Moderate-intensity Statin Research Articles

Moderate-Intensity Statin Plus Ezetimibe: Time to Rethink it as an Optimal Initial Lipid-Lowering Strategy.

Achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets is crucial for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals with dyslipidaemia who are at high risk. Current guidelines recommend high-intensity statins at the highest tolerated dose as initial treatment to achieve LDL-C goals. However, the real-world situation is dismal: high-intensity statins are underused and achievement of LDL-C goals is suboptimal. Various challenges exist in the implementation of the recommended initial treatment strategy, including hesitancy to use high-intensity statins, non-adherence, and side effects, and the response to high-intensity statins varies across individuals. Emerging studies have shown another line of lipid-lowering, moderate-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe, presenting considerable efficacy/effectiveness, along with better safety and adherence compared to statin intensification alone. Here we review the clinical evidence, treatment guidelines and challenges associated with high-intensity statins, and summarise the evidence on the combination therapy, moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe, which is the core strategy recommended by the 2023 Chinese Guideline for Lipid Management, as a possible primary treatment to achieve the LDL-C targets across several populations. The upfront use of a moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe may improve LDL-C control and lead to the prevention of CVD in real-world settings.

Efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in the treatment of composite cardiovascular events with hypercholesterolemia: A meta-analysis.

Statins are the gold standard in the treatment of dyslipidemia, significantly reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Plus Ezetimibe compared with High-intensity Rosuvastatin in treating Composite Cardiovascular Events. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, China Biological Literature Database, Wan Fang Database, and Weipu Database were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of the two therapies from the time of construction to December 2023. The Jadad scale assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of outcomes was estimated by the I2 test, where we applied risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI to present continuous outcomes. We used funnel plots to assess study publication bias and sensitivity analysis was used to address significant clinical heterogeneity. The meta-analysis described 21 RCTs involving 24592 participants. The findings indicated that moderate-intensity statin combination therapy improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD -8.06, 95% CI [-9.48, -6.64] p < 0.05), total cholesterol (TG) (MD -5.66, 95% CI [-8.51, -2.82] p < 0.05), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) (MD -17.04, 95% CI [-29.55, -4.54] p < 0.05) to a greater extent and superior in achieving LDL-C <70 (RR1.26, 95% CI [1.22, 1.29] p < 0.05) and LDL-C <55 (RR1.66, 95% CI [1.56, 1.77] p < 0.05) ratios and in the incidence of adverse events than the high-intensity Rosuvastatin monotherapy group. However, there was no statistical difference between the two in improving HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and preventing long-term composite adverse cardiovascular events (ACE). Funnel plots indicated publication bias. Sensitivity analysis suggested instability in long-term composite cardiovascular events, HDL-C, and TC results. Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe with combination therapy had better efficacy and safety than high-intensity statins. Future validation is needed with more long-term high-quality large samples.

Abstract 4131737: Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Management in a Primary Care Residency Clinic

The 2018 AHA/ACC Multisociety Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol recommends to target an LDL-C &lt;70mg/dL in very high risk ASCVD patients. If the patient is on maximally tolerated statin therapy and LDL-C remained &gt;70mg/dL, addition of ezetimibe was recommended. If LDL continued to be elevated, the addition of PCSK9 inhibitor was discussed. In 2019, the European Atherosclerosis Society recommended lowering the target LDL-C goal to &lt;55mg/dL in patients with very high ASCVD risk. This is based on prior studies demonstrating dose-dependent reduction in ASCVD with LDL-C reduction. The purpose of this study is to identify individuals at very high ASCVD risk and determine if they are on optimal medical therapy to achieve LDL &lt;55mg/dL with the intention to improve atheroscloertic cardiovascular risk management in primary care residency clinics. A review of electronic medical records from a primary care residency clinic was performed. Patients with hyperlipidemia and prior ASCVD event were identified. Additional data including lipid panel and current medical management were collected. Patients were stratified into very high risk and not very high risk groups according to AHA classification and analyzed. A total of 1,727 patients were found to have hyperlipidemia and a prior ASCVD event. The not very high risk group had an average age of 51 years with 54% (n=40) females and 45.9% (n=34) males. The very high risk group contained 95.7% (n=1,653) patients. The average age in the very high risk group was 68 years with 53.2% (n=879) of patients being female and 46.8% (n=774) being males. Of those patients, 73.6% (n=1,216) had an LDL ≥ 55 mg/dL. In these patients, 563 were on high intensity statin, 163 on moderate intensity statin and 15 on low intensity statin. There were 475 patients not on any statin. Of those on statin therapy, 66 were on ezetimibe alone and 10 were on both ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors. Over 95% of patients with a prior ASCVD event were identified as being very high risk. Our data demonstrates that 3 in 4 patients were not on optimal medical therapy based on a stricter LDL goal. There was poor escalation of medical therapy as not all patients were on high intensity statin and only 10% of patients were on ezetimibe while even fewer patients were on additional PCSK9 inhibitor therapy. This study highlights the importance of risk stratification and vigilance in optimizing medical therapy.

Efficacy and diabetes risk of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin after percutaneous coronary intervention

BackgroundsHigh-intensity statin is recommended for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and ezetimibe is recommended to be added in patients not achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe can reduce LDL-C levels similar to high-intensity statin. The aim of this study is to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe as the first-line strategy compared to high-intensity statin in patients undergoing PCI.MethodData was obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea. Patients who underwent PCI from 2012 to 2017 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, revascularization, or ischemic stroke. The safety endpoint was new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM).ResultsA total of 45,501 patients received high-intensity statin (n = 38,340) or moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (n = 7,161). Among propensity-score-matched 7,161 pairs, MACCEs occurred in 1,460 patients with high-intensity statin and 1,406 patients with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (33.8% vs. 31.9%, hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89–1.03, P = 0.27) at a median follow-up of 2.7 years. DM was newly diagnosed in 398 patients with high-intensity statin and 342 patients with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (12.5% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.73–0.97, P = 0.02).ConclusionIn patients undergoing PCI, moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe demonstrated a similar risk of MACCEs but a lower risk of new-onset DM than high-intensity statin. Early combination treatment of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe may be a useful and safe lipid-lowering strategy after PCI.Graphical abstractCumulative incidence according to the first-line lipid-lowering strategy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Abbreviation: MACCE, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

A European, Observational, 3-Year Cohort Comparative Study on the Safety of the Fixed Dose Combination Pravastatin 40 mg/Fenofibrate 160 mg vs. Statin Alone in Real Clinical Practice: The POSE Study.

The aim of the study was to provide valuable real-world long-term safety data of the fixed pravastatin 40 mg/fenofibrate 160 mg combination in comparison of monotherapy with statins of moderate intensity. POSE study was an observational, comparative study conducted in three European countries. Patients treated or planned to be treated with pravastatin 40 mg/fenofibrate 160 mg or with a moderate-intensity statin in monotherapy were assessed over 3 years. The main safety endpoints included the incidence of renal or urinary disorder, musculoskeletal or connective tissue disorder, hepatobiliary disorder and cardiovascular events. The study included 3075 patients treated for dyslipidaemia, with diabetes mellitus (47%), hypertension (56%) and/or established cardiovascular disease (61%). Over the 3 years of follow-up, the difference in incidence rate of safety events between the pravastatin 40 mg/fenofibrate 160 mg group and the statin group was not statistically significant (RR = 1.366 [95% CI = 0.967-1.929]). The most frequently occurring events were musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (AR = 0.030 in the pravastatin 40 mg/fenofibrate 160 mg group and 0.024 in the statin group), renal and urinary disorders (AR = 0.019 vs. 0.016, respectively) and aggravated diabetes mellitus (0.021 vs. 0.014). Most events occurred during the first year, then incidence decreased over the 3-year period. No statistically significant difference was observed between treatment groups regarding the cardiovascular events (RR = 1.209 [95% CI = 0.596-2.453]) and no new signal emerged from the long-term follow-up. This study demonstrates a reassuring long-term safety profile of the fixed pravastatin 40 mg/fenofibrate 160 mg combination in routine clinical practice, with low and similar incidence of events over the 3 years follow-up compared to a monotherapy with statins of moderate intensity.

A Nation-Wide Evaluation of Suboptimal Lipid-Lowering Treatment Patterns Among Patients Undergoing Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome in Hungary.

Background/Objectives: A significant gap exists between guideline recommendations and everyday practice. Stringent treatment is needed for vulnerable patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Data on the lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), including the adherence, persistence, and mortality of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery in Hungary in 2018 were followed up and analyzed based on the National Health Insurance Fund database until the end of 2020. Results: A total of 12,997 patients underwent revascularization for ACS in 2018, whose discharge therapy included any LLT, a high- or moderate-intensity statin, or ezetimibe at a proportion of 91%, 75%, 12%, and 4%, respectively. By the end of the observation period, the frequency of ezetimibe administration increased to 11%. Persistence decreased, reaching 50% for all therapeutic regimens by month 16. Patients on moderate statin doses had a significantly higher mortality rate at the end of follow-up than those receiving high-intensity statin with (20% vs. 9%, p < 0.0001) or without (20% vs. 14%, p = 0.00029) ezetimibe. Those taking less potent statin doses had higher rates of comorbidities; for example, a minimum of three comorbidities were present in 39% of patients taking medium statin doses and 23% among those on high-intensity statin therapy (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: LLT persistence decreased during follow-up. The administration of a higher-intensity lipid-lowering regimen was associated with better persistence and adherence, along with more favorable mortality rates. Multimorbidity was associated with the use of lower statin doses. The results suggest that more attention is needed in terms of lipid control of females, elderly people, and individuals with several comorbidities, and emphasis should be placed on improving persistence and increasing the frequency of combined LLT prescriptions.

Safety and Efficacy of Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis

Abstract Background Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), affects approximately 18.6 million individuals worldwide, poses an important healthcare challenge. Despite the established efficacy of both high-intensity statin monotherapy (HIS) and moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (MIS+EZT) in ASCVD management, the optimal treatment strategy remains unclear. Purpose This meta-analysis seeks to assess the impact of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (MIS+EZT) versus high-intensity statin monotherapy (HIS) on LDL &amp;lt; 70mg/dl; Total Cholesterol; LDL; High Density Cholesterol (HDL) and triglycerides levels. Our goal is to synthesize the existing evidence and pinpoint areas that warrant further investigation. Methods A thorough literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases, focusing on studies that compared the effects of moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe with high-intensity statin monotherapy in ASCVD patients. Results In the 13 included studies, involving 8,592 patients, of which 4,525 (52.67%) received moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe treatment. The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 219 weeks, with participant ages varying from 66 to 76.5 years in the MIS+EZT group and from 67 to 75.9 years in the HIS group. Analysis revealed significant MIS+EZT-associated with greater percentages in Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) &amp;lt; 70 (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.76; 95% CI [1.26; 2.45]; p=0.001; I²=73%), LDL reduction (Mean Difference (MD) -5.05 mg/dL; 95% CI [-9.02;-1.07]; p&amp;lt;0.013; I²=56%;); Total Cholesterol reduction (MD -7.91 mg/ dL; 95% CI [-14.90; -0.91]; p&amp;lt;0.027; I²=60%); Triglycerides reduction (MD -8.20 mg/ dL; 95% CI [-13.05; -3.35]; p&amp;lt;0.001; I²=2%;); There was no statistical difference between groups in Drug Adverse reaction (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.19; 95% CI [0.79; 1.78]; p=0.404; I²=0%); and Drug intolerance (RR 0.78 ; 95% CI [0.32; 1.92]; p=0.584; I²=35%). Conclusions This meta-analysis underscores the effectiveness of MIS+EZT in enhancing significant clinical outcomes for ASCVD patients, as evidenced by improvements in a greater percentage of patients achieved the LDL &amp;lt;70 target, LDL, Total Cholesterol and Triglycerides levels . Importantly, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of overall adverse events and adverse drug reactions between the two groups.

Lipid management among very-high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes

Abstract Background Patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and type 2 diabetes (DM2) often meet very-high-risk (VHR) criteria for recurrent ASCVD events and are recommended for aggressive low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering in guidelines. Purpose Our study aimed to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving guideline-based lipid goals and identify factors associated with achieving these goals among VHR patients with established ASCVD and DM2. Methods Electronic health record data were used to identify VHR patients with established ASCVD and DM2 across 14 large US healthcare systems between 1/1/2022-12/31/2022 with an available LDL-C measurement. We examined the percentage of patients achieving guideline-based lipid goals based on the 2018 AHA/ACC Multisociety Guideline, defined as either having an LDL-C &amp;lt;70 mg/dL or receiving maximal lipid-lowering therapy (i.e., on a PCSK9i monoclonal antibody (mAb)) at the time of the last LDL-C test, and performed multivariable logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with the achievement of those goals. Results Among 213,380 eligible VHR patients with ASCVD and DM2 (mean age 70.2 years, 42% women), 51.8% (110,452) patients achieved guideline-based lipid goals. This included 50.9% with an LDL-C &amp;lt;70 mg/dL and 1.7% on a PCSK9i mAb. Female sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.66), Black race (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.63-0.72), Medicaid insurance (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and non-coronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.69) and cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.77-0.83) were associated with a lower likelihood of achieving guideline-based lipid goals. Conversely, having undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.43) or coronary artery bypass graft (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.45) in the previous year, and comorbidities including dialysis (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.23-1.55), atrial fibrillation or flutter (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.12), and systolic heart failure (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.08-1.14) were associated with a higher likelihood of achieving these goals. Overall, 24.0% of patients were on no statin, 27.2% were on a low- or moderate-intensity statin, and only 5.8% were on a statin in combination with ezetimibe or a PCSK9i mAb. Conclusion Large gaps in care exist for VHR patients with ASCVD and DM2, particularly among women, Black individuals, and those with Medicaid. Targeted interventions are needed to improve the uptake of evidence-based secondary prevention therapies in these patients.

Moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Introduction Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol levels is recommended for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) [1]. Statins are the first-line therapy for secondary prevention [1]. Recent studies such as the RACING trial suggest that the combination of moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe (MIS+EZE) may achieve a greater LDL cholesterol reduction and a lower adverse event rate than high-intensity statins alone (HIS) [2]. Purpose The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess cardiovascular outcomes and clinical safety of MIS+EZE versus HIS in patients with ASCVD. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane and Embase for studies that compared MIS+EZE to HIS in patients with ASCVD and included studies reporting cardiovascular mortality, all cause mortality, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary revascularization, heart failure, and LDL-C ≤ 70mg/dL. Studies with the same statin dose in both treatment groups and studies with overlapping populations were excluded. Treatment effects for binary endpoints were compared using pooled risk-ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results Out of 6238 studies, we included 6 RCTs and 2 retrospective cohort studies with 40,236 patients of whom 10,254 were treated with MIS+EZE (25,5%). Mean follow-up ranged from 90 days to 3 years. Cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.83; CI95% 0.73-0.94; p=0.003), all-cause mortality (RR 0.90; CI95% 0.82-0.98; p=0.02) and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83; CI95% 0.73-0.93; p=0.002) were significantly lower in patients treated with MIS+EZE compared to those treated with HIS. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the MIS+EZE group reached an LDL-C ≤ 70mg/dL (RR 1.26; CI95% 1.19-1.34; p&amp;lt;0.00001). No statistically significant difference was found for non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.87; CI95% 0.64-1.17; p=0.36), coronary revascularization (RR 1.03; CI95% 0.78-1.35; p=0.83), heart failure (RR 0.95; CI95% 0.86-1.06; p=0.38) and unstable angina (RR 1.52; CI95% 0.62-3.75; p=0.36). A RCT sub-analysis was feasible for cardiovascular mortality and showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (RR 1.01; CI95% 0.42-2.42; p=0.98). Regarding safety endpoints, the risk of adverse events (RR 0.84; CI95% 0.74-0.95; p=0.004) and the risk of muscle-related adverse events (RR 0.67; CI95% 0.49-0.92; p=0.01) were significantly lower in MIS+EZE group. The significant reduction in muscle-related adverse events was maintained in the RCT sub-analysis (RR 0.61; CI95% 0.41-0.91; p=0.02). There was no difference between groups in the risk of liver-related adverse events (RR 0.63; CI95% 0.29-1.41; p=0.26) or new-onset malignancy (RR 0.99; CI95% 0.87-1.12; p=0.85). Conclusion The combination of moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe may be considered as an alternative therapeutic strategy to reduce secondary cardiovascular risk with lower rates of drug intolerance.

Combination of moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe versus high-intensity statins alone for primary prevention of cardiovascular events

Abstract Background Combination of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe can lead to similar reductions in cardiovascular events as monotherapy with a high-intensity statin in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The comparative effectiveness of these two cholesterol-lowering strategies in the primary prevention setting is unknown. Purpose To compare incident ASCVD events associated with a combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe versus monotherapy with a high-intensity statin in adults without prior history of cardiovascular disease. Methods We conducted a new-user active comparator retrospective population-based cohort study in Canada. We included all adults aged ≥ 67 years (eligible for drug coverage) with a first prescription of either a combination of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe ("combination therapy") or high-intensity statin alone between January 2010 and December 2022. Patients were excluded if they had not received any prior lipid lowering therapies or had a history of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease or prior coronary revascularisation at any time before or within 3 months of treatment initiation. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for MI or stroke, or coronary revascularization. An inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score was used to account for confounding (demographics, comorbidities, laboratory tests, other medications). Results Among 67,884 patients (mean age: 74.0±5.5y; 53% females), 8,798 (13%) initiated combination therapy and 59,086 (87%) initiated a high-intensity statin. At 1 year, after weighting, the mean achieved LDL-C was ~1.9 mmol/L in both groups. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. The cumulative incidence of the primary outcome at 10 years in the weighted cohort was 32.7% in the combination therapy group and 36.1% in the high-intensity statin group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.92; p&amp;lt;0.001; absolute risk reduction: 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.1; Figure 1). This result was primarily driven by a lower risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91; p&amp;lt;0.001; Figure 2) and stroke (cause-specific [cs] HR: 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; p=0.04), whereas no differences were observed in the risk of MI (csHR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15) or coronary revascularization (csHR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Conclusion The combination of moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe was associated with a lower risk of incident ASCVD compared with high-intensity statins alone among primary prevention patients in a real-world setting. These results were driven by a lower risk of all-cause death and stroke, but not coronary events. The influence of statin intolerance on the allocated strategy and adherence to therapy cannot be addressed in this analysis, which, along with verifying these estimates, may be best determined in a prospective randomized trial.

Recent trends of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control and lipid-lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Taiwan: 2015–2020

ObjectiveThis study aimd to assess recent trends in the control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and the utilization of lipid-lowering drugs (LLD) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in Taiwan. MethodsPatients with ASCVD and without a history of hemorrhagic stroke were identified from the Taiwanese Secondary Prevention for patients with AtheRosCLErotic disease (T-SPARCLE) Registry. ASCVD patients were stratified into four categories: those who ever had acute coronary syndrome (ACS), those who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting (PCI/CABG) without ACS, those who ever had an ischemic stroke (IS) without ACS or PCI/CABG, and other ASCVD cases. We assessed their latest recorded LDL-C levels for the periods 2015–16, 2017–18, and 2019–20. LLD therapy patterns were presented as monotherapy, dual therapy, or combination therapy of three or more drugs, with statin use classified by intensity. ResultsWe identified 3831 ASCVD patients in 2015–16, 3531 in 2017–18, and 1231 in 2019–20. LLD utilization rose from 58.4% in 2015–16 to 73.2% in 2019–20. The proportions of patients achieving LDL-C goals in 2015–16, 2017–18, and 2019–20 were 21.5%, 25.8%, and 33.3% in the ACS cohort (goal <70 mg/dL); 20.4%, 26.1%, and 39.0% in the PCI/CABG cohort (goal <70 mg/dL); 54.4%, 58.5%, and 58.9% in the IS cohort (goal <100 mg/dL); and 60.0%, 65.5%, and 67.0% in the other ASCVD cohort (goal <100 mg/dL), respectively. Over half of the patients were prescribed moderate-intensity statins. Statin use, age, history of diabetes mellitus, and hypertension were important factors for attaining LDL-C goal in ACS patients. ConclusionDespite improvements in LDL-C management observed over recent years, significant gaps remain in guideline adherence, especially for patients with ACS or PCI/CABG in Taiwan, with over 60% not meeting LDL-C targets. Intensifying efforts to align clinical practice with guidelines are imperative.

Patients With Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease and Polyvascular Disease. Sub-Analysis of the Real-World Registry KAMMA (Clinical Registry on Patient Population With Polyvascular Disease in the Russian Federation and Eurasian Countries).

To study the clinical status and data of laboratory and instrumental examination of patients with non-obstructive ischemic heart disease (IHD) and multifocal atherosclerosis (MFA) included in the KAMMA registry. The subanalysis included 1,893 IHD patients who underwent coronary angiography (CAG) and ultrasonic examination of peripheral arteries. Based on the CAG data, patients were divided into two groups: group 1, patients with obstructive coronary atherosclerosis (CA) (maximum stenosis ≥50% and/or history of percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass grafting, n=1728; 91.3%) and group 2, patients with non-obstructive CA (maximum stenosis &lt;50%, n = 165; 8.7%). A comparative analysis based on the degree of coronary obstruction in patients with verified IHD who were included in the KAMMA registry showed that 8.7% of them had coronary artery stenosis of less than 50%. The overwhelming majority of patients with non-obstructive CA had MFA affecting the brachiocephalic arteries in 94.3% and the lower extremity arteries in 40.2%. Among patients with non-obstructive IHD, women predominated; risk factors such as smoking and type 2 diabetes mellitus were less frequent in this group than in the obstructive IHD group. Patients with non-obstructive CA more frequently had a history of dyslipidemia; they had higher total cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; and they more frequently received moderate-intensity statin therapy than patients with obstructive CA (55.8% vs. 34.5%). Characteristic features of patients with non-obstructive CA were less severe IHD and less frequent history of acute coronary syndrome. However, the incidence of stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, and chronic arterial insufficiency of the lower extremities did not differ in groups 1 and 2, whereas the incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was higher in the non-obstructive IHD group. IHD patients without coronary obstruction also require assessment of the peripheral arterial status, as they may have advanced MFA, which should be taken into account when choosing the "aggressiveness" of therapy.

Study Design and Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of a Triple Combination of Ezetimibe, Fenofibrate, and Moderate-Intensity Statin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors (ENSEMBLE).

Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Randomized Comparison of Progression of Atherosclerotic Plaques and Calcification of Coronary Artery in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated With Edoxaban Versus Warfarin (The REPRESENT-AF trial)

Although the adverse effects of long-term use of vitamin K oral anticoagulant (OAC), warfarin, on the coronary vasculature are well-established, it remains unknown whether nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants play a role in the attenuation of plaque progression and coronary calcification. This study aimed to compare the changes in atherosclerotic plaques and calcification of the coronary arteries in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with edoxaban and warfarin. A total of 150 OAC-naïve patients with AF and atherosclerotic lesions on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) were enrolled and randomly assigned to the edoxaban or warfarin treatment groups. All enrolled patients received rosuvastatin 10 mg and 119 patients completed the entire study protocol. A total of 12 months after the assigned OAC treatment, follow-up CCTA was performed and changes in plaque and calcium volumes of the coronary arteries were analyzed. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were well-balanced. The percentage of time in therapeutic range in the warfarin group was 61.1%. Compared with the baseline CCTA, there was a significant reduction in plaque volume after 12 months of OAC and rosuvastatin administration in both groups, and the extent of regression did not differ significantly between the groups. The increase in calcium volume was greater in the warfarin group than in the edoxaban group; however, the difference was not significant. In OAC-naïve patients with AF and atherosclerotic coronary lesions who were treated with moderate-intensity statin, edoxaban use did not have a positive effect on atherosclerotic plaques and coronary calcification compared with warfarin use over a 12-month follow-up period.

Redefining Statin Dosage Post-Gastric Bypass: Insights from a Population Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics Link Approach.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) involves creating a small stomach pouch, bypassing part of the small intestine, and rerouting the digestive tract. These alterations can potentially change the drug exposure and response. Our primary aim was to assess the impact of RYGB on the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin lactone (SV) and its active metabolite, simvastatin hydroxy acid (SVA). Ultimately, we aimed to optimize dosing for this understudied population by employing a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic link approach. The study comprised patients who had undergone RYGB surgery and individuals without a previous history of RYGB. All participants received a single oral dose of simvastatin. Plasma concentration data were analyzed with a nonlinear mixed-effect modeling approach. A parent-metabolite model with first-order absorption, 2-compartments for SV and 1-compartment for SVA, linear elimination, and enterohepatic circulation best described the data. The model was linked to the turnover pharmacodynamic model to describe the SVA inhibition on LDL-cholesterol production. Our simulations indicated that following RYGB surgery, the exposure to SV and SVA decreased by 40%. Consequently, for low-intensity statin patients, we recommend increasing the dose from 10 to 20 mg in post-RYGB patients to maintain a comparable response to that of non-operated subjects. Moderate-intensity statin patients should require increasing doses to 40 or 60 mg or the addition of a non-statin medication to achieve similar therapeutic outcomes. In conclusion, individuals post-RYGB exhibit diminished exposure to SV and may benefit from increasing the dose or adjunctive therapy with non-statin drugs to attain equivalent responses and mitigate potential adverse events.

Safety and Efficacy of Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis

Safety and Efficacy of Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis

Intensive Versus Moderate Statin-Based Therapies in Patients With Mild Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Statins are widely used for treating patients with ischemic stroke at risk of secondary cerebrovascular events. It is unknown whether Asian populations benefit from more intensive statin-based therapy for stroke recurrence. Therefore, in the present study we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of high-dose and moderate-dose statins for patients who had experienced mild ischemic stroke during the acute period. This multicenter prospective study included patients with mild ischemic stroke who presented within 72 hours of symptom onset. The outcomes of patients in the high-intensity and moderate-intensity statin treatment groups were compared, with the main efficacy outcome being stroke recurrence and the primary safety end point being intracranial hemorrhage. The propensity score matching method was employed to control for imbalances in baseline variables. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate group differences. In total, the data of 2950 patients were analyzed at 3 months, and the data of 2764 patients were analyzed at 12 months due to loss to follow-up. According to the multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for potential confounders, stroke recurrence occurred similarly in the high-intensity statin and moderate-intensity statin groups (3 months: adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.85-1.49]; P=0.424; 12 months: adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86-1.34]; P=0.519). High-intensity statin therapy was associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (3 months: adjusted HR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.00-3.25]; P=0.048; 12 months: adjusted HR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.10-3.16]; P=0.021). The results from the propensity score-matched analyses were consistent with those from the Cox proportional hazards analysis. Compared with moderate-intensity statin therapy, high-dose statin therapy may not decrease the risk of mild, noncardiogenic ischemic stroke recurrence but may increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. URL: www.chictr.org.cn/. Unique Identifier: ChiCTR1900025214.

Adherence to the 2018 AHA cholesterol management guideline in hyperlipidemia treatment among adults in an outpatient setting.

Although evidence-based guidelines and effective treatments exist for dyslipidemia, a significant disparity remains between guidelines and clinical practice. In this study, we investigated adherence to statin therapy per the 2018 ACC/AHA Guideline recommendations. This is a retrospective, descriptive-analytical study involving 1,224 individuals who presented to the laboratories located in Birjand, Eastern Iran, from June 2022 to March 2023. Analyses were conducted on 700 patients. Data collection utilized a checklist and serum value measurements of laboratory factors deemed necessary for the study. Treatment was administered per the guidelines for 348 out of the 700 patients (49.7%). With 60.7%, the diabetes group exhibited the highest level of adherence to guidelines. In the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) group, 31.7% followed the recommendations. The lowest adherence rates were in groups with a 10-year ASCVD risk score of ≥20% and severe hypercholesterolemia, respectively (0% and 2.8%). In our study, atorvastatin was the most frequently prescribed statin, with the majority of patients consuming a moderate-intensity statin. None of the severely hypercholesterolemic patients achieved the LDL goal. Moreover, LDL-C goal achievement was low among the ASCVD group and those with an ASCVD risk score of ≥20%. Patients with hypercholesterolemia adhere inadequately to the AHA Guideline. Consequently, training courses are needed to inform medical doctors, particularly general practitioners, of the latest dyslipidemia treatment recommendations as the AHA advises.

Statin prescriptions and progression of advanced fibrosis risk in primary care patients with MASLD

ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the association of statins with progression to a high risk for advanced fibrosis in primary care patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD).DesignThis retrospective cohort...

Implementation of risk-based lipid-lowering therapies in older (age ≥ 65 years) and very-old adults (age ≥ 75 years) with ischemic heart disease in the greater Salzburg region.

Introduction: European guidelines recommend the implementation of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in adults (≥ 65years) with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and for risk-based primary prevention in older adults (≤ 75years), yet their use in very-old adults (> 75years) is controversial, discretionary, and oriented on the presence of risk factors. The aim of this retrospective study is to assess guideline-directed LLT implementation and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target achievement in high-/very-high-risk older/very-old adults (65-74 and ≥ 75years) at presentation for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and also to assess evidence-based care delivery to older adults in our region. Methods: All STEMI patients with available LDL-C and total cholesterol presenting for treatment at a large tertiary center in Salzburg, Austria, 2018-2020, were screened (n = 910). High-risk/very-high-risk patients (n = 369) were classified according to European guidelines criteria and divided into cohorts by age: < 65years (n = 152), 65-74years (n = 104), and ≥ 75years (n = 113). Results: Despite being at high-/very-high-risk, prior LLT use was < 40% in the total cohort, with no significant difference by age. Statin monotherapy predominated; 20%-23% of older/very-old adults in the entire cohort were using low-/moderate-intensity stains, 11%-13% were using high-intensity statins, 4% were on ezetimibe therapy, and none were taking proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. In the secondary prevention cohort, 53% of older/very-old patients used prior LLTs. Significantly higher percentages of older/oldest ASCVD patients (43% and 49%) met LDL-C targets < 70mg/dL compared to patients < 65years (29%; p = 0.033), although just 22% and 30% of these older groups attained stricter LDL-C targets of < 55mg/dL. Low LLT uptake (16%) among older adults aged 64-74years for primary prevention resulted in 17% and 10% attainment of risk-based LDL-C targets < 70mg/dL and < 55mg/dL, respectively. Oldest adults (≥ 75years) in both primary and secondary prevention groups more often met risk-based targets than older and younger adults, despite predominantly receiving low-/moderate-intensity statin monotherapy. Conclusion: Secondary prevention was sub-optimal in our region. Less than half of older/very-old adults with established ASCVD met LDL-C targets at the time of STEMI, suggesting severe care-delivery deficits in LLT implementation. Shortcomings in initiation of risk-based LLTs were also observed among high-/very-high-risk primary prevention patients < 75years, with the achievement of risk-based LDL-C targets in 10%-48% of these patients.