Search

Background: Age, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension are major risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Objective: We examined whether the effects of alirocumab on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) differed according to age, hypertension, or smoking status. Methods: Data were pooled from 10 Phase 3 ODYSSEY randomized trials (24–104 weeks’ duration) in 4983 people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) or non–familial hypercholesterolemia (3188 on alirocumab, 1795 on control [620 on ezetimibe and 1175 on placebo]). Most participants received concomitant maximum tolerated statin therapy. In 8 trials, the alirocumab dose was increased from 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) to 150 mg Q2W at Week 12 if predefined risk-based LDL-C goals were not achieved at Week 8 (≥70 mg/dL in very high cardiovascular risk; ≥100 mg/dL in moderate or high cardiovascular risk). Two trials compared alirocumab 150 mg Q2W vs placebo. The efficacy and safety of alirocumab were assessed post hoc in subgroups stratified by age (

Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and prior revascularization are at high risk of further cardiovascular events and may require additional lipid-lowering therapies beyond maximally tolerated statin therapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, in patients with ASCVD, with or without prior coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]).Data from eight controlled (placebo/ezetimibe) phase 3 ODYSSEY trials were pooled and stratified by trial design: alirocumab 150 mg or 75 mg with possible dose increase to 150 mg (75/150 mg) every 2 weeks (Q2W) versus placebo, and alirocumab 75/150 mg Q2W versus ezetimibe. Most patients received background maximally tolerated statin therapy.Among 4629 randomized patients with hypercholesterolemia, 3382 had ASCVD including 2191 with prior revascularization. Although baseline characteristics were comparable between alirocumab and control groups, revascularized patients were more likely to be male, have had prior myocardial infarction/stroke, have higher lipoprotein (a) and PCSK9 levels, and were more often treated with high-intensity statin therapy. Alirocumab significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; primary endpoint; p 0.0001), lipoprotein (a), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels from baseline to week 24 (vs. control), regardless of stratified treatment group or revascularization status. On-treatment LDL-C levels with alirocumab ranged from 45.6 to 64.8 mg/dL. Alirocumab had a similar safety profile regardless of revascularization status, and higher rates of injection-site reactions versus controls.Alirocumab is generally well-tolerated and effective with a similar safety profile in high-risk patients with or without prior revascularization (PCI/CABG).

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) cholesterol guideline recommends statin treatment based on patients' predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Whether clinician-reported guideline adoption translates to implementation into practice is unknown. Objectives We aimed to compare clinician lipid management in hypothetical scenarios versus observed practice. Methods The PALM Registry asked 774 clinicians how they would treat 4 hypothetical scenarios of primary prevention patients with: (1) diabetes; (2) high 10-year ASCVD risk (≥7.5%) with high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; ≥130 mg/dL); (3) low 10-year ASCVD risk ( Results In primary prevention scenarios, 85% of clinicians reported they would prescribe a statin to a diabetic patient and 93% to a high-risk/high LDL-C patient (both indicated by guidelines), while 40% would prescribe statins to a low-risk/high LDL-C patient. In clinical practice, statin prescription rates were 68% for diabetic patients, 40% for high-risk/high LDL-C patients, and 50% for low-risk/high LDL-C patients. Agreement between hypothetical and observed practice was 64%, 39%, and 52% for patients with diabetes, high-risk/high LDL-C, and low-risk/high LDL-C, respectively. Among patients with persistently high LDL-C despite high-intensity statin treatment, 55% of providers reported they would add a non-statin lipid-lowering medication, while only 22% of patients were so treated. Conclusions While the majority of clinicians report adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline recommendations, observed lipid management decisions in practice are frequently discordant.

The latest cholesterol guidelines have shifted focus from achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets toward statin use and intensity guided by atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk.Statin use and intensity were evaluated in 5,905 statin-eligible primary or secondary prevention patients from 138 PALM Registry practices.Overall, 74.7% of eligible adults were on statins; only 42.4% were on guideline-recommended intensity. Relative to primary prevention patients, ASCVD patients were more likely to be on a statin (83.6% vs 63.4%, P.0001) and guideline-recommended intensity (47.3% vs 36.0%, P.0001). Men were more likely than women to be prescribed recommended intensity for primary (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.49-2.34) and secondary (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.26-1.70) prevention. In primary prevention, increasing age, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and lower 10-year ASCVD risk were associated with increased odds of receiving recommended intensity. Among ASCVD patients, those with coronary artery disease were more likely to be on recommended intensity than cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease patients (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.41-2.09), as were those seen by cardiologists (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12-1.83). Median LDL-C levels were highest among patients not on statins (124.0 mg/dL) and slightly higher among those on lower-than-recommended intensity compared with recommended-therapy recipients (88.0 and 84.0 mg/dL, respectively; P≤.0001).In routine contemporary practice, 1 in 4 guideline-eligible patients was not on a statin; less than half were on the recommended statin intensity. Untreated and undertreated patients had significantly higher LDL-C levels than those receiving guideline-directed statin treatment.

Background and aims Guidelines recommend high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Subgroups with comorbidities that increase cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD) or polyvascular disease (PoVD), may derive greater absolute benefit from addition of non-statin therapies. We assessed the relationship between lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk reduction during alirocumab phase III ODYSSEY trials among these subgroups. Methods Patient data were pooled from nine trials comparing alirocumab with control (placebo/ezetimibe), predominantly on background maximally tolerated statin. Patients with baseline ASCVD were stratified into subgroups with DM, CKD or PoVD, or without comorbidities, and between-group relative and absolute benefits were compared. Results Among 3505 patients with ASCVD, 1573 had no comorbidities, 981 had DM, 660 had CKD and 943 had PoVD, with overlap between comorbidities; mean baseline LDL-C levels were 119 (ASCVD overall), 123, 117, 114 and 113 mg/dL, respectively. Overall, each 39 mg/dL lower on-study LDL-C was associated with a 25% lower MACE risk, hazard ratio 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.90, p = 0.0023), with a similar lower risk observed in each very high-risk subgroup (DM, CKD or PoVD; 30–35%) but not in the subgroup without these comorbidities (9%). Absolute benefits were greater for very high-risk subgroups; lowering LDL-C from 120 to 40 mg/dL would result in 2.76–4.35 fewer MACE/100 patient-years versus 0.3 for no comorbidities. Conclusions Among patients with ASCVD and mean baseline LDL-C >100 mg/dL, patients with DM, CKD or PoVD appeared to derive greater absolute cardiovascular benefits from further LDL-C reduction than those without.

Guideline implementation requires clinician knowledge but may be influenced by pre-existing beliefs and biases. We assessed the association of these clinician factors with lipid management following the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines. In the PALM registry, 774 clinicians completed a survey to assess their knowledge of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, belief in statin benefit, and statin safety concerns. The association of these factors with statin use, statin dosing, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were assessed in the 6,839 patients treated by these clinicians between May and November 2015. Overall, 63.9% of clinicians responded to at least 3 out of 4 hypothetical scenarios in concordance with guideline recommendations (good tested knowledge), 88.4% reported belief in statin benefit, and 15.4% raised concerns about statin safety. Belief in statin benefit was more prevalent among cardiologists, who represented 48.8% of the clinicians surveyed, and concerns regarding statin safety were higher among noncardiologists and clinicians in an academic setting. Guideline knowledge was not associated with a difference in statin use (74.1% vs 73.8%, p = 0.84) and achievement of LDL-C level100 mg/dl (54.7% vs 52.4%, p = 0.07). However, patients treated by clinicians who reported belief in statin benefit were more likely to receive guideline-recommended statin intensity (41.9% vs 36.9%, p = 0.03), whereas patients treated by clinicians expressing statin safety concerns were less likely receive statins of at least guideline-recommended intensity (36.8% vs 42.5%, p = 0.001) and to achieve an LDL-C100 mg/dl (44.1% vs 56.1%, p0.001); the latter persisted after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.89). In conclusion, clinician beliefs regarding benefits and risks of statins were significantly associated with guideline adherence and patients' achieved LDL-C levels, whereas clinician knowledge of guideline recommendations was not.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL ‐C) to identify untreated patients with LDL ‐C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid‐lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL ‐C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL ‐C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart‐documented LDL ‐C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non–college graduates (all P P =0.0034), a high‐intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P =0.016), nonstatin lipid‐lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P =0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL ‐C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P LDL ‐C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL ‐C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL ‐C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL ‐C testing is associated with higher‐intensity lipid‐lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL ‐C levels.

Background In statin trials, men and women derived similar relative risk reductions in cardiovascular events per 39 mg/ dL low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL ‐C) reduction. We explored whether lower LDL ‐C levels and greater LDL ‐C percentage reductions than those achieved with statins are associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular event ( MACE ) rates in women as well as men. Methods and Results Data pooled from 10 phase 3 ODYSSEY randomized trials (n=4983) comparing alirocumab with control (placebo/ezetimibe) were assessed for association between 39 mg/dL lower on‐treatment LDL ‐C and percentage LDL ‐C change from baseline, and MACE risk by sex, using multivariable Cox regression. Mean baseline LDL ‐C was 135 mg/dL (women) and 121 mg/dL (men). Average on‐treatment LDL ‐C levels with alirocumab, ezetimibe, and placebo were 71, 114, and 134 mg/dL, respectively, in women (n=1882) and 52, 93, and 122 mg/dL, respectively, in men (n=3090). Overall, 36.5% and 58.7% of women and men, respectively, achieved on‐treatment LDL ‐C LDL ‐C was associated with a 33% and 22% lower risk of MACE in women ( P =0.0209) and men ( P =0.0307), respectively, with no significant between‐sex difference ( P for heterogeneity=0.4597). Results were similar when analyzed per 50% LDL ‐C reduction, 24% ( P =0.1094) and 29% ( P =0.0125) lower MACE risk in women and men, respectively ( P for heterogeneity=0.7499). Alirocumab was generally well tolerated in both sexes. Conclusions The present analysis reinforces the notion that both sexes derive a similar cardiovascular benefit from LDL ‐C lowering. Although women had slightly higher on‐treatment LDL ‐C than men, both sexes showed a similar lower MACE risk with lower LDL ‐C.

African American individuals face higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk than white individuals; reasons for these differences, including potential differences in patient beliefs regarding preventive care, remain unknown.To evaluate differences in statin use between white and African American patients and identify the potential causes for any observed differences.Using the 2015 Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry data, we compared statin use and dosing between African American and white outpatient adults who were potentially eligible for primary or secondary prevention statins. A total of 138 US community health care practices contributed to the data. Data analysis was conducted from March 2017 to May 2018.Primary outcomes were use and dosing of statin therapy according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline by African American or white race. Secondary outcomes included lipid levels and patient-reported beliefs. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the association between race and statin undertreatment, a category combining people who were not taking a statin or those taking a dose intensity lower than recommended.A total of 5689 patients (806 [14.2%] African American) in the PALM registry were eligible for statin therapy. African American individuals were less likely than white individuals to be treated with a statin (570/807 [70.6%] vs 3654/4883 [74.8%]; P = .02). Among those treated, African American patients were less likely than white patients to receive a statin at guideline-recommended intensity (269 [33.3%] vs 2145 [43.9%], respectively; P .001; relative risk, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.00-1.15]; P = .05, after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors). The median (interquartile range) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of patients receiving treatment were higher among African American than white individuals (97.0 [76.0-121.0] mg/dL vs 85.0 [68.0-105.0] mg/dL; P .001). African American individuals were less likely than white individuals to believe statins were safe (292 [36.2%] vs 2800 [57.3%]; P .001) or effective (564 [70.0%] vs 3635 [74.4%]; P = .008) and were less likely to trust their clinician (663 [82.3%] vs 4579 [93.8%]; P .001). Group differences in statin undertreatment were not significant after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and clinician factors, socioeconomic status, and patient beliefs (final adjusted relative risk, 1.03 [95% CI 0.96-1.11]; P = .35).African American individuals were less likely to receive guideline-recommended statin therapy. Demographic, clinical, socioeconomic, belief-related, and clinician differences contributed to observed differences and represent potential targets for intervention.

When compared against placebo in randomized trials, statins are extremely well tolerated, causing muscle-related side effects in 1% or fewer of treated patients.1 Yet in routine practice, patients often report having symptoms which are misattributed to their statin.2–4 Using data from the PALM Registry, we examined patient-reported rates of statin intolerance, characteristics of patients with perceived side effects, and response to perceived statin intolerance in contemporary practice. The data, analytic methods, and study materials will not be made available to other researchers for purposes of reproducing the results. The PALM Registry enrolled 7938 patients from 140 primary care, cardiology, and endocrinology practices in the United States (May 27, 2015 to November 12, 2015) and has been described in detail.5 Trained study coordinators identified eligible patients (patients on a statin, at risk for cardiovascular disease [CVD], or with prevalent CVD, in the Data Supplement) at the time of their visit, who were then sequentially enrolled. Of 9788 eligible patients, n=7937 (81%) consented and enrolled in the study. Patients were then surveyed on statin use, perceived statin-related symptoms and response to symptoms, beliefs about statins and CVD, and sociodemographic characteristics (response rate 95.3%, in the Data Supplement). Clinical characteristics and medications were abstracted from the medical record by study coordinators. All patients had core laboratory lipid levels (LabCorp, Burlington, NC). Categorical variables were compared with Mantel–Haenszel χ2 tests and continuous variables using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate factors associated with symptoms using generalized estimating equations to account for clustering within site, with backward model selection at P

Background: Prior ATPIII lipid guidelines recommended statin therapy for patients with clinical ASCVD to achieve low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets, while the 2013 ACC/AHA lipid guidelines recommend high-intensity statin therapy for all ASCVD patients. How closely these recommendations are followed in routine clinical practice is unknown. Methods: We evaluated statin use, intensity, and LDL-C values in 1,483 patients with ASCVD (coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral arterial disease) enrolled and seen serially at 62 geographically dispersed US cardiology and primary care clinics in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry between May - September 2015. Factors associated with high intensity statin use (atorvastatin ≥40 mg or rosuvastatin ≥20 mg daily) and LDL-C Results: Of 1,483 ASCVD patients, 86.2% were on a statin, but only 31.4% were on a high-intensity statin. Overall, 64.0% had an LDL-C Discussion: Substantial gaps in care remain for secondary prevention of ASCVD despite simplified recommendations. While the majority of patients with ASCVD in community practice are on a statin, only one-third are on high intensity statins and over two-thirds have LDL ≥70 mg/dL.

In the United States heart disease causes more than one-third of all deaths and most of these occur in women, not men, although women and health care professionals alike continue to view death from heart disease as a threat primarily to middle-aged men. The disparity between genders in the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be the result of significant differences in both cardiovascular risk factors and presentation between men and women. This article reviews recent data regarding unique sex-specific characteristics of both risk for, and presentation of, CVD in women.

Abstract Recently, increases in the plasma concentration of soluble fibrin (SF) have been suggested to be sensitive and specific for myocardial infarction (MI). However, the relationship between elevations in the SF concentration and the onset of symptoms and clinical course of MI is unknown. In addition, there are no data regarding the relationship between SF concentrations and concentrations of other markers of procoagulant (fibrinopeptide A [FPA]) and fibrinolytic (cross-linked fibrin degradation products [XL-FDPs]) activity in patients with MI. In this study, concentrations of SF were measured with a novel antigen-based assay for 93 MI patients and 29 control subjects, and the relationship between SF concentrations and those of XL-FDPs and FPA was determined. Increases in SF, FPA, and XL-FDP concentrations were documented in 55.9%, 45.2%, and 73.9%, respectively, of patients with MI, but there was no relationship between the concentrations of these markers. Increases in the concentration of SF or XL-FDPs did not show a relationship to increases in the concentration of FPA. Concentrations of XL-FDPs but not of SF were elevated to a greater extent in patients with MI complications (defined as death, ventricular arrhythmia, severe congestive heart failure, or mural thrombus). Increases in SF and XL-FDPs were not sensitive enough for the diagnosis of MI, but increased concentrations of XL-FDPs appear to predict those patients who are at higher risk for MI-related complications.

Hirudin is a potent, direct, and highly specific inhibitor of both free and clot-bound thrombin. Previous reports have shown hirudin to be superior to heparin when given with tissue plasminogen activator and aspirin for improving the incidence and rate of reperfusion as well as reducing reocclusion of infarct-related arteries. Patients with acute myocardial infarction were randomized to hirudin versus heparin in conjunction with streptokinase (1.5 × 10 6 U) and aspirin (325 mg/day). Study drug treatment was a 5-day infusion of either heparin, as a 5,000 U bolus, followed by a 1,000 U/hour infusion adjusted to a target activated partial thromboplastin time of 65 to 90 seconds (n = 71), or a constant infusion of hirudin at 1 of 3 doses (dose 1, n = 55: 0.15 mg/kg bolus + 0.05 mg/kg/hour infusion; dose 2, n = 31: 0.3 mg/kg bolus + 0.1 mg/kg/hour infusion; or dose 3, n = 36: 0.6 mg/kg bolus + 0.2 mg/kg/hour infusion). The incidence of major hemorrhage was similar between the heparin group (5.6%) and any of the hirudin dose groups (dose 1 = 5.5%, dose 2 = 6.5%, dose 3 = 5.6%). At hospital discharge the occurrence of death, nonfatal reinfarction, congestive heart failure, or cardiogenic shock was greater in patients receiving the lowest dose of hirudin (21.6%) than in those receiving the higher doses of hirudin (dose 2 = 9.7%, dose 3 = 11.4%). A trend toward a reduction in mortality and nonfatal reinfarction was seen at hospital discharge with the 2 higher doses of hirudin (dose 2 = 9.7%, dose 3 = 5.7%) when compared with the lowest dose of hirudin (13.7%) and at 6 weeks (dose 2 = 9.7%, dose 3 = 5.7% vs dose 1 = 17.6%). In this pilot trial, hirudin appeared to be as safe as heparin when given with streptokinase and aspirin to patients with acute myocardial infarction. Although this study was not prospectively designed to detect a difference in efficacy, a trend toward a lower rate of death, reinfarction, cardiogenic shock, and congestive heart failure was observed with the higher doses of hirudin when compared with the lowest dose.

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pulmonary and systemic hemodynamic effects of Definity in patients with normal as well as those with elevated pulmonary artery pressure at baseline. Secondary objectives of the study were to evaluate safety and determine whether any potential immunologic reactions develop after Definity administration. Methods Patients with normal and elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure undergoing right-heart catheterization received Definity (10 μL/kg) as a slow bolus over 30 to 60 sec. Multiple sequential measurements of right atrial pressure, pulmonary artery systolic pressure, pulmonary artery diastolic pressure, mean pulmonary artery pressure, cardiac output, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure were made before and after Definity administration. Vital signs, electrocardiograms, and blood samples were taken at multiple time points. Patients were followed for the development of adverse events. Results A total of 32 patients (16 with elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure > 35 mm Hg) were enrolled. No significant changes in any pulmonary or systemic hemodynamic parameters, vital sign values, electrocardiographic data, or laboratory variables were found for data obtained before versus after receipt of Definity. Conclusions The administration of Definity at the approved dosage does not change pulmonary or systemic hemodynamics in control patients or those with mild to moderate pulmonary hypertension. No significant changes were noted in a wide array of clinical and laboratory safety assessments after patients were exposed to Definity.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is defined as an arterial brachial index (ABI) of < or =0.90 in the lower extremities and results from a narrowing of the arteries as a result of progressive atherosclerosis. PAD affects 12-20% of Americans aged 65 years or older; however, most are asymptomatic and many do not seek treatment. Improved awareness and education in both the general population and among health care providers about these modifiable risk factors has the potential to improve general health and decrease morbidity and mortality secondary to atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Anticoagulant therapy for acute coronary syndromes is becoming more complex as newer agents are added to unfractionated heparin and warfarin. The anticoagulants used in current clinical practice are low molecular weight heparins, direct thrombin inhibitors, and heparinoids. Properties of and recent clinical trial data regarding these newer anticoagulants are reviewed in reference to current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines.

Thrombosis plays a central role in the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndromes. Currently available therapies, which possess primarily antithrombotic and fibrinolytic properties, have improved the clinical outcome of patients with unstable angina and myocardial infarction. However, because of residual thrombosis, a significant proportion of patients with acute coronary syndromes develop complications such as reocclusion, reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, and stenosis, with clinical manisfestations ranging from stable angina to death. We currently lack critical information regarding the balance between thrombosis and fibrinolysis that would help guide the development of short-term, long-term, and preventive treatments. Plasma markers of thrombosis and fibrinolysis are likely to be crucial to the development and use of current and future therapeutic approaches. The following is an overview of some currently available and novel assays for thrombotic and fibrinolytic activity, and recent clinical data on their potential role in the assessment of acute coronary syndromes and in guiding therapy.