Dataset Information

Efficacy, safety and clinical outcome associated with statin use for primary prevention in Korean patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level ≥ 190 mg/dL: A retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although the current guideline recommends the use of high-intensity statin to reduce the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level by 50% in patients with baseline value of ≥ 190 mg/dL, direct application of this recommendation to Asian populations is still questionable. This study was performed to investigate the statin response of LDL-C in Korean patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL.

Methods

A total of 1,075 Korean patients (age 60.7 ± 12.2 years, women 68%) with baseline LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL without cardiovascular disease was retrospectively reviewed. Lipid profiles at 6 months, side effects and clinical outcomes during the follow-up period after statin treatment were assessed according to statin intensity.

Results

Most of the patients (76.3%) were treated with moderate-intensity statins, 11.4% with high-intensity statins, and 12.3% with a statin + ezetimibe. The reductions in LDL-C percentage at 6 months were 48.0%, 56.0% and 53.3% in patients treated with moderate-intensity statins, high-intensity statins and statin + ezetimibe, respectively (P < 0.001). Side effects requiring dose reduction, medication switch or drug interruption were observed in 1.3%, 4.9% and 2.3% of patients treated with moderate-intensity statin, high-intensity statin and statin + ezetimibe, respectively (P = 0.024). During the median follow-duration of 815 days (interquartile range, 408–1,361 days), the incidences of cardiovascular events were not different among the 3 groups (log-rank P = 0.823).

Conclusions

Compared to high-intensity statin, moderate-intensity statin was effective enough in reaching target goal of LDL-C without increase in cardiovascular risk and with fewer side effects in Korean patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL.

SUBMITTER: Kim H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10259785 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥190 mg/dL are at high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. Treatment guidelines recommend intensive treatment in these patients. Variation in the use of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) in these patients in a national sample of cardiology practices is not known.Methods and resultsUsing data from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry, we assessed the proportion of patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL (n=49 447) receiving statin, high-intensity statin, LLT associated with ≥50% LDL-C lowering, ezetimibe, or a PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitor between January 2013 and December 2016. We assessed practice-level rates and variation in LLT use using median rate ratio (MRR) adjusted for patient and practice characteristics. MRRs represent the likelihood that 2 random practices would differ in treatment of identical patients with LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL. The proportion of patients receiving a statin, high-intensity statin, LLT associated with ≥50% LDL-C reduction, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor were 58.5%, 31.9%, 34.6%, 8.5%, and 1.5%, respectively. Median practice-level rates and adjusted MRR for statin (56% [interquartile range, 47.3%-64.8%]; MRR, 1.20 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.23]), high-intensity statin (30.2% [interquartile range, 12.1%-41.1%]; MRR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.12-2.51]), LLT with ≥50% LDL-C lowering (31.8% [interquartile range, 15.3%-45.5%]; MRR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.95-2.28]), ezetimibe (5.8% [interquartile range, 2.8%-9.8%]; MRR, 2.42 [95% CI, 2.21-2.63]), and PCSK9 inhibitors (0.16% [interquartile range, 0%-1.9%]; MRR, 2.38 [95% CI, 2.04-2.72]) indicated significant gaps and >200% variation in receipt of several of these medications for patients across practices. Among those without concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, even larger treatment gaps were noted (proportion of patients on a statin, high-intensity statin, LLT with ≥50% LDL-C reduction, ezetimibe, or PCSK9 inhibitor were 50.8%, 25.25%, 26.8%, 4.9%, and 0.74%, respectively).ConclusionsEvidence-based LLT use remains low among patients with elevated LDL-C with significant variation in care. System-level interventions are needed to address these gaps and reduce variation in care of these high-risk patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe risk of stroke in individuals with very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations remains high. We sought to prioritize predictive risk factors for stroke in Chinese participants with LDL-C concentrations < 70 mg/dL using a survival conditional inference tree, a machine learning method.MethodsThe training dataset included 9327 individuals with LDL-C concentrations < 70 mg/dL who were free of cardiovascular diseases and did not use lipid-modifying drugs from the Kailuan I study (N = 101,510). We examined the validity of this algorithm in a second Chinese cohort of 1753 participants with LDL-C concentrations < 70 mg/dL from the Kailuan II study (N = 35,856).ResultsDuring a mean 8.5-9.0-year follow-up period, we identified 388 ischemic stroke cases and 145 hemorrhagic stroke cases in the training dataset and 20 ischemic stroke cases and 8 hemorrhagic stroke cases in the validation dataset. Of 15 examined predictors, poorly controlled blood pressure and very low LDL-C concentrations (≤ 40 mg/dL) were the top hierarchical predictors of both ischemic stroke risk and hemorrhagic stroke risk. The groups, characterized by the presence of 2-3 of aforementioned risk factors, were associated with a higher risk of ischemic stroke (hazard ratio (HR) 7.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.01-9.85 in the training dataset; HR 4.68, 95%CI 1.58-13.9 in the validation dataset) and hemorrhagic stroke (HR 3.94, 95%CI 2.54-6.11 in the training dataset; HR 4.73, 95%CI 0.81-27.6 in the validation dataset), relative to the lowest risk groups (presence of 0-1 of these factors). There was a linear association between cumulative average LDL-C concentrations and stroke risk. LDL-C concentrations ≤ 40 mg/dL was significantly associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (HR 2.07, 95%CI 1.53, 2.80) and hemorrhagic stroke (HR 2.70, 95%CI 1.70, 4.30) compared to LDL-C concentrations of 55-70 mg/dL, after adjustment for age, hypertension status, and other covariates.ConclusionIndividuals with extremely low LDL-C concentrations without previous lipid-modifying treatment could still be at high stroke risk.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Register, ChiCTR-TNRC-11001489 . Registered on 24-08-2011.

Project description:BackgroundRobust evidence is lacking on optimal timing of statin administration and its impact on patient outcomes.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate among incident statin users the relationship between those prescribed evening vs. daily dosing instructions, medication adherence, and changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c).DesignThis is an observational cohort study at Sutter Health, a community-based healthcare system, 2010-2016.ParticipantsPatients were ≥ 35 years of age as of the first statin prescription (baseline), with 12 to 36 months of electronic health record activity before and after baseline. Incident use was defined as no statin prescription in 12 months prior to baseline.Main measuresDifferences in medication adherence (proportion of days covered ≥ 0.80) over 12 months from baseline and mean change in LDL-c between 12 and 24 months from baseline were measured using regression modeling, adjusting for baseline demographics and clinical, prescriber, and statin characteristics.Key resultsAmong 31,252 patients with valid statin prescriptions between 2010 and 2016, 5099 eligible incident statin users (mean age, 63 years) were identified, of whom 53% were prescribed evening and 47% daily dosing instructions. No difference in likelihood of statin adherence over 12 months was observed for evening vs. daily dosing (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.90; 95% CI 0.75, 1.08). No differences were observed in mean change in LDL-c (adjusted mean difference 1.42 mg/dL; 95% CI - 1.02, 3.89) or likelihood of attaining LDL-c < 70 mg/dL (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.67, 1.04) for evening vs. daily dosing over a mean of 19 months follow-up.ConclusionsAmong incident statin users from a real-world clinical setting, those with daily and evening dosing instructions had similar adherence rates and mean changes in LDL-c. Given potential clinical equipoise for evening and daily dosing, clinicians should consider patient-tailored statin dosing instructions to reduce potentially unnecessary regimen complexity.