Search

Aims: This study evaluated the effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)., Methods and Results: This was a pre-specified, stratified subgroup analysis of the DM cohort in the RACING trial. The primary outcome was a 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke. Among total patients, 1398 (37.0%) had DM at baseline. The incidence of the primary outcome was 10.0% and 11.3% among patients with DM randomized to ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.64-1.22; P = 0.460). Intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction of the study drug was observed in 5.2% and 8.7% of patients in each group, respectively (P = 0.014). LDL cholesterol levels <70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were observed in 81.0%, 83.1%, and 79.9% of patients in the ezetimibe combination therapy group, and 64.1%, 70.2%, and 66.8% of patients in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all P < 0.001). In the total population, no significant interactions were found between DM status and therapy regarding primary outcome, intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction, and the proportion of patients with LDL cholesterol levels <70 mg/dL., Conclusion: Ezetimibe combination therapy effects observed in the RACING trial population are preserved among patients with DM. This study supports moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy as a suitable alternative to high-intensity statins if the latter cannot be tolerated, or further reduction in LDL cholesterol is required among patients with DM and ASCVD., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier:NCT03044665., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S.C.Y. is a chief technical officer of PHI Digital Healthcare and has received consulting fee from IQVIA; B.-K.K. has received speaker’s fees from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; M.-K.H. has received speaker’s fees from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Pfizer, Y.J. has received institutional research grants from Biotronik and Hanmi, and J.-S.K. has received proctoring fees from Abbott Vascular. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D.P. received speaker’s fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, outside the submitted work. M.V. reports personal fees for speaker bureau and/or consulting in Advisory Board from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Menarini Int, MSD, Novartis Pharma, and Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: G.L. received grant support (to the Institution) for investigator-initiated research from American Heart Association, Italian National Health Service and Italian Minister of Education, University and Research. She is currently involved in the Research Programs of the Italian Cardiovascular Network. She received personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi and Novartis. C.P. received consultant and speaker fees from Acticor Biotech, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Tremeau, Zambon, and grant support (to the Institution) for investigator-initiated research from AIFA (Italian Drug Agency), Bayer, Cancer Research UK, and European Commission; he chairs the Scientific Advisory Board of the International Aspirin Foundation.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a proven causative factor for developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Individuals with genetic conditions associated with lifelong very low LDL-C levels can be healthy. We now possess the pharmacological armamentarium (statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors) to reduce LDL-C to an unprecedented extent. Increasing numbers of patients are expected to achieve very low (<30 mg/dL) LDL-C. Cardiovascular event reduction increases log linearly in association with lowering LDL-C, without reaching any clear plateau even when very low LDL-C levels are achieved. It is still controversial whether lower LDL-C levels are associated with significant clinical adverse effects (e.g. new-onset diabetes mellitus or possibly haemorrhagic stroke) and long-term data are needed to address safety concerns. This review presents the familial conditions characterized by very low LDL-C, analyses trials with lipid-lowering agents where patients attained very low LDL-C, and summarizes the benefits and potential adverse effects associated with achieving very low LDL-C. Given the potential for cardiovascular benefit and short-term safe profile of very low LDL-C, it may be advantageous to attain such low levels in specific high-risk populations. Further studies are needed to compare the net clinical benefit of non-LDL-C-lowering interventions with very low LDL-C approaches, in addition to comparing the efficacy and safety of very low LDL-C levels vs. current recommended targets., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: To 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 Results: Using 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 Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Current evidence on dyslipidaemia management has expanded to novel treatments and very low achieved levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We sought to compare the clinical impact of more-intensive vs. less-intensive LDL-C lowering by means of statins and currently recommended non-statin medications in secondary prevention., Methods and Results: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials of statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, or bile acid sequestrants with >500 patients followed for ≥1 year. We employed random-effects models using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare outcomes. We included 19 trials (15 of statins, 3 of PCSK9 inhibitors, and 1 of ezetimibe) with 152 507 patients randomly assigned to more-intensive (n = 76 678) or less-intensive treatment (n = 75 829). More-intensive treatment was associated with 19% relative risk reduction for the primary outcome, major vascular events (MVEs; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.86). Risk reduction was greater across higher baseline levels and greater achieved reductions of LDL-C. The clinical benefit was significant across varying types of more-intensive treatment and was consistent for statins (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.86) and non-statin agents (PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94) as active (more-intensive) intervention (P-interaction = 0.38). Each 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with 19% relative decrease in MVE. Death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization also favoured more-intensive treatment., Conclusion: Reduction of MVE is proportional to the magnitude of LDL-C lowering across a broad spectrum of on-treatment levels in secondary prevention. Statin intensification and add-on treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe are associated with significant reduction of cardiovascular morbidity in this very high-risk population.

Aims: To appraise the clinical and genetic evidence that low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)., Methods and Results: We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects., Conclusion: Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD., (© The Author 2017. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology)

Aims: Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with statins, including the most recent, fail to make the best use of the evidence from clinical trials by concentrating on absolute CVD risk as a statin indication and not also considering that a major determinant of therapeutic benefit is the magnitude of the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (or non-HDL) cholesterol reduction achieved. This decrease is proportional to the pretreatment concentration. We set out to apply this knowledge to the calculation of the number needed to treat to prevent one event (NNT) and to assess critically how current guidelines performed at different degrees of CVD risk across a range of LDL (or non-HDL) cholesterol concentrations., Methods and Results: Number needed to treat to prevent one event revealed exclusion from the treatment of some people with higher cholesterol levels, who may benefit more than others needlessly exposed to statins with no realistic prospect of benefit. Furthermore, abandonment of cholesterol therapeutic goals disadvantaged people with higher levels., Conclusion: These problems can be overcome by basing the decision to treat on the NNT calculated both from absolute CVD risk and also on the LDL (or non-HDL) cholesterol reduction achievable with statin treatment. This need not adds an additional layer of complexity for the clinician, because computer programmes already used to estimate CVD risk could be easily amended, thus permitting more effective deployment of statins in the population., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Ezetimibe reduces plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by inhibiting Niemann-Pick C1-Like protein 1 (NPC1L1), the transporter responsible for cholesterol uptake from the intestine into enterocytes and from the bile into hepatocytes. We tested the hypothesis that genetic variation in NPC1L1, mimicking the effect of ezetimibe, was associated with reduced risk of ischaemic vascular disease (IVD) and with increased risk of symptomatic gallstone disease., Methods and Results: We included 67 385 individuals from the general population. Of these, 5255 and 3886 individuals developed IVD or symptomatic gallstone disease, respectively, during follow-up from 1977 to 2013. We genotyped four common NPC1L1 variants, previously associated with reduced LDL cholesterol levels, thus mimicking the effect of ezetimibe, and calculated a weighted genotype score. With increasing genotype score, LDL cholesterol decreased stepwise up to 3.5% (0.12 mmol/L) and total cholesterol up to 1.9% (0.11 mmol/L) (P-trend: 2 × 10(-12) and 2 × 10(-9)). The cumulative incidence by age of IVD decreased, while that of symptomatic gallstone disease increased as a function of increasing genotype score (P-trend: 0.005 and 0.01). Hazard ratios for genotype scores ≥ 5.0 vs. <2.0 were 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.95) for IVD and 1.22 (0.99-1.49) for gallstone disease (P-trend across genotype scores: 0.004 and 0.01)., Conclusion: Genetic variation in NPC1L1 is associated with a reduction in risk of IVD, with a corresponding reduction in LDL cholesterol, but with a concomitant increased risk of gallstone disease. These data support the hypothesis that treatment with ezetimibe protects against IVD but raise the question whether long-term treatment increases the risk of gallstone disease., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)