Alternative LDL Cholesterol–Lowering Strategy vs High-Intensity Statins in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease
Authors: Lee Yong-Joon , Hong Bum-Kee , Yun Kyeong Ho , Kang Woong Chol , Hong Soon Jun , Lee Sang-Hyup , Lee Seung-Jun , Hong Sung-Jin , Ahn Chul-Min , Kim Jung-Sun , Kim Byeong-Keuk , Ko Young-Guk , Choi Donghoon , Jang Yangsoo , Hong Myeong-Ki 
Published: November 2024

Importance

In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels with high-intensity statins is generally recommended. However, alternative approaches considering statin-related adverse effects and intolerance are needed.

Objective

To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of an alternative LDL cholesterol–lowering strategy vs high-intensity statin strategy in patients with ASCVD in randomized clinical trials.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase, and other websites (ClinicalTrials.gov, European Society of Cardiology, tctMD) were systematically searched from inception to April 19, 2024.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing an alternative LDL cholesterol–lowering strategy vs a high-intensity statin strategy in patients with ASCVD, with presence of cardiovascular events as end points.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Individual patient data were obtained from randomized clinical trials that met the prespecified eligibility criteria: RACING (Randomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid-Lowering With Statin Monotherapy vs Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-Risk Cardiovascular Disease) and LODESTAR (Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol-Targeting Statin Therapy vs Intensity-Based Statin Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease). The moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy in the RACING trial and the treat-to-target strategy in the LODESTAR trial were classified as alternative LDL cholesterol–lowering strategies. The primary analysis was based on a 1-stage approach.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was a 3-year composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. The secondary end points comprised clinical efficacy and safety end points.

Results

Individual patient data from 2 trials including 8180 patients with ASCVD (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [9.8] years; 2182 [26.7%] female; 5998 male [73.3%]) were analyzed. The rate of the primary end point did not differ between the alternative strategy and high-intensity statin strategy groups (7.5% [304 of 4094] vs 7.7% [310 of 4086]; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15; P = .82). The mean (SD) LDL cholesterol level during treatment was 64.8 (19.0) mg/dL in the alternative strategy group and 68.5 (20.7) mg/dL in the high-intensity statin strategy group (P &amp;lt; .001). The alternative strategy group had a lower rate of new-onset diabetes (10.2% [271 of 2658] vs 11.9% [316 of 2656]; P = .047), initiation of antidiabetic medication for new-onset diabetes (6.5% [173 of 2658] vs 8.2% [217 of 2656]; P = .02), and intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction of assigned therapy (4.0% [163 of 4094] vs 6.7% [273 of 4086]; P &amp;lt; .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis suggest that compared with a high-intensity statin strategy, the alternative LDL cholesterol-lowering strategy demonstrated comparable efficacy regarding 3-year death or cardiovascular events in patients with ASCVD, with an associated reduction in LDL cholesterol levels and risk for new-onset diabetes and intolerance.

Study Registration

PROSPERO CRD42024532550