Population Characteristics and Study Quality of Included Trials , by Combination Therapy Agent and Potency Comparison Long-Term Clinical Outcomes We found insufficient evidence to compare long-term clinical outcomes ( mortality , acute coronary events , cerebrovascular events , and revascularization procedures ) for all combination therapy and statin intensity comparisons .
Figure 1 presents an evidence map of studies that evaluated these
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) affects more than 15 million Americans ( 1 ) and is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States ( 2 ) .
Trials have demonstrated reductions in low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) cholesterol levels ( 3 ) and decreased ASCVD risk with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor ( statin ) monotherapy ( 4 ) .
Over the past decade , statins have often been used in combination with other lipid-modifying agents .
Recently , several high-profile r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) have evaluated add-on therapy ( 57 ) , wherein statin monotherapy is compared with the combination of the same statin dose and another lipid-modifying agent .
Add-on combination therapy can lead to superior lipid outcomes , but studies have not shown decreased rates of cardiovascular death , myocardial infa rct ion , revascularization , or stroke ( 57 ) .
Therefore , the 2013 American College of Cardiology ( ACC ) and American Heart Association ( AHA ) guidelines recommend moderate- or high-intensity statin monotherapy as the first-line strategy for ASCVD risk reduction among patients with LDL cholesterol levels of 4.91 mmol/L or greater ( 190 mg/dL ) , preexisting ASCVD , diabetes mellitus ( DM ) , or estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5 % or greater ( 8) .
Adverse effects are more common with higher-intensity statin regimens ( 9 ) , and musculoskeletal adverse events occur frequently among patients with the C variant in the SLCO1B1 gene ( 10 ) .
The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines suggest that clinicians consider moderated combination therapy with a lower-intensity statin and another lipid-modifying medication among high-risk patients ( LDL cholesterol level 4.91 mmol/L [ 190 mg/dL ] , preexisting ASCVD , or DM ) who are intolerant of or unresponsive to statins ( evidence grade E : expert opinion ) ( 8) .
Yet , it is unclear whether this strategy results in similar ASCVD risk reductions and fewer adverse effects compared with higher-intensity statin monotherapy .
A 2009 systematic review that examined these questions found insufficient evidence to weigh benefits and risks of moderated combination therapy ( 12 ) .
We aim ed to compare the effectiveness , safety , and tolerability of moderated combination therapy of statin with another lipid-modifying medication ( bile acid sequestrant , ezetimibe , fibrate , niacin , or -3 fatty acid ) with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy among high-risk patients .
We sought to compare the long-term clinical benefits and short-term lipid effects of moderated combination therapy with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy , as well as to determine whether these regimens differ in rates of adherence and harms .
Given the recent release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines ( 8) , we narrowed the scope of this manuscript to focus on evidence most relevant to high-risk population s for whom combination therapy might be considered .
Prior studies have suggested schemes to group statins on the basis of their reported LDL cholesterol reduction ( 17 , 18 ) , which are similar to the strategy used by the ACC/AHA committee ( 8) .
Prevalence of Dyslipidemia and Lipid Goal Attainment in Statin-Treated Subjects From 3 Data Sources: A Retrospective Analysis
Background Evidence -based r and omized clinical trials have shown significant benefit of statin treatment with regard to cardiovascular disease . In anticipation of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel IV guidelines , we wanted to assess the current state of lipid goal attainment in the high-risk secondary prevention population in the United States . The objectives of the study were to estimate the proportion of high-risk patients treated with statin monotherapy  who achieved Adult Treatment Panel III – recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) goals ( < 100 mg/dL ; optional < 70 mg/dL ) as well as non – high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals ( < 130 mg/dL ; optional < 100 mg/dL ) . Methods and Results This is a cross-sectional , retrospective study of 3 data sources : electronic medical records ( 2003–September 2010 ) , administrative cl aims data ( 2003–2010 ) , and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data ( 2007–2008 ) . High-risk patients ( ≥18 years of age ) were defined as those with a history of coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk equivalent who had the latest complete lipid panel measurement and had been treated with statin monotherapy for > 90 days at the time of the lipid panel . Cardiovascular disease , coronary heart disease , and coronary heart disease risk equivalents were defined on the basis of availability , specific to each data source . Across the 3 data sources , 20 % to 26 % of high-risk patients treated with statin monotherapy for > 90 days had LDL-C < 70 mg/dL , and 67 % to 77 % had LDL-C < 100 mg/dL. The percentages of those attaining both LDL-C goals and non – high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals were quantitatively smaller ( 13.5 % to 19.0 % and 46 % to 70 % ) . Conclusions Across the 3 data sources , there was consistency in the proportion of high-risk patients treated with statin monotherapy who were at LDL-C goal . A significant number of these statin-treated patients had additional dyslipidemias
Population Characteristics and Study Quality of Included Trials , by Combination Therapy Agent and Potency Comparison Long-Term Clinical Outcomes We found insufficient evidence to compare long-term clinical outcomes ( mortality , acute coronary events , cerebrovascular events , and revascularization procedures ) for all combination therapy and statin intensity comparisons .
Figure 1 presents an evidence map of studies that evaluated these
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) affects more than 15 million Americans ( 1 ) and is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States ( 2 ) .
Trials have demonstrated reductions in low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) cholesterol levels ( 3 ) and decreased ASCVD risk with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor ( statin ) monotherapy ( 4 ) .
Over the past decade , statins have often been used in combination with other lipid-modifying agents .
Recently , several high-profile r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) have evaluated add-on therapy ( 57 ) , wherein statin monotherapy is compared with the combination of the same statin dose and another lipid-modifying agent .
Add-on combination therapy can lead to superior lipid outcomes , but studies have not shown decreased rates of cardiovascular death , myocardial infa rct ion , revascularization , or stroke ( 57 ) .
Therefore , the 2013 American College of Cardiology ( ACC ) and American Heart Association ( AHA ) guidelines recommend moderate- or high-intensity statin monotherapy as the first-line strategy for ASCVD risk reduction among patients with LDL cholesterol levels of 4.91 mmol/L or greater ( 190 mg/dL ) , preexisting ASCVD , diabetes mellitus ( DM ) , or estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5 % or greater ( 8) .
Adverse effects are more common with higher-intensity statin regimens ( 9 ) , and musculoskeletal adverse events occur frequently among patients with the C variant in the SLCO1B1 gene ( 10 ) .
The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines suggest that clinicians consider moderated combination therapy with a lower-intensity statin and another lipid-modifying medication among high-risk patients ( LDL cholesterol level 4.91 mmol/L [ 190 mg/dL ] , preexisting ASCVD , or DM ) who are intolerant of or unresponsive to statins ( evidence grade E : expert opinion ) ( 8) .
Yet , it is unclear whether this strategy results in similar ASCVD risk reductions and fewer adverse effects compared with higher-intensity statin monotherapy .
A 2009 systematic review that examined these questions found insufficient evidence to weigh benefits and risks of moderated combination therapy ( 12 ) .
We aim ed to compare the effectiveness , safety , and tolerability of moderated combination therapy of statin with another lipid-modifying medication ( bile acid sequestrant , ezetimibe , fibrate , niacin , or -3 fatty acid ) with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy among high-risk patients .
We sought to compare the long-term clinical benefits and short-term lipid effects of moderated combination therapy with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy , as well as to determine whether these regimens differ in rates of adherence and harms .
Given the recent release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines ( 8) , we narrowed the scope of this manuscript to focus on evidence most relevant to high-risk population s for whom combination therapy might be considered .
Prior studies have suggested schemes to group statins on the basis of their reported LDL cholesterol reduction ( 17 , 18 ) , which are similar to the strategy used by the ACC/AHA committee ( 8) .