (12–14 months) had attained their LDL-C target. The proportion of patients attaining their LDL-C target at 6–10 weeks was 12% (no statin), 30% (low/moderate-intensity statins), 39% (high-intensity statins), and 49% (any statin plus ezetimibe). The corresponding numbers at 12–14 months were 16% (no statin), 29% (low/moderate-intensity statins), 39% (high-intensity statins), and 58% (any statin plus ezetimibe). A total of 11.8% at 6–10 weeks and 12.3% at 12–14 months reached an LDL-C level of &lt;1.8 mmol/L, but did not reach their LDL-C target level due to the ≥50% reduction criteria. (Figure 1) Figure 1 Conclusions In this large population-based study using nationwide data, more than half of patients with a recent MI did not achieve the ESC guidelines LDL-C target levels, despite a large proportion with high-intensity statin therapy. In patients treated with statins and ezetimibe, four out of ten did not reach the ESC LDL-C target level. Our findings indicate that there may be a need for additional LDL-C lowering therapy if the target level is to be attained in all patients. Acknowledgement/Funding This project was supported by funding from Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme.

There is an explosive growth of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in South Korea. According to Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey performed in 2011, the prevalence of diabetes among the population of 30 years and old is 12.4%, and the number of patients with T2DM is expected to reach 6 million by 2050 [1]. Through studies such as UK Prospective Diabetes Study, it has been well established that aggressive glycemic control in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM reduces microvascular and macrovascular complications of the disease [2]. Therefore, it is important to diagnose and treat T2DM in early phase. Several institutions have suggested target glycemic goals-for instance, American Diabetes Association (ADA) has recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to be controlled below 7% and stated that it should be maintained as close to normal level as possible in patients with short duration of T2DM, long life expectancy, and no cardiovascular disease [3,4]. Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) has recommended HbA1c below 6.5% as target glycemic goal [5]. In general, a regimen of single oral hypoglycemic agent reduces HbA1c by approximately 1.5%; therefore, a combination therapy is recommended as initial management in HbA1c greater than 8% [3-7]. The benefits of early combination therapy includes reduced glucotoxicity to β-cells through early normalization of blood glucose, reduced exposure time to hyperglycemia, and simultaneous blocking of multiple pathophysiology of T2DM [5,6]. The treatment guideline provided by ADA and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), as well as that by KDA, recommends metformin in addition to lifestyle modification in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM as long as there are no contraindications [3-5]. In the past, addition of oral hypoglycemic agents with different mechanism of action or insulin was indicated after failure of metformin monotherapy; however, since the recent recognition of importance of early aggressive glycemic control, metformin-based combination therapy has been widely employed in patients with HbA1c greater than 7.5% to 8% [3-6]. However, if combination of oral agents other than metformin is determined to be more effective based on several studies, an appropriate combination may be tailored to each patient depending not only on the mechanism, efficacy, side effect, and drug-drug interaction of each agent but also on individual lifestyle [3,6]. The major classes of hypoglycemic agents that may be combined with metformin include sulfonylurea (SU), thiazolidinedion (TZD), dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4-i), insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist [6]. There is no clear guideline on the most effective combination regimen available for uncontrolled T2DM, and few studies investigated the effect of metformin-based early combination therapy. SU acts on β-cells of the pancreas as an insulin secretagogue-it is the most commonly used drug in conjunction with metformin [5,7]. One study evaluated the efficacy and safety of glyburide/metformin combination regimen as initial therapy in drug-naive T2DM patients over 2 years. The mean HbA1c at baseline and at 104 weeks after treatment was 8.4% and 6.8%, respectively. Combination with SU resulted in good glycemic control, but a significant increase in body weight and hypoglycemic episodes was noted [8]. While second generation SU (e.g., gliclazide, glimepiride) report lower incidence of hypoglycemic episodes compared to long acting SU (glyburide), it still needs to be taken into account in elderly patients [9]. In addition, another problem has been raised by a study entitled diabetes outcome progression trial (ADOPT)-SU, when used as monotherapy agent, shows higher secondary failure rate compared to metformin or TZD [10]. Nonetheless, whether a similar result is observed when combined with metformin has not been reported as of yet. Pioglitazone, a peroxisomal proliferator-activated receptor γ agonist, reduces insulin resistance in the liver and peripheral tissues, leading to increases in suppression of hepatic glucose production and glucose uptake in peripheral tissues [6,7]. One cohort follow-up study compared and analyzed the results of initial combination therapy consisting of metformin and pioglitazone and initial sequential monotherapy of metformin and pioglitazone in T2DM patients with HbA1c greater than 7%. This study found that initial combination therapy of metformin and pioglitazone was more effective than sequential combination therapy of metformin and pioglitazone in reaching and maintaining glycemic control, especially in subjects with HbA1c greater than 9% [11]. Although pioglitazone reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, there is potential weight gain, and its long-term use is associated with elevated risk of other side effects, such as bone fracture [12,13]. DPP4 inhibits DPP4, an enzyme that degrades incretin hormone GLP-1, resulting in hypoglycemic effect [6,14]. Its combination with metformin is the subject of numerous recent studies. Lim et al. [15] reported a decrease in mean HbA1c of approximately 1.5% in drug-naive Korean T2DM patients who initially underwent 52 weeks of combination therapy with metformin and stagliptin-this efficacy was found to be greater in those with higher initial HbA1c after adjusting for BMI, insulin resistance, and other factors. In addition, it has suggested that DPP4-i may offer assistance in subjects with low β-cell function [15]. A series of recent studies have reported a combination regimen of metformin and DPP4-i to be associated with effective and safe glycemic control with no weight gain and low risk of hypoglycemia [16-18]. Nonetheless, there is a lack of studies on the effects of long-term DPP4-i use on cardiovascular disease, cancer, or the pancreas. The study by Lee et al. [19] was designed to evaluate the efficacy of glycemic control in drug-naive or newly detected Korean T2DM patients receiving metformin-based dual combination therapy with SU, pioglitazone, or DPP4-i, and they found similar hypoglycemic efficacy among SU, pioglitazone, and sitagliptin after 24 weeks of treatment in newly diagnosed T2DM subjects: this efficacy was similar or superior to that reported by other studies that combined SU, TZD, or DPP4-i to metformin [8,11,15-17]. Several studies have investigated which medications are more effective in Korean subjects [15,20,21]. In a study that reported more frequent β-cell dysfunction in Asian population compared to Westerners, combination therapy with SU could be effective in Korean [20]. DPP4-i was reported to be more effective in Asians than in Western [21]; however, in another study that included diabetes in early stages, TZD demonstrated equal hypoglycemic efficacy when compared to SU [22]. These findings imply that it is difficult to label a specific drug as superior to others. Furthermore, patients with relatively high HbA1c at baseline responded well to combination oral hypoglycemic agent therapy [19]. Insulin therapy is the recommended treatment of choice in patients with HbA1c greater than 10% to 11% or with symptoms of hyperglycemia [3-6]; however, in this study, dual therapy was initiated in subjects with HbA1c greater than 11%. These patients showed a mean HbA1c below 6.5% after 24 weeks of treatment, demonstrating that oral hypoglycemic agents can achieve adequate glycemic control within 24 weeks in early diabetic patients with severe hyperglycemia [19]. As the authors have stated, this maybe be due to relatively spared pancreatic β-cell function, as well as due to lower insulin resistance compared to study groups of other researches. The 2013 ADA/EASD guideline also recommended that glycemic target and control should be tailored to individuals [3]. In this study by Lee et al. [19], metformin-based dual therapies with SU, TZD, and DPP4-i all showed similar efficacy. This suggests that the choice of oral hypoglycemic agents should be based on side effects, compliance, cost, and other factors rather than relying on a specific class of drug. Nonetheless, the analysis included only 24 weeks of data since the initial diagnosis, requiring further studies that evaluates not only the continued hypoglycemic efficacy of the combination therapy but also its side effects and its preventative effect on complications. A special attention should be paid in the future to the incidence of cardiovascular diseases and hypoglycemia in SU group, fracture and edema in TZD group, and pancreatitis, neoplasm, and cardiovascular disease in DPP4-i group.

AimsTo estimate the proportion of patients with a recent myocardial infarction (MI) who would be eligible for additional lipid-lowering therapy according to the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias, and to simulate the effects of expanded lipid-lowering therapy on attainment of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target as recommended by the guidelines.Methods and resultsUsing the nationwide SWEDEHEART register, we included 25 466 patients who had attended a follow-up visit 6–10 weeks after an MI event, 2013–17. While most patients (86.6%) were receiving high-intensity statins, 82.9% of the patients would be eligible for expanded lipid-lowering therapy, as they had not attained the target of an LDL-C level of <1.4 mmol and a ≥50% LDL-C level reduction. When maximized use of high-intensity statins followed by add-on therapy with ezetimibe was simulated using a Monte Carlo model, the LDL-C target was reached in 19.9% using high-intensity statin monotherapy and in another 28.5% with high-intensity statins and ezetimibe, while 50.7% would still be eligible for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. When use of alirocumab or evolocumab was simulated in those who were eligible for PCSK9 inhibitors, around 90% of all patients attained the LDL-C target.Conclusion Our study suggests that, even with maximized use of high-intensity statins and ezetimibe, around half of patients with MI would be eligible for treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors according to the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. Considering the current cost of PCSK9 inhibitors, the financial implications of the new guidelines may be substantial.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the 2019 published European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guideline on cardiovascular (CV) risk management compared with its predecessor from 2016 in a cohort in general practice. We performed a cross-sectional retrospective study with data from electronic medical records. The study cohort included 103,351 patients with known CV risk. We assessed changes in CV risk classification and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target values, the impact on LDL-C achievement rates, and the current lipid-lowering treatments. Under the 2019 ESC guideline, CV risk categories changed in 27.5% of patients, LDL-C target levels decreased in 71.4% of patients, and LDL-C target achievement rate dropped from 31.1% to 16.5%. Among non-achievers according to the 2019 guideline, 52.2% lacked lipid-lowering drugs entirely, and 41.5% had conventional drugs at a submaximal intensity. Of patients in the high-risk and very high-risk categories, at least 5% failed to achieve the LDL-C target level despite treatment at maximal intensity with conventional lipid-lowering drugs, making them eligible for PCSK-9 inhibitors. In conclusion, the 2019 ESC/EAS guideline lowered LDL-C target values for the majority of patients in general practice and halved LDL-C target achievement rates. There is still a large undeveloped potential to lower CV risk by introducing conventional lipid-lowering drugs, particularly in patients at high or very high CV risk. A substantial proportion of the patients can only achieve their LDL-C targets using PCSK-9 inhibitors, which would currently require an at least 10-fold increase in prescribing of these drugs.

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs provide an opportunity to measure low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and optimise lipid lowering therapy (LLT) accordingly. New ESC guidelines released in August 2019 recommend lower absolute LDL-C target levels and an &amp;gt;50% reduction from baseline in those at the highest risk. Purpose This study investigated the proportion of those patients who finished CR in 2019 that reached both their absolute and relative reduction in LDL-C levels, before and after the introduction of these new guidelines. We also analysed the choice and appropriateness of LLT. Methods A retrospective chart review of 163 patients who completed CR in 2019. A database was created containing baseline patient characteristics and LDL-C levels both prior and post CR; as well as the patient’s contemporary LLT. Those patients who did not have a previous diagnosis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were risk stratified as per ESC guidance. Baseline LDL-C levels were recorded, where possible, and otherwise calculated using pre-CR LDL profile with an adjustment made based on the projected effects of their LLT. Results Mean (SD) patient age was 62 (10) years, 123/163 (75%) were male and 142 (87%) patients had established ASCVD. 90/142 (63%) of very high-risk patients were treated with a high intensity LLT and 5/163 overall (3%) were prescribed ezetimibe. Overall, 96/163 (59%) patients in 2019 met their absolute LDL-C targets; 62% of applicable patients achieved an &amp;gt;50% reduction in LDL-C levels. 104 (64%) of patients were treated in compliance with their contemporary guidelines. Both pre (n = 112) and post (n = 51) September 2019 cohorts were well matched. Fewer patients who were treated under the August 2019 guidelines reached their absolute LDL-C (51% v 63%, p &amp;lt; 0.005) targets; achieved a &amp;gt;50% reduction in LDL-C from baseline (48% vs 61%, p &amp;lt; 0.005), or were compliant with the guidelines for their risk category (43% vs 73%, p &amp;lt; 0.005). Conclusions Both high intensity statin therapy and ezetimibe are under-prescribed. Fewer patients are meeting the lower absolute LDL-C targets set out in the 2019 ESC guidelines. For those at high risk, determining the reduction in LDL-C from baseline reveals that even those meeting their absolute LDL-C targets may still be undertreated. LDL-C Target Achievement N Mean LDL Pre-CR (95% CI) Mean LDL-C Post CR (95% CI) Absolute LDL-C Target Met (%) Mean % LDL-C Reduction from Baseline (95% CI) &amp;gt; 50% Reduction (% of applicable patients) Guidelines Achieved Pre-Sept"20 112 2.7 (2.46-2.93) 1.64 (1.49- 1.79) 70 (63) 61 (56-66) 50 (65) 82 (73) Post Sept 20 51 2.83 (2.41-3.25) 1.83 (1.41-2.25) 26 (51) 48 (37-59) 11 (34) 22 (43) Total 163 2.72 (2.52- 2.91) 1.69 (1.57-1.82) 96 (59) 57 (52- 62) 61 (52) 104 (64 LDL-C targets met, stratified by contemporary guidelines followed. Abstract Figure. Choice of lipid lowering therapy in 2019

The aim of this retrospective study was to provide real-world data on lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) implementation and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target achievement in an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population, with a focus on very-high-risk patients according to European guidelines criteria. Methods: Included were all STEMI patients with available LDL-C and total cholesterol treated at a large tertiary center in Salzburg, Austria, 2018–2020 (n = 910), with stratification into very-high-risk cohorts. Analysis was descriptive, with variables reported as number, percentages, median, and interquartile range. Results: Among patients with prior LLT use, statin monotherapy predominated, 5.3% were using high-intensity statins, 1.2% were using combined ezetimibe therapy, and none were taking PCSK9 inhibitors at the time of STEMI. In very-high-risk secondary prevention cohorts, LLT optimization was alarmingly low: 8–22% of patients were taking high-intensity statins, just 0–6% combined with ezetimibe. Depending on the very-high-risk cohort, 27–45% of secondary prevention patients and 58–73% of primary prevention patients were not taking any LLTs, although 19–60% were actively taking/prescribed medications for hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus. Corresponding LDL-C target achievement in all very-high-risk cohorts was poor: <22% of patients had LDL-C values < 55 mg/dL at the time of STEMI. Conclusion: Severe shortcomings in LLT implementation and optimization, and LDL-C target achievement, were observed in the total STEMI population and across all very-high-risk cohorts, attributable in part to deficits in care delivery.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common comorbidity of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Our aim is to investigate the effects of liraglutide on T2DM with NAFLD. Relevant articles published from the earliest publication to March 2022 were selected from several databases. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan software was used for the analysis. Sixteen studies are selected for this meta-analysis, which includes totally 634 patients in the treatment group and 630 patients in the control group. As a result, 14 studies show that fasting plasma glucose levels of the experimental group are lower than that of the control group; 15 studies show that glycosylated hemoglobin A1c levels of the experimental group are lower than that of the control group; 13 studies show that triglyceride levels of the experimental group are lower than that of the control group; twelve studies show that total cholesterol levels of the experimental group are lower than that of the control group; 10 studies show that alanine aminotransferase levels of the experimental group is lower than that of the control group; 10 studies show that no significant difference in changes in aspartate transaminase between 2 groups; 13 studies show that low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of the experimental group is lower than that of the control group; 9 studies show that no significant difference in changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol between 2 groups; 7 studies mentioned adverse effects and the difference is significant. Liraglutide is potentially curative for T2DM with NAFLD.