scholarly journals Treatment Inertia in Patients With Familial Hypercholesterolemia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anatoly Langer ◽  
G. B. John Mancini ◽  
Mary Tan ◽  
Shaun G. Goodman ◽  
Vineeta Ahooja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Familial Hypercholesterolemia ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Recommended Level

Background We studied care gap in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with respect to lipid‐lowering therapy. Methods and Results We enrolled patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or FH and low‐density lipoprotein‐cholesterol >2.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. During follow‐up physicians received online reminders of treatment recommendations of 2009 patients (median age, 63 years, 42% women), 52.4% had CVD only, 31.7% FH only, and 15.9% both CVD and FH. Patients with FH were younger and more likely to be women and non‐White with significantly higher baseline low‐density lipoprotein‐cholesterol level (mmol/L) as compared with patients with CVD (FH 3.92±1.48 versus CVD 2.96±0.94, P <0.0001). Patients with FH received less statin (70.6% versus 79.2%, P =0.0001) at baseline but not ezetimibe (28.1% versus 20.4%, P =0.0003). Among patients with FH only, 45.3% were at low‐density lipoprotein target (≥ 50% reduction from pre‐treatment level or low‐density lipoprotein <2.5 mmol/L) at baseline and increasing to 65.8% and 73.6% by visit 2 and 3, respectively. Among patients with CVD only, none were at recommended level (≤2.0 mmol/L) at baseline and 44.3% and 53.3% were at recommended level on second and third visit, respectively. When primary end point was analyzed as a difference between baseline and last available follow‐up observation, only 22.0% of patients with FH only achieved it as compared with 45.8% with CVD only ( P <0.0001) and 55.2% with both FH+CVD ( P <0.0001). Conclusions There is significant treatment inertia in patients with FH including those with CVD. Education focused on patients with FH should continue to be undertaken.

scholarly journals U-Shaped Relationship of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol With Risk of Severe COVID-19 From a Multicenter Pooled Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiao Gong ◽  
Yaqiong Chen ◽  
Yusheng Jie ◽  
Mingkai Tan ◽  
Zhaofang Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Odds Ratios ◽  
Lowering Therapy ◽  
Severe Group

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a well-known risk factor for coronary heart disease but protects against infection and sepsis. We aimed to disclose the exact association between LDL-C and severe 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Baseline data were retrospectively collected for 601 non-severe COVID-19 patients from two centers in Guangzhou and one center in Shenzhen, and patients on admission were medically observed for at least 15 days to determine the final outcome, including the non-severe group (n = 460) and the severe group (severe and critical cases) (n = 141). Among 601 cases, 76 (12.65%) received lipid-lowering therapy; the proportion of patients taking lipid-lowering drugs in the severe group was higher than that in the non-severe group (22.7 vs. 9.6%). We found a U-shaped association between LDL-C level and risk of severe COVID-19 using restricted cubic splines. Using univariate logistic regression analysis, odds ratios for severe COVID-19 for patients with LDL-C ≤1.6 mmol/L (61.9 mg/dL) and above 3.4 mmol/L (131.4 mg/dL) were 2.29 (95% confidence interval 1.12–4.68; p = 0.023) and 2.02 (1.04–3.94; p = 0.039), respectively, compared to those with LDL-C of 2.81–3.40 mmol/L (108.6–131.4 mg/dL); following multifactorial adjustment, odds ratios were 2.61 (1.07–6.37; p = 0.035) and 2.36 (1.09–5.14; p = 0.030). Similar results were yielded using 0.3 and 0.5 mmol/L categories of LDL-C and sensitivity analyses. Both low and high LDL-C levels were significantly associated with higher risk of severe COVID-19. Although our findings do not necessarily imply causality, they suggest that clinicians should pay more attention to lipid-lowering therapy in COVID-19 patients to improve clinical prognosis.

Abstract P43: Frequency and Predictors of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Control and Appropriate Response to Elevated LDL-C Levels in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Salim S Virani ◽  
Lechauncy D Woodard ◽  
Supicha Sookanan ◽  
Cassie R Landrum ◽  
Tracy H Urech ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Medication Possession Ratio ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
To Receive

Background: Although current cholesterol performance measures define good quality as low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels < 100mg/dl in cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients, they provide a snap shot at one time point and do not inform whether an appropriate action was taken to manage elevated LDL-C levels. We assessed frequency and predictors of this appropriate response (AR). Methods: We used administrative data to assess 22,902 CVD patients receiving care in a Veterans Affairs network of 7 hospitals and affiliated clinics. We determined the proportion of CVD patients at LDL-C goal <100 mg/dl, and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled LDL-C levels (>100 mg/dl) who had an AR [defined as the initiation or dosage increase of a lipid lowering medication (LLM), addition of a new LLM, receipt of maximum dosage or >1 LLM, or LDL-C reading <100 mg/dl] at 45 days follow-up. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate facility, provider and patient characteristics associated with AR. Results: LDL-C levels were at goal in 16,350 (71.4%) patients. An additional 2,110 (9.2%) had an AR at 45 days of follow-up. Controlling for clustering between facilities and patient's illness severity, history of diabetes (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03-1.35), hypertension (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.44), patients showing good medication adherence (medication possession ratio > 0.8) [OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.99-2.64] were associated with AR. Older CVD patients (age >75 years) were less likely to receive AR (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70). Teaching vs. non-teaching facility (p=0.40), physician vs. non-physician provider (p=0.14), specialist vs. non-specialist primary care provider (p=0.12), and patient's race (p=0.12) were not predictors of AR. Conclusion: Among patients with CVD and LDL-C above guideline recommended levels, only one-third receive AR. Diabetic and hypertensive CVD patients are more likely to receive AR, whereas older Veterans with CVD receive AR less often likely reflecting providers' belief of lack of efficacy from treatment intensification in older CVD patients. Our findings are important for quality improvement and policy making initiatives as they provide more actionable information compared with isolated LDL-C goal attainment as a quality indicator.

Comparison of LDL-C calculation by friedewald and martin/hopkins methods in 12,243 adults from the United States of America

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Penson ◽  
S.S Martin ◽  
N.C Henney ◽  
M Banach
Keyword(s):  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Threshold Value ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Abstract Background Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), and a target for lipid-lowering therapy. LDL-C is typically not measured directly but is estimated using the Friedewald formula, which assumes a fixed factor for the ratio of triglycerides (TG) to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C). However this assumption is sometimes not valid. The Martin/Hopkins (M/H) formula estimates LDL-C using an adjustable factor for the TG:VLDL-C ratio and is expected to improve upon Friedewald when predicting measured LDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB), one molecule of which is associated with each LDL particle. Purpose We compared values of LDL-C calculated by the Friedewald and M/H methods with respect to their correlation with non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and ApoB, and their classification of individuals based upon attainment of the threshold value of 70 mg/dl (1.8 mmol/l) of LDL-C. This cut-point is a treatment target for individuals at high risk of CVD in the 2019 ESC guidelines for lipid modification, and a threshold for initiating statin therapy in the 2019 ACC/AHA guidelines. Methods In this analysis we included participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2005–2016, age ≥18, &lt;80 years who had measurements for total cholesterol (TC), TG and HDL-C. LDL-C was calculated using Friedewald and M/H. We correlated LDL-C (calculated using the two methods) with non-HDL-C and ApoB. We identified individuals with LDL-C &lt;70 mg/dl using both methods. When LDL-C (Friedewald) was &lt;70, but LDL-C (M/H) was &gt;70, we classified these participants as discordant. Statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS for Windows v26. Results 12,243 individuals were included. 51.8% were female, mean (±SD) age was 45.5±17.4, 15.3% were treated with statins, ApoB was available for 2179 participants. Mean lipid concentrations (mg/dl) were: TC: 191.5±41.0, TG: 120.0±67.0, HDL-C: 54.1±15.7, LDL-C (Friedewald): 113.3±35.4; LDL-C (M/H): 114.9±35.2. In the whole population, LDL-C (M/H) was more strongly correlated than LDL-C (Friedewald) with ApoB (r=0.935 v 0.894) and non-HDL-C (r=0.981 v 0.944). In statin-treated participants, LDL-C (M/H) was also more strongly correlated with ApoB (r=0.951 v 0.914) and non-HDL-C (r=0.979 v 0.928). 1139 participants had LDL-C (Friedewald) &lt;70 mg/dl. Of these, 206 individuals (18.1%) were discordant, having LDL-C (M/H) &gt;70 mg/dl. Amongst statin-treated patients, 22.9% were discordant. Only 5.5% of individuals with LDL-C (M/H) &lt;70 mg/dl showed reverse discordance (LDL-C (Friedewald) &gt;70 mg/dl). Conclusions The M/H method of calculating LDL-C correlates more strongly with non-HDL-C and ApoB than Friedewald. Importantly the discordant results confirm previous observations that Friedewald underestimates LDL-C at low concentrations. This may result in under-use of lipid-lowering therapies. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals Lipid Management in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (24) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bimmer E. Claessen ◽  
Paul Guedeney ◽  
C. Michael Gibson ◽  
Dominick J. Angiolillo ◽  
Davide Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Management ◽  
Current State

Abstract Despite many improvements in its prevention and management, acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. Lipid management is an important part of secondary prevention after ACS, but many patients currently remain undertreated and do not attain guideline‐recommended levels of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction. This review details the current state of evidence on lipid management in patients presenting with ACS, provides directions for identification of patients who may benefit from early escalation of lipid‐lowering therapy, and discusses novel lipid‐lowering medication that is currently under investigation in clinical trials. Moreover, a treatment algorithm aimed at attaining guideline‐recommended low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels is proposed. Despite important advances in the initial treatment and secondary prevention of ACS, ≈20% of ACS survivors experience a subsequent ischemic cardiovascular event within 24 months, and 5‐year mortality ranges from 19% to 22%. Knowledge of the current state of evidence‐based lipid management after ACS is of paramount importance to improve outcomes after ACS.

Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) Goal Achievement in High-Cardiovascular-Risk Patients in Fuzhou, China

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 307-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing Wang ◽  
Yan He ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Chunming Li ◽  
Zihui Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Index Date ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the treatment patterns and goal attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and diabetes mellitus (DM) in the real-world setting in Fuzhou, China. Methods: Patients aged ≥20 years with a valid LDL-C measurement (index date) in 2016 were selected from National Healthcare Big Data in Fuzhou, China. Patients were stratified into mutually exclusive cardiovascular risk categories: ASCVD (including recent acute coronary syndrome [ACS], chronic coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, and peripheral arterial disease [PAD]), and DM alone (without ASCVD). Lipid-modifying medication and LDL-C attainment at the index date were assessed. Results: A total of 21 989 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 17 320 (78.8%) with ASCVD and 4669 (21.2%) with DM alone; 47.7% of patients received current statin therapy in the overall cohort (53.5% in ASCVD, 26.5% for DM); 20.5% ASCVD population achieved LDL-C target with the highest in patients with recent ACS (33.8%), followed by chronic CHD (21.2%), PAD (20.9%), and ischemic stroke (17.3%); 49.0% of patients with DM achieved LDL-C target. Higher LDL-C attainment was observed in high-intensity statin and a combination of statin and nonstatin groups. Atorvastatin was the most commonly used statin with the highest LDL-C attainment, followed by rosuvastatin. Conclusion: Compared with previous studies in China, our study found a relatively low statin use and LDL-C target attainment, but higher than similar studies in Europe. Guidelines should be well complied and more prescription of high-intensity statin or statin and nonstatin combination should be advocated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document