6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Projected Real‐World Effectiveness of Using Aggressive Low‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Targets Among Elderly Statin Users Following Acute Coronary Syndromes in Canada

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The extent to which outcome benefits may be achieved through the implementation of aggressive low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets in real world settings remains unknown, especially among elderly statin users following acute coronary syndromes.

          Methods and Results

          A population‐based cohort study consisting of 19 544 post‐acute coronary syndrome statin‐users aged ≥66 years between January 1, 2017 and March 31, 2014 was used to project the number of adverse outcome events (acute myocardial infarction or death from any cause) that could be prevented if all post‐acute coronary syndrome elderly statin users were treated to 1 of 2 LDL cholesterol target levels (≤50 and ≤70 mg/dL). The number of preventable adverse outcomes was estimated by using model‐based expected event probabilities as derived from Cox Proportional hazards models. In total, 61.6% and 25.5% of the elderly patients met LDL cholesterol targets of ≤70 and ≤50 mg/dL, respectively, based on current management. No more than 2.3 adverse events per 1000 elderly statin users (95% confidence interval: −0.7 to 5.4, P=0.62) could be prevented over 8.1 years if all patients were to be treated from current LDL cholesterol levels to either of the 2 LDL cholesterol targets of 70 or 50 mg/dL.

          Conclusions

          The number of acute myocardial infarctions or death that could be prevented through the implementation of LDL cholesterol targets with statins is negligible among an elderly post‐acute coronary syndrome population. Such findings may have implications for the applicability of newer agents, such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type‐9‐ inhibitors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial.

          Evidence suggests that more intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) than is commonly applied clinically will provide further benefit in stable coronary artery disease. To compare the effects of 2 strategies of lipid lowering on the risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with a previous myocardial infarction (MI). The IDEAL study, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point evaluation trial conducted at 190 ambulatory cardiology care and specialist practices in northern Europe between March 1999 and March 2005 with a median follow-up of 4.8 years, which enrolled 8888 patients aged 80 years or younger with a history of acute MI. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a high dose of atorvastatin (80 mg/d; n = 4439), or usual-dose simvastatin (20 mg/d; n = 4449). Occurrence of a major coronary event, defined as coronary death, confirmed nonfatal acute MI, or cardiac arrest with resuscitation. During treatment, mean LDL-C levels were 104 (SE, 0.3) mg/dL in the simvastatin group and 81 (SE, 0.3) mg/dL in the atorvastatin group. A major coronary event occurred in 463 simvastatin patients (10.4%) and in 411 atorvastatin patients (9.3%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.01; P = .07). Nonfatal acute MI occurred in 321 (7.2%) and 267 (6.0%) in the 2 groups (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .02), but no differences were seen in the 2 other components of the primary end point. Major cardiovascular events occurred in 608 and 533 in the 2 groups, respectively (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; P = .02). Occurrence of any coronary event was reported in 1059 simvastatin and 898 atorvastatin patients (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P<.001). Noncardiovascular death occurred in 156 (3.5%) and 143 (3.2%) in the 2 groups (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.15; P = .47). Death from any cause occurred in 374 (8.4%) in the simvastatin group and 366 (8.2%) in the atorvastatin group (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.13; P = .81). Patients in the atorvastatin group had higher rates of drug discontinuation due to nonserious adverse events; transaminase elevation resulted in 43 (1.0%) vs 5 (0.1%) withdrawals (P<.001). Serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis were rare in both groups. In this study of patients with previous MI, intensive lowering of LDL-C did not result in a significant reduction in the primary outcome of major coronary events, but did reduce the risk of other composite secondary end points and nonfatal acute MI. There were no differences in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Patients with MI may benefit from intensive lowering of LDL-C without an increase in noncardiovascular mortality or other serious adverse reactions.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00159835.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial.

            Limited data are available evaluating how the timing and intensity of statin therapy following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event affect clinical outcome. To compare early initiation of an intensive statin regimen with delayed initiation of a less intensive regimen in patients with ACS. International, randomized, double-blind trial of patients with ACS receiving 40 mg/d of simvastatin for 1 month followed by 80 mg/d thereafter (n = 2265) compared with ACS patients receiving placebo for 4 months followed by 20 mg/d of simvastatin (n = 2232), who were enrolled in phase Z of the A to Z trial between December 29, 1999, and January 6, 2003. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, readmission for ACS, and stroke. Follow-up was for at least 6 months and up to 24 months. Among the patients in the placebo plus simvastatin group, the median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level achieved while taking placebo was 122 mg/dL (3.16 mmol/L) at 1 month and was 77 mg/dL (1.99 mmol/L) at 8 months while taking 20 mg/d of simvastatin. Among the patients in the simvastatin only group, the median LDL cholesterol level achieved at 1 month while taking 40 mg/d of simvastatin was 68 mg/dL (1.76 mmol/L) and was 63 mg/dL (1.63 mmol/L) at 8 months while taking 80 mg/d of simvastatin. A total of 343 patients (16.7%) in the placebo plus simvastatin group experienced the primary end point compared with 309 (14.4%) in the simvastatin only group (40 mg/80 mg) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.04; P =.14). Cardiovascular death occurred in 109 (5.4%) and 83 (4.1%) patients in the 2 groups (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.00; P =.05) but no differences were observed in other individual components of the primary end point. No difference was evident during the first 4 months between the groups for the primary end point (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25; P =.89), but from 4 months through the end of the study the primary end point was significantly reduced in the simvastatin only group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P =.02). Myopathy (creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal associated with muscle symptoms) occurred in 9 patients (0.4%) receiving simvastatin 80 mg/d, in no patients receiving lower doses of simvastatin, and in 1 patient receiving placebo (P =.02). The trial did not achieve the prespecified end point. However, among patients with ACS, the early initiation of an aggressive simvastatin regimen resulted in a favorable trend toward reduction of major cardiovascular events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in the prevention of cardiovascular end points in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (ASPEN).

              Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is increased in type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of 10 mg of atorvastatin versus placebo on CVD prevention in subjects with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels below contemporary guideline targets. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of atorvastatin or placebo in a 4-year, double-blind, parallel-group study. The composite primary end point comprised cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, recanalization, coronary artery bypass surgery, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and worsening or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. A total of 2,410 subjects with type 2 diabetes were randomized. Mean LDL cholesterol reduction in the atorvastatin group over 4 years was 29% versus placebo (P < 0.0001). When we compared atorvastatin versus placebo, composite primary end point rates were 13.7 and 15.0%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.90 [95% CI 0.73-1.12]). In the subset of 1,905 subjects without prior myocardial infarction or interventional procedure, 10.4% of atorvastatin- and 10.8% of placebo-treated subjects experienced a primary end point (0.97 [0.74-1.28]). In the 505 subjects with prior myocardial infarction or interventional procedure, 26.2% of atorvastatin- and 30.8% of placebo-treated subjects experienced a primary end point (0.82 [0.59-1.15]). Relative risk reductions in fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction were 27% overall (P = 0.10) and 19% (P = 0.41) and 36% (P = 0.11) for subjects without and with prior myocardial infarction or interventional procedure, respectively. Composite end point reductions were not statistically significant. This result may relate to the overall study design, the types of subjects recruited, the nature of the primary end point, and the protocol changes required because of changing treatment guidelines. For these reasons, the results of the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (ASPEN) did not confirm the benefit of therapy but do not detract from the imperative that the majority of diabetic patients are at risk of coronary heart disease and deserve LDL cholesterol lowering to the currently recommended targets.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                david.alter@ices.on.ca
                Journal
                J Am Heart Assoc
                J Am Heart Assoc
                10.1002/(ISSN)2047-9980
                JAH3
                ahaoa
                Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2047-9980
                12 May 2018
                15 May 2018
                : 7
                : 10 ( doiID: 10.1002/jah3.2018.7.issue-10 )
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 2 ] Schulich Heart Centre Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 3 ] University of Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 4 ] Women's College Hospital Institute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 5 ] University Health Network Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 6 ] Department of Family Medicine University of Ottawa Toronto Canada
                [ 7 ] Western University of Health Sciences Pomona CA
                [ 8 ] Women's College Hospital Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 9 ] VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System Los Angeles CA
                Author notes
                [* ] Correspondence to: David A. Alter, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Program, UHN‐Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, 347 Rumsey Road, Toronto, Ontario N/A M4G 1R7, Canada. E‐mail: david.alter@ 123456ices.on.ca
                Article
                JAH33200
                10.1161/JAHA.117.007535
                6015304
                29754125
                © 2018 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 17, Words: 8895
                Product
                Funding
                Funded by: ICES
                Funded by: Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (ICRH–CIHR) Chronic Diseases Team
                Award ID: TCA 118349
                Award ID: FDN‐143313
                Award ID: MOP‐111035
                Funded by: CIHR foundation
                Funded by: Canadian Vascular Network (CVN)
                Funded by: Institute of Aging
                Funded by: Hypertension Canada
                Funded by: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long‐Term Care
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Health Services and Outcomes Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                jah33200
                15 May 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.3.8.2 mode:remove_FC converted:15.05.2018

                Comments

                Comment on this article