Search

Purpose: In the IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT), simvastatin/ezetimibe combination was associated with a 6% relative risk reduction in the combined cardiovascular outcome compared with simvastatin alone in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Given strict inclusion criteria (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 50-125 mg/dL and no use of statins more potent than simvastatin 40 mg), the implications of this important trial in routine acute coronary syndrome care are unknown.Methods: We identified patients with acute coronary syndrome from the Veterans Affairs health care system over a 5-year period and determined what proportion would be candidates for ezetimibe on the basis of IMPROVE-IT criteria. We then evaluated what proportion could potentially see an increase in ezetimibe use if IMPROVE-IT criteria are not strictly followed.Results: Of 219,625 patients with acute coronary syndrome, 69,508 (31.6%) would qualify for ezetimibe on the basis of strict criteria. Among those who did not meet IMPROVE-IT criteria (n = 150,117), ezetimibe could potentially be prescribed by clinicians in a further 28% of patients (n = 61,635) using statins more potent than simvastatin 40 mg, 7.1% of patients (15,527) with a documented statin intolerance, and 10.4% of patients (22,758) with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >125 mg/dL.Conclusions: Our results provide a first look at the implications of this trial in a large health care system. Although 31.6% of patients would qualify for ezetimibe, there is a large potential for an increase in ezetimibe use in acute coronary syndrome outside of the strict trial inclusions. These findings call for a discussion on ezetimibe's role in patients with acute coronary syndrome already taking high-intensity statins or those with statin intolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation experience a similar risk of thromboembolism. Therefore, consensus guidelines recommend anticoagulant therapy in those at risk for thromboembolism irrespective of atrial fibrillation classification. We sought to examine whether there are differences in rates of appropriate oral anticoagulant treatment among patients with paroxysmal vs persistent atrial fibrillation in real-world cardiology practices. Methods We studied 71,316 outpatients with atrial fibrillation and intermediate to high thromboembolic risk (CHADS 2 score ≥2) enrolled in the American College of Cardiology PINNACLE Registry between 2008 and 2012. Using hierarchical modified Poisson regression models adjusted for patient characteristics, we examined whether anticoagulant treatment rates differed between patients with paroxysmal vs persistent atrial fibrillation. Results The majority of outpatients (78.4%, n = 55,905) had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. In both unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses, patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were less frequently prescribed oral anticoagulant therapy than those with persistent atrial fibrillation (50.3% vs 64.2%; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.76). Instead, patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were prescribed more frequently only antiplatelet therapy (35.1% vs 25.0%; adjusted RR 1.77; 95% CI, 1.69-1.86) or neither antiplatelet nor anticoagulant therapy (14.6% vs 10.8%; adjusted RR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.26-1.44; P < .0001 for differences across all 3 comparisons). Conclusions In a large, real-world cardiac outpatient population, patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with a moderate to high risk of stroke were less likely to be prescribed appropriate oral anticoagulant therapy and more likely to be prescribed less effective or no therapy for thromboembolism prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]