Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and consequent acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are substantial contributors to morbidity and mortality across Europe. Fortunately, as much as two thirds of this disease's burden is modifiable, in particular by lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Current guidelines are based on the sound premise that, with respect to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), "lower is better for longer", and recent data have strongly emphasised the need for also "the earlier the better". In addition to statins, which have been available for several decades, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid (also as fixed dose combinations), and modulators of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9 inhibitors and inclisiran) are additionally very effective approaches to LLT, especially for those at very high and extremely high cardiovascular risk. In real life, however, clinical practice goals are still not met in a substantial proportion of patients (even in 70%). However, with the options we have available, we should render lipid disorders a rare disease. In April 2021, the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) published its first position paper on the optimal use of LLT in post-ACS patients, which complemented the existing guidelines on the management of lipids in patients following ACS, which defined a group of "extremely high-risk" individuals and outlined scenarios where upfront combination therapy should be considered to improve access and adherence to LLT and, consequently, the therapy's effectiveness. These updated recommendations build on the previous work, considering developments in the evidential underpinning of combination LLT, ongoing education on the role of lipid disorder therapy, and changes in the availability of lipid-lowering drugs. Our aim is to provide a guide to address this unmet clinical need, to provide clear practical advice, whilst acknowledging the need for patient-centred care, and accounting for often large differences in the availability of LLTs between countries.

• MeSH
• akutní koronární syndrom * krev   farmakoterapie   etiologie   MeSH
• anticholesteremika terapeutické užití   MeSH
• ateroskleróza * krev   komplikace   farmakoterapie   MeSH
• hypolipidemika * terapeutické užití   MeSH
• LDL-cholesterol krev   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• přehledová literatura jako téma MeSH
• statiny terapeutické užití   MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• směrnice pro lékařskou praxi MeSH

BACKGROUND: Despite better accessibility of the effective lipid-lowering therapies, only about 20% of patients at very high cardiovascular risk achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. There is a large disparity between European countries with worse results observed for the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) patients. One of the main reasons for this ineffectiveness is therapeutic inertia related to the limited access to appropriate therapy and suitable dosage intensity. Thus, we aimed to compare the differences in physicians' therapeutic decisions on alirocumab dose selection, and factors affecting these in CEE countries vs. other countries included in the ODYSSEY APPRISE study. METHODS: ODYSSEY APPRISE was a prospective, single-arm, phase 3b open-label (≥12 weeks to ≤30 months) study with alirocumab. Patients received 75 or 150 mg of alirocumab every 2 weeks, with dose adjustment during the study based on physician's judgment. The CEE group in the study included Czechia, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, which we compared with the other nine European countries (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland) plus Canada. RESULTS: A total of 921 patients on alirocumab were involved [modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis], including 114 (12.4%) subjects from CEE countries. Therapy in CEE vs. other countries was numerically more frequently started with lower alirocumab dose (75 mg) at the first visit (74.6 vs. 68%, p = 0.16). Since week 36, the higher dose was predominantly used in CEE patients (150 mg dose in 51.6% patients), which was maintained by the end of the study. Altogether, alirocumab dose was significantly more often increased by CEE physicians (54.1 vs. 39.9%, p = 0.013). Therefore, more patients achieved LDL-C goal at the end of the study (<55 mg/dl/1.4 mmol/L and 50% reduction of LDL-C: 32.5% vs. 28.8%). The only factor significantly influencing the decision on dose of alirocumab was LDL-C level for both countries' groups (CEE: 199.2 vs. 175.3 mg/dl; p = 0.019; other: 205.9 vs. 171.6 mg/dl; p < 0.001, for 150 and 75 mg of alirocumab, respectively) which was also confirmed in multivariable analysis (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.07-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Despite larger unmet needs and regional disparities in LDL-C targets achievement in CEE countries, more physicians in this region tend to use the higher dose of alirocumab, they are more prone to increase the dose, which is associated with a higher proportion of patients reaching LDL-C goals. The only factor that significantly influences decision whether to increase or decrease the dose of alirocumab is LDL-C level.

• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH