scholarly journals Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease and Prior Stroke: Mission Impossible?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 886
Author(s):  
Pier Luigi Temporelli ◽  
Marcello Arca ◽  
Laura D’Erasmo ◽  
Raffaele De Caterina
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Lowering Therapy ◽  
Lipid Guidelines ◽  
Coronary Events

Hyperlipidemia is a powerful risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been known for a long time that lipid-lowering drugs significantly reduce morbidity from CHD, thus proving a causal role for cholesterol in coronary events. Conversely, the relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and stroke has been less clear and debated for many years. Recent data conclusively demonstrate not only the inverse epidemiological relationship of blood LDL-C with stroke, but also the efficacy of different strategies to attain cholesterol-lowering on stroke. They also dissipate lingering doubts about the possibility that lipid-lowering is linked to an increase in hemorrhagic stroke. However, despite current international lipid guidelines now strongly recommend aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including CHD and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), secondary prevention patients are often undertreated with lipid-lowering therapies in routine clinical practice. This review highlights that patients with CHD and concomitant CeVD do not receive aggressive lipid-lowering therapy despite being at very high risk and with clear evidence of benefit from lowering LDL-C levels below current targets.

scholarly journals Real-World Effectiveness of Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Male and Female Outpatients with Coronary Heart Disease: Relation to Pre-Treatment Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol, Pre-Treatment Coronary Heart Disease Risk, and other Factors

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl J. Krobot ◽  
Donald D. Yin ◽  
Evo Alemao ◽  
Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lowering Therapy ◽  
Pre Treatment

Background Determinants of the real-world effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy have been rarely assessed in an unselected observational coronary heart disease (CHD) community cohort over time. Design Randomly drawn patients (n = 605) from randomly drawn practices (n = 62) were retrospectively followed for a median of 3.6 years (1998-2002) on lipid-lowering therapy (98% statins). Methods Coronary heart disease population-averaged estimates and variances accounting for repeated measurements within patients were obtained using generalized estimating equations. Results Post-treatment low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) was 124 mg/dl in men and 141 mg/dl in women and was independently associated (all P<0.05) with pre-treatment LDL-C (+ 3.7 mg/dl per 10 mg/dl increment), female sex (+ 14.0 mg/dl), coronary bypass (-9.5 mg/dl), drug-treated diabetes mellitus (-6.8 mg/dl), and era 2002/2001 versus 1999/2000 (- 6.4 mg/dl) in age-adjusted multivariate analyses. Holding pre-treatment LDL-C constant post-treatment LDL-C was associated with pre-treatment Framingham CHD risk in men (- 13.9 mg/dl per doubling of risk), whereas LDL-C control in women resembled that in low-risk men. The likelihood of attaining LDL-C < 100 mg/dl was 0.28 in men and 0.17 in women and was likewise associated with the above factors. Conclusion Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol control remained low despite lipid-lowering therapy across a wide range of pre-treatment LDL-C and pre-treatment CHD risk. Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol control in women was inferior to that in men, a finding that warrants attention and clarification. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 12:37-45 © 2005 The European Society of Cardiology

Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy A Lauderdale ◽  
Amy Heck Sheehan
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Lowering Therapy ◽  
Cardiovascular Morbidity And Mortality ◽  
Stable Coronary Heart Disease

OBJECTIVE: To describe current data evaluating the use of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in patients with coronary heart disease. DATA SOURCES: A literature search using MEDLINE (1966–September 2004) was conducted using the search terms lipoproteins, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, coronary arteriosclerosis, and coronary disease to identify published trials comparing the effects of intensive and conventional lipid-lowering therapy. DATA SYNTHESIS: Intensive lipid-lowering therapy reduces LDL-C levels significantly more than conventional treatment and appears to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients who have recently experienced acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, evidence suggesting clinical benefits in patients with stable coronary heart disease is currently lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Although data are limited, patients with ACS may benefit from intensive lipid-lowering therapy. Several studies are underway to determine the appropriate role of intensive lipid-lowering therapy.

scholarly journals What Do US Physicians and Patients Think About Lipid‐Lowering Therapy and Goals of Treatment? Results From the GOULD Registry

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne V. Arnold ◽  
Christopher P. Cannon ◽  
James A. de Lemos ◽  
Robert S. Rosenson ◽  
Christie M. Ballantyne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Low Density ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol ◽  
Lowering Therapy

Background Because of an increasing number and complexity of treatment options for lipid‐lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, guidelines recommend greater active involvement of patients in shared decision‐making. However, patients' understanding and perceptions of the benefits, risks, and treatment objectives of lipid‐lowering therapy are unknown. Methods and Results Structured questionnaires were conducted in 5006 US outpatients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and suboptimal low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) control (LDL‐C ≥70 mg/dL) or on a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor and in 113 physician providers as a part of the GOULD (Getting to an Improved Understanding of Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Dyslipidemia Management) Registry. Mean age of the patients was 68±10 years, 60% were men, and 86% were White race. Across all patients, 63% believed heart disease was the leading cause of death in men and 46% the leading cause of death in women. Only 28% of patients thought the primary reason they were taking lipid‐lowering medication was to lower the risk of heart attack or stroke, 68% did not know their approximate LDL‐C level, and 69% did not know their LDL‐C goal. Patients on PCSK9 inhibitors (versus LDL‐C cohort), younger patients (versus age ≥65 years), and men (versus women) were somewhat more knowledgeable about their disease and its management. Most physicians (66%) felt that a lack of understanding of the importance and efficacy of statins was the primary factor contributing to nonadherence, as opposed to costs (9%) or side effects (1%). More education was the most commonly used strategy to address patient‐reported side effects. Conclusions A large proportion of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remain unaware of their underlying atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk, reasons for taking lipid‐lowering medications, current LDL‐C levels, or treatment goals. These data highlight a large education gap which, if addressed, may improve shared decision‐making and treatment adherence. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.org ; Unique identifier: NCT02993120.

scholarly journals Escalation of liPid-lOwering therapy in patientS wiTh vascular disease receiving HIGH-intensity statins: the retrospective POST-HIGH study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaehyung Ha ◽  
Bom Lee ◽  
Jung Mi Park ◽  
Moonjong Kang ◽  
Jaewon Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Lowering Therapy ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Clinical Benefits

AbstractIn this retrospective study, we investigated whether lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) escalation has clinical benefits in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels of 55–99 mg/dL (1.4–2.6 mmol/L), post high-intensity. Out of 6317 Korean patients screened in 2005–2018, 1159 individuals with ASCVD and LDL-C levels of 55–99 mg/dL after statin use equivalent to 40 mg atorvastatin were included. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 492 patients (164 with LLT escalation, 328 controls without LLT escalation) were finally analysed. Primary outcome variables were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and all-cause death. At median follow-up (1.93 years), the escalation group had a lower MACCE rate (1.72 vs. 3.38 events/100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14–0.83; p = 0.018) than the control group. The incidence of all-cause death (0.86 vs. 1.02 events/100 person-years; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.15–2.19; p = 0.42) and each MACCE component did not differ between groups. Kaplan–Meier curves exhibited lower risk of MACCE in the escalation group (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12–0.97; p = 0.040) but a difference not statistically significant in all-cause death (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.04–2.48; p = 0.26). LLT escalation was associated with reduced cardiovascular risk, supporting more aggressive LLT in this population.

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.

scholarly journals Application of the 2019 ESC/EAS dyslipidaemia guidelines to nationwide data of patients with a recent myocardial infarction: a simulation study

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (40) ◽  
pp. 3900-3909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Allahyari ◽  
Tomas Jernberg ◽  
Emil Hagström ◽  
Margrét Leosdottir ◽  
Pia Lundman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Low Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Monte Carlo Model ◽  
Density Lipoprotein ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Lipid Lowering Therapy ◽  
Pcsk9 Inhibitors ◽  
Recent Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Lowering Therapy

Abstract 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 &lt;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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document