Gaps in Guideline-Based Lipid-Lowering Therapy for Secondary Prevention in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 322†153 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are not on guideline-recommended statin therapy. We evaluated utilization of statins and other lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), and changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), among patients with ASCVD over a 1-year period. METHODS: LLT and LDL-C levels at the first outpatient visit (January 1, 2017-December 31, 2018) and 1-year follow-up were evaluated using data from Cerner Real-World Data, an electronic health record-derived data set from 92 US health systems. Logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with high-intensity statin use. RESULTS: We identified 322 153 patients with ASCVD (median age 69 years, 58.8% men, 81.8% White). Overall, 76.1% of patients were on statins, with only 39.4% on high-intensity statins. Men were more likely to receive high-intensity statins than women (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.30-1.38]). Increasing age was associated with lower odds of statin use (odds ratio, 0.79 per 5-year increase at 60 years [95% CI, 0.78-0.81]). Patients with peripheral artery disease (odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.37-0.42]) and cerebrovascular disease (odds ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.70-0.80]) had lower odds of using high-intensity statins than those with coronary artery disease. At baseline, most patients (61.3%) had elevated LDL-C (≥70 mg/dL), including 59.8% of those on low/moderate-intensity statins and 76.1% on no statin; only 45.3% achieved an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at 1 year. Nonstatin LLT use was low (ezetimibe, 4.4%; proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, 0.7%). Among patients on no statin or low/moderate-intensity statin at baseline, 14.8% and 13.4%, respectively, were on high-intensity statins at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ASCVD in routine care, high-intensity statins are underutilized, and uptitration and use of nonstatin therapy are uncommon. Women, older adults, and individuals with noncardiac ASCVD are particularly undertreated. Concerted efforts are needed to address therapeutic inertia for lipid management in patients with ASCVD.

Effect of alirocumab on individuals with type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

BACKGROUND: Mixed dyslipidemia [elevated non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and triglycerides (TGs), and decreased HDL-C] is common in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) are the preferred therapeutic targets for mixed dyslipidemia. Alirocumab is a monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) that effectively reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, ApoB, and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), and is well-tolerated in individuals with T2DM. METHODS: The previously reported open-label ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA trial data demonstrated the effects of alirocumab on individuals with non-HDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL and TGs ≥ 150 and < 500 mg/dL receiving stable maximally tolerated statin (n = 413). This post hoc subgroup analysis of the primary trial investigated the effects of alirocumab [75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) with possible increase to 150 mg Q2W at Week 12] versus usual care [ezetimibe, fenofibrate, or no additional lipid-lowering therapy (LLT)] on non-HDL-C and other lipids in individuals with T2DM and baseline TGs ≥ 200 mg/dL and HDL-C < 40 mg/dL (men) or < 50 mg/dL (women). RESULTS: Alirocumab significantly reduced non-HDL-C [LS mean difference (standard error (SE)), - 35.0% (3.9)], ApoB [LS mean difference (SE), - 34.7% (3.6)], LDL-C [LS mean difference (SE), - 47.3% (5.2)], LDL particle number [LS mean difference (SE), - 40.8% (4.1)], and Lp(a) [LS mean difference (SE), - 29.9% (5.4)] versus usual care from baseline to Week 24 (all P < 0.0001). Results were similar for alirocumab versus usual care. TG reductions were similar between alirocumab and usual care (no significant difference), but greater with fenofibrate versus alirocumab (P = 0.3371). Overall, alirocumab significantly increased HDL-C versus usual care [LS mean difference (SE), 7.9% (3.6); P < 0.05], although differences with alirocumab versus ezetimibe or fenofibrate were non-significant. Most individuals receiving alirocumab achieved ApoB < 80 mg/dL (67.9%) and non-HDL-C < 100 mg/dL (60.9%). Adverse event frequency was similar between alirocumab (67.2%) and usual care (70.7%). Additionally, no clinically relevant effect of alirocumab on change in glycemic parameters or use of antihyperglycemic agents was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Alirocumab is an effective therapeutic option for individuals with T2DM, TGs ≥ 200 mg/dL, and HDL-C < 40 mg/dL (men) or < 50 mg/dL (women). Atherogenic lipid (ApoB and non-HDL) reductions were greater with alirocumab than ezetimibe, fenofibrate, or no LLT. Consistent with previous studies, alirocumab was generally well tolerated. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02642159. Registered December 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02642159.

Comparative efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine and amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of aliskiren-based dual and triple combination therapies in US minority patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Minority patients with hypertension generally require combination therapy to reach blood pressure (BP) goals. We examined the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine therapy in self-identified minority patients in the United States with stage 2 hypertension and the impact of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to this combination. In this 8-week double-blind study, 412 patients were randomized to receive aliskiren/amlodipine (150/5 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg) with forced titration up to aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ (300/10/25 mg) or aliskiren/amlodipine (300/10 mg), respectively. Overall, mean age was 55.2 years, mean body mass index was 32 kg/m(2), 62.3% were black, 28.2% were Hispanic/Latino, and 69.1% had metabolic syndrome. Mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), the primary efficacy outcome, was reduced from 167.1 mm Hg at baseline to 130.7 mm Hg at week 8 with aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ and from 167.4 mm Hg to 137.9 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine (P < .0001 between groups). At week 8, BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) was achieved in 72.6% and 53.2% of patients in the two treatment groups, respectively (P < .0001). Adverse events were experienced by 34.2% and 40.2%, respectively. Combination aliskiren/amlodipine therapy was effective in treating these high-risk patients but inclusion of HCTZ provided greater antihypertensive efficacy. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated.

Safety and efficacy of nateglinide/metformin combination therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

UNLABELLED: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes provides impetus for both development of new drugs to improve glycemic control and for reconsideration of treatment strategies with existing agents. Combination therapy with complementary drug classes that act on different aspects of glycemic control has been a particularly effective strategy. This work reviews the published literature reporting efficacy and safety/tolerability of nateglinide, a rapid-onset insulinotropic agent with a predominant effect to reduce postprandial glucose, when combined with metformin, a first-line agent that suppresses hepatic glucose production and thereby reduces fasting plasma glucose. The nateglinide/metformin combination has consistently been found to be both efficacious and well tolerated, whether given as initial combination therapy in drug-naïve patients or when added to metformin monotherapy. Maximum efficacy (Delta glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)]= -1.4% to -1.9%, sustained for up to 2 years of treatment) was seen in studies of drug-naïve patients in whom pharmacotherapy was initiated with the combination of nateglinide and metformin, and modest reductions in HbA(1c) (Delta = -0.5% to -1.2%, sustained for up to 24 weeks) were found when nateglinide was added to ongoing metformin monotherapy. CONCLUSION: the combination of nateglinide and metformin provides a sustained degree of glycemic control not achievable with either agent given as monotherapy.