Search

The article presents a study on reaching low density lipoprotein (LDL) targets in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome in the U.S. The study investigates whether using an algorithm to select the starting dose of a statin would facilitate achieving lipid targets in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome. The result reveals that a targeted starting dose of atorvastatin allows most patients with type 2 diabetes or the metabolic syndrome in achieving their LDL-C target safely, the strategic therapy may help overcome the treatment gap until observed in the treatment of lipids in diabetes.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guideline recommendations for the management of lipids in patients at risk for cardiovascular disease is largely based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration. LDL-C is commonly calculated by the Friedewald equation, which has many limitations. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) equation better estimates LDL-C, particularly in patients with hypertriglyceridemia and/or low LDL-C. We validated the NIH LDL-C equation at the first Canadian clinical laboratory to implement this equation., Methods: A total of 3161 lipid ultracentrifugation results from a specialized lipid cohort of 2836 patients were included. LDL-C was calculated using the NIH and Friedewald equations and compared to LDL-C measured by ultracentrifugation. We determined the accuracy of these equations at treatment thresholds and developed NIH equation restriction criteria to ensure only accurate results are reported., Results: Ultracentrifugation LDL-C more strongly correlated with NIH-calculated LDL-C (r 2  = 0.889) than Friedewald-calculated LDL-C (r 2  = 0.807) and resulted in fewer non-sensical negative LDL-C values. The correlation for NIH-calculated LDL-C improved to r 2  = 0.975 after applying our restriction criteria. The NIH equation showed equivalent or superior concordance with ultracentrifugation at treatment thresholds. The LDL-C mean absolute difference increased with increasing TG and decreasing LDL-C concentrations, although the NIH equation was more robust under both conditions., Conclusions: We validated the NIH equation against ultracentrifugation in a cohort with a wide lipid concentration range, which supported its superiority over the Friedewald equation. We recommend clinical implementing the NIH equation for all patients except those with type III hyperlipoproteinemia or TG > 9.04 mmol/L, with an LDL-C lower reporting limit of <0.50 mmol/L., (Copyright © 2021 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although cardiologists have long treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), T2DM has traditionally been considered just a comorbidity that affected the development and progression of the disease. Over the past decade, a number of factors have shifted that have forced the cardiology community to reconsider the role of T2DM in CAD. First, in addition to being associated with increased cardiovascular risk, T2DM has the potential to affect a number of treatment choices for CAD. In this document, we discuss the role that T2DM has in the selection of testing for CAD, in medical management (both secondary prevention strategies and treatment of stable angina), and in the selection of revascularization strategy. Second, although glycemic control has been recommended as a part of comprehensive risk factor management in patients with CAD, there is mounting evidence that the mechanism by which glucose is managed can have a substantial impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In this document, we discuss the role of glycemic management (both in intensity of control and choice of medications) in cardiovascular outcomes. It is becoming clear that the cardiologist needs both to consider T2DM in cardiovascular treatment decisions and potentially to help guide the selection of glucose-lowering medications. Our statement provides a comprehensive summary of effective, patient-centered management of CAD in patients with T2DM, with emphasis on the emerging evidence. Given the increasing prevalence of T2DM and the accumulating evidence of the need to consider T2DM in treatment decisions, this knowledge will become ever more important to optimize our patients' cardiovascular outcomes.

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering efficacy and safety of a bempedoic acid 180 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg fixed-dose combination in patients with hypercholesterolemia and a high risk of cardiovascular disease receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy., Methods: This phase 3, double-blind clinical trial enrolled adult patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, or multiple cardiovascular disease risk factors. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:2:1) to treatment with the fixed-dose combination, bempedoic acid 180 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo added to stable background statin therapy for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage change from baseline to week 12 in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol., Results: Among the 301 patients included in the primary analysis, the mean baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 3.87 mmol/L (149.8 mg/dL). At week 12, the fixed-dose combination lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-36.2%) significantly more than placebo (1.8% (placebo-corrected difference -38.0%); P  < 0.001), ezetimibe alone (-23.2%; P  < 0.001) or bempedoic acid alone (-17.2%; P  < 0.001). The fixed-dose combination lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels similarly across subgroups, including patients receiving high-intensity, other-intensity or no statin therapy. Improvements with the fixed-dose combination were also observed in secondary efficacy endpoints, including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. In this trial, fixed-dose combination treatment had a generally similar safety profile compared with bempedoic acid, ezetimibe or placebo., Conclusion: The bempedoic acid and ezetimibe fixed-dose combination significantly lowered low-density lipoprotein cholesterol versus placebo or other oral monotherapies and had a favourable safety profile when added to maximally tolerated statin therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and high cardiovascular disease risk., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03337308.

Background: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions., Objective: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer., Results: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% ( P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% ( P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets ( P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy., Conclusions: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy., Disclosures: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Background and Aims: Patients with hyperlipidemia who are unable to tolerate optimal statin therapy are at increased cardiovascular risk due to ongoing elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The objective of CLEAR Tranquility (NCT03001076) was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid when added to background lipid-modifying therapy in patients with a history of statin intolerance who require additional LDL-C lowering., Methods: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients with a history of statin intolerance and an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL while on stable lipid-modifying therapy. After a 4-week ezetimibe 10 mg/day run-in period, patients were randomized 2:1 to treatment with bempedoic acid 180 mg or placebo once daily added to ezetimibe 10 mg/day for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C., Results: The study population comprised 269 patients (181 bempedoic acid, 88 placebo). Bempedoic acid added to background lipid-modifying therapy that included ezetimibe reduced LDL-C by 28.5% more than placebo (p < 0.001; -23.5% bempedoic acid, +5.0% placebo). Significant reductions in secondary endpoints, including non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-23.6%), total cholesterol (-18.0%), apolipoprotein B (-19.3%), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (-31.0%), were observed with bempedoic acid vs. placebo (p < 0.001). Bempedoic acid was well tolerated; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, muscle-related adverse events, and discontinuations were similar in the bempedoic acid and placebo treatment groups., Conclusions: Bempedoic acid may provide an oral therapeutic option complementary to ezetimibe in statin intolerant patients who require additional LDL-C lowering., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Albiglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Harmony Outcomes is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the effect of albiglutide on major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with T2DM and established CV disease., Methods: The trial was designed to recruit 9,400 patients aged ≥40 years with T2DM, prior atherosclerotic CV disease, and suboptimal glycemic control. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to albiglutide 30 mg (potentially increasing to 50 mg) or matching placebo administered once weekly by subcutaneous injection. The trial will continue until ≥611 confirmed primary outcome events (CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) occur over a median follow-up of at least 1.5 years., Results: A total of 9,463 patients were enrolled at 611 sites in 28 countries between July 2015 and December 2016. The mean age was 64.1 years; duration of T2DM, 13.8 years; and glycated hemoglobin, 8.7%. The percentage of patients with prior coronary artery disease was 70.5%; peripheral arterial disease, 25.0%; stroke, 17.7%; heart failure, 20.2%; and chronic kidney disease, 22.6%., Conclusions: Harmony Outcomes will assess the CV safety of albiglutide in patients with T2DM and CV disease. Trials of other agents in the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist class have shown CV benefit for only some of these medications, possibly due to differences in trial design or instead due to differences in drug structure or metabolism. Harmony Outcomes will provide information critical to our understanding of this heterogenous class of glucose-lowering agents., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite the widespread dissemination of clinical practice guidelines on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD), CVD causes one third of deaths worldwide and almost half of all deaths in the developed world. It is therefore likely that, although some aspects of CVD management have improved, there is still a significant shortfall between what is known about CVD prevention and what is put into action. Twenty-one experts in the field of CVD from around the world attended a focus panel meeting in Marlow-on-Thames, UK (see acknowledgements for a list of meeting participants). These experts were invited to discuss practical strategies and tactics for overcoming barriers to the implementation of guidelines on CVD prevention, and lipid management in particular. This article reviews and updates the key topics presented during the course of the meeting, captures the essence of the group discussions, and summarizes the meeting outcomes. The participants concluded that initial efforts to implement CVD prevention guidelines more effectively are best directed at high-risk patients who have already been identified. Once current patients achieve their targets, more attention can be paid to finding untreated patients at risk. Recommendations from the expert panel included: Harmonize guidelines; focus on common areas of consensus rather than state-of-the-art science. Remove the boundary between primary and secondary prevention and focus on level of overall risk. Help policy makers understand the different components of CVD. Include professional societies from different specialties in guideline development and implementation, to increase ownership and decrease fragmentation of guideline committees.

Introduction: Formal didactic continuing medical education (CME) is relatively ineffective for changing physician behaviour. Diabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent disease, and interventions to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are needed., Methods: A stratified, cluster-randomized, controlled trial design was used to evaluate the effects of a teleconferenced educational detailing (TED) CME on glycemic control (hemoglobin [Hb] A1c) and family physician adherence to national diabetes guidelines. TED employed sequential, small-group, case-based education using CPGs delivered by a diabetes specialist. Medical record audit data from baseline through the end of a 12-month postintervention period were compared for the control and intervention groups. Satisfaction with the intervention was evaluated., Results: Sixty-one physicians provided 660 medical records. The intervention did not affect mean Hb A1c levels but did significantly (p = .04) alter the distribution of patients by category of glycemic control, with fewer in the intervention group in inadequate control (15.8% versus 23.9%). More patients took insulin (alone or with oral agents) in the intervention group (21.2% versus 12.0%, p = .03), and more took oral agents only in the control group (89.0% versus 82.9%, p = .005). More patients in the intervention group had documentation of body mass index (7.8% versus 1.9%, p < .02), eye exam (12.1% versus 5.1%, p = .02), and treatment plan (43.5% versus 23.6%, p = .01) and used a flow sheet (14.6% versus 7.7%, p < .03). Although there was general satisfaction with the teleconferencing format, specialist educators found the format more challenging than the family physicians., Discussion: CME delivered by teleconference was feasible, well attended, well received by participants, and improved some key diabetes management practices and outcomes.