An estimation of the consequences of reinforcing the 2016 and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines on current lipid-lowering treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in tertiary care-a SwissDiab study.

In 2019, the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society updated the 2016 guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias recommending more stringent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). Based on a real-world patient population, this study aimed to determine the feasibility and cost of attaining guideline-recommended LDL-C targets, and assess cardiovascular benefit. The Swiss Diabetes Registry is a multicentre longitudinal observational study of outpatients in tertiary diabetes care. Patients with DM2 and a visit between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2019 that failed the 2016 LDL-C target were identified. The theoretical intensification of current lipid-lowering medication needed to reach the 2016 and 2019 LDL-C target was determined and the cost thereof extrapolated. The expected number of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) prevented by treatment intensification was estimated. Two hundred and ninety-four patients (74.8%) failed the 2016 LDL-C target. The percentage of patients that theoretically achieved the 2016 and 2019 target with the indicated treatment modifications were high-intensity statin, 21.4% and 13.3%; ezetimibe, 46.6% and 27.9%; proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor (PCSK9i), 30.6% and 53.7%; ezetimibe and PCSK9i, 1.0% and 3.1%; whereas one (0.3%) and five patients (1.7%) failed to reach target, respectively. Achieving the 2016 vs. 2019 target would reduce the estimated 4-year MACE from 24.9 to 18.6 vs. 17.4 events, at an additional annual cost of medication of 2140 Swiss francs (CHF) vs. 3681 CHF per patient, respectively. For 68% of the patients, intensifying statin treatment and/or adding ezetimibe would be sufficient to reach the 2016 target, whereas 57% would require cost-intensive PCSK9i therapy to reach the 2019 target, with limited additional medium-term cardiovascular benefit.

Singeisen H ，Renström F ，Laimer M ，Lehmann R ，Bilz S ，Brändle M ... -  《-》

Cholesterol lowering therapies and achievement of targets for primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention in type 2 diabetes: unmet needs in a large population of outpatients at specialist clinics.

Morieri ML ，Avogaro A ，Fadini GP ，the DARWIN-T2D Network of the Italian Diabetes Society ... -  《Cardiovascular Diabetology》

The need for PCSK9 inhibitors and associated treatment costs according to the 2019 ESC dyslipidaemia guidelines vs. the risk-based allocation algorithm of the 2017 ESC consensus statement: a simulation study in a contemporary CAD cohort.

The recently updated European Society of Cardiology (ESC) dyslipidaemia guidelines recommend a lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of <55 mg/dL for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with a concomitant Class IA upgrade for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) for patients not reaching their LDL-C goal under conventional lipid-lowering therapy. We aim to quantify the need for PCSK9i and the related costs to achieve the revised LDL-C goal in ASCVD patients compared to former ESC recommendations, in particular the risk-based 2017 ESC consensus update. We included patients with ASCVD from an observational cohort study ongoing since 2015. A Monte Carlo simulation incorporating a treatment algorithm adding sequentially a statin, ezetimibe, and a PCSK9i was applied with consideration of partial and total statin intolerance. The need for PCSK9i was calculated for three different ESC recommendations (2019 guidelines, 2016 guidelines, 2017 consensus update). Preventable events and treatment costs due to PCSK9i were calculated for a range of annual event rates from 2% to 8% and annual treatment costs of ca. 6050 €. We included 1780 patients (mean age 69.5 years). Median LDL-C at baseline was 85.0 mg/dL, with 61% of patients taking lipid-lowering medication. The need for PCSK9i was simulated to be 42.0% (ESC 2019), 31.9% (ESC 2016), and 5.0% (ESC 2017). The LDL-C goals were achieved in 97.9%, 99.1%, and 60.9% of patients, respectively. Annual treatment cost for PCSK9i per 1 000 000 ASCVD patients would be 2.54 billion € (ESC 2019) compared to 0.30 billion € (ESC 2017). Costs per prevented event due to PCSK9i initiation differed widely, e.g. 887 000 € for an event rate of 3% and a treatment goal of <55 mg/dL compared to 205 000 € for an event rate of 7% and risk-based use of PCSK9i. The revised LDL-C treatment goals increase the projected need for PCSK9i with a substantial increase in associated treatment cost. An allocation strategy based on residual LDL-C and clinical or angiographic risk factors leads to a more tailored target population for PCSK9i with a reasonable benefit/cost ratio.

Blaum C ，Seiffert M ，Goßling A ，Kröger F ，Bay B ，Lorenz T ，Braetz J ，Graef A ，Zeller T ，Schnabel R ，Clemmensen P ，Westermann D ，Blankenberg S ，Brunner FJ ，Waldeyer C ... -  《-》

LDL cholesterol target achievement in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients according to 2019 ESC/EAS lipid guidelines: Implications for newer lipid-lowering treatments.

The 2019 European guidelines (ESC/EAS) for the treatment of dyslipidaemias recommend more aggressive targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). Current lipid-lowering treatment is often inadequate to achieve these targets. Data from the HELLAS-FH registry were analysed to assess achievement of LDL-C targets in adults with FH based on the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. In patients who had not achieved LDL-C target, the maximally reduced LDL-C value was calculated after theoretical switch to rosuvastatin/ezetimibe 40/10 mg/day. The percentage of patients who remained candidates for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) was then calculated. Patients (n = 1694, mean age 50.8 ± 14.7 years) had LDL-C levels 242 ± 71 mg/dL (6.3 ± 1.8 mmol/L) at diagnosis. Most treated patients were receiving statins (97.5%) and about half were on additional ezetimibe (47.5%). Based on the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines the percentage of patients achieving LDL-C goals was only 2.7%. Following theoretical up titration to rosuvastatin/ezetimibe 40/10 mg, LDL-C target achievement rate would increase to 5.9%. In this scenario, most patients (55.9%) would be eligible for PCSK9i treatment. Following theoretical administration of a PCSK9i, LDL-C target achievement rate would rise to 57.6%. However, 42.4% of patients would still be eligible for further LDL-C lowering treatment. Most FH patients do not reach new LDL-C targets even if on maximum intensity statin/ezetimibe treatment. In this case, more than half of FH patients are candidates for PCSK9i therapy and a considerable proportion may still require additional LDL-C lowering.

Rizos CV ，Skoumas I ，Rallidis L ，Skalidis E ，Tziomalos K ，Garoufi A ，Anagnostis P ，Sfikas G ，Kotsis V ，Doumas M ，Kolovou G ，Lambadiari V ，Dima I ，Kiouri E ，Zacharis E ，Agapakis D ，Attilakos A ，Antza C ，Vlachopoulos C ，Liberopoulos EN ... -  《-》

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations.

In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug? Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens. The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins. An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation. A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/. The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors.

Hao Q ，Aertgeerts B ，Guyatt G ，Bekkering GE ，Vandvik PO ，Khan SU ，Rodondi N ，Jackson R ，Reny JL ，Al Ansary L ，Van Driel M ，Assendelft WJJ ，Agoritsas T ，Spencer F ，Siemieniuk RAC ，Lytvyn L ，Heen AF ，Zhao Q ，Riaz IB ，Ramaekers D ，Okwen PM ，Zhu Y ，Dawson A ，Ovidiu MC ，Vanbrabant W ，Li S ，Delvaux N ... -  《-》