Search

Despite dyslipidaemia management guidelines, many patients do not reach low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets due to insufficiently intensive regimens or lack of adherence to their medication. This was a retrospective cohort study on the Pharmacoepidemiologic General Research eXtension (PGRx)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) registry. Patients included were ≥ 18 years old who suffered an ACS between 2013 and 2016, and treated with lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) at hospital discharge or within 92 days. Patients were followed up to 12 months' post index ACS, a new cardiovascular event, loss to follow-up or death. Treatment intensity (high, moderate and low intensity statins ± ezetimibe) and adherence (proportion of days covered > 80%) are described. A total of 2,695 patients were included; mean age [SD] was 63.1 [12.8] years, and 77% were men. High, moderate and low intensity statins were started in 56% (1,520), 36% (971), and 3% (86) of patients, respectively. A further 2% (46) were on statin/ezetimibe combination, 2% (42) on other LLT and 1% (30) on ezetimibe alone. At follow-up, around 70% of patients were adherent to LLT, with those on moderate intensity treatments showing better adherence (76%) than those on low (63%) or high (67%) intensity treatments. Despite guideline recommendations, many patients following an ACS are not treated with high intensity statins, and adherence remains far from optimal. Effort should be made to increase the proportion of patients treated with high intensity statins following an ACS and to further improve treatment adherence.

Background: Oral lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) is the standard of care for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, insufficient treatment intensity and poor adherence can lead to suboptimal treatment benefit, rendering patients at increased risk of CVD. Aims: The objective of this study was to evaluate trends in LLT intensity and adherence in Sweden over time, and their association with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after recent myocardial infarction (MI), and also to assess the impact of transition from secondary to primary care on intensity and adherence. Methods and results: This retrospective observational cohort study used data from Swedish nationwide patient registers and included patients on LLT after an MI in the years 2010–2016 (n = 50,298; mean age, 68 years; 69% men). LLT intensity was evaluated over time (overall, for 2010–2013 and for 2014–2016) as the proportion of patients prescribed low-, moderate-, and high-intensity LLT. Adherence was assessed as the proportion of days covered. A combined measure of intensity and adherence was also considered. Differences in treatment patterns and MACE were assessed. Initiation of high-intensity LLT increased over the two time periods studied (2010–2013, 32%; 2014–2016, 91%). Adherence varied by LLT intensity and was highest in patients receiving high-intensity LLT (>80%), especially during the first time period. Little change in treatment intensity or the combined measure of intensity and adherence was observed after transition to primary care. There was a significant association between the combined measure of intensity and adherence and MACE reduction (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] per 10% increase in the combined measure: 0.84 [0.82–0.86]; P < 0.01). Conclusion: The proportion of post-MI patients with high LLT intensity and adherence has increased in recent years, with little change after transfer from specialist to primary care. The combination of LLT intensity and adherence is important for preventing future cardiovascular events.

Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in addition to standard statin therapy with or without ezetimibe in the treatment of patients with clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with levels of LDL-C above 100 mg/dL. Method: A theoretical cohort of patients was forecast by a Markov model that includes 11 health states for a lifetime horizon. In the base-case, the standard therapy was characterized by statins with or without ezetimibe. Two sub-populations have been considered, Recent MI (Myocardial Infarction in the last year) and Multiple events (population with multiple MI). The results were also presented for a subset of the Multiple events populations consisting of patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction (MI) in the last year. Results: For the Recent MI and Multiple events populations, ICER values of € 39,547 and € 35,744 respectively were estimated. The value of ICER was lower for the Multiple events with MI < 1 year population (€ 29,949). Considering statins with ezetimibe as standard therapy, ICER values were found to be equal to € 39,781, € 35,986 and € 30,190 respectively for the populations Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events with MI < 1 year. Conclusions: The estimated ICER values for the Recent MI, Multiple events and Multiple events populations with MI < 1 year were below the cost-effectiveness threshold of € 40,000, suggesting therefore how the treatment with evolocumab in addition to the standard therapy can be a cost-effective treatment both compared to standard therapy with statins and standard therapy with statins + ezetimibe.