Goldberg, Anne C.

Abstract Background The accurate measurement of blood lipids and lipoproteins is crucial for the clinical management of atherosclerotic disease risk. Despite progress in standardization, there are still significant variations in pre-analytical requirements, methods, nomenclature, and reporting work flows. Content The guidance document aims to improve standardization of clinical lipid testing work flows. It provides recommendations for the components of the lipid panel, fasting requirements, reporting of results, and specific recommendations for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], apolipoprotein B (apo B), point-of-care lipid testing, and LDL subfraction testing. Summary Lipid panels should always report non-HDL-C and LDL-C calculations if possible. Fasting is not routinely required except in specific cases. Modern equations should be utilized for LDL-C calculation. These equations allow for LDL-C reporting at elevated concentrations of triglycerides and obviate the need for direct measured LDL-C in most cases.

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines departed from prior ATPIII guidelines, recommending statin treatment based on patients’ predicted 10-year ASCVD risk and de-emphasizing LDL-C targets. However, the degree to which these new guidelines have been adopted by clinicians in community practice is unknown. Methods: We surveyed 522 clinicians in 133 cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices participating in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry. Clinicians were asked about their likelihood of prescribing statins in 4 hypothetical patient scenarios. Results: Among responders, 79% were physicians (60% cardiologists, 38% primary care or general practice, 2% endocrinology), 18% were advanced practice providers, and 3% trainees. When queried, 73% of providers reported primarily using the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines to guide lipid management. However, only half reported “often” or “always” calculating 10-year ASCVD risk to aid lipid management decisions for primary prevention. When presented with a high 10-year ASCVD risk patient (>15%) with a high LDL-C (150 mg/dL), 92% of providers recommended statins. Similarly, 83% of providers would use statins in a diabetic patient with a LDL-C of 140 mg/dL. Yet, only 37% reported they would prescribe a statin to an older adult (age 70) for whom guidelines recommend statin based on high 10-year ASCVD risk alone (10.1%). And up to 40% would prescribe a statin to a younger (age 40) with a low 10-year risk, but a high LDL (165 mg/dL) who would not otherwise meet criteria for statin therapy under the new guidelines. Cardiologists and non-cardiologists were similarly likely prescribe statins in most scenarios with the exception of to the younger patient with elevated LDL-C were cardiologists used statins more commonly (32% vs. 42%. OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p=0.02). Conclusion: Initial survey results show that while most clinicians claim adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines, reported practices are not always adherent to these guidelines. Providers do not always calculate 10-year ASCVD risk to guide lipid management and many do not prescribe statins to patients eligible based on 10-year ASCVD risk.

Background: Prior ATPIII lipid guidelines recommended statin therapy for patients with clinical ASCVD to achieve low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets, while the 2013 ACC/AHA lipid guidelines recommend high-intensity statin therapy for all ASCVD patients. How closely these recommendations are followed in routine clinical practice is unknown. Methods: We evaluated statin use, intensity, and LDL-C values in 1,483 patients with ASCVD (coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral arterial disease) enrolled and seen serially at 62 geographically dispersed US cardiology and primary care clinics in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry between May - September 2015. Factors associated with high intensity statin use (atorvastatin ≥40 mg or rosuvastatin ≥20 mg daily) and LDL-C <70 mg/dL were evaluated in multivariable logistic regression. Results: Of 1,483 ASCVD patients, 86.2% were on a statin, but only 31.4% were on a high-intensity statin. Overall, 64.0% had an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, but only 29.0% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Factors associated with high-intensity statin use in multivariable regression were younger age (OR 0.74 per 10 year increase, p<0.001, 95% CI 0.66-0.83), male sex (OR 1.69, p<0.001, 95% CI, 1.32-2.16), cerebrovascular disease (OR 1.55, p=0.008, 95% CI 1.12-2.13), coronary heart disease (OR 2.42, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.67-3.50), and being seen by a cardiologist (OR 1.35, p =0.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.81). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of LDL-C<70 were male sex (OR 1.55, p=0.001, 95% CI 1.20-2.01), white (OR 1.62, p=0.03, 95% CI 1.04-2.5-, diabetes (OR 1.64, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.29-2.09) and being seen by a cardiologist (OR 1.94, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.41-2.67). Discussion: Substantial gaps in care remain for secondary prevention of ASCVD despite simplified recommendations. While the majority of patients with ASCVD in community practice are on a statin, only one-third are on high intensity statins and over two-thirds have LDL ≥70 mg/dL.

AbstractBackgroundNon‐statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non‐statin LLT remain incompletely described.HypothesisThe guideline‐recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.MethodsThe PALM Registry collected LLT information on patients with or at risk of ASCVD treated at 125 US clinics in 2015. We compared patient perceptions, lipid levels and statin use among patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.ResultsAmong 7720 patients, 1930 (25.0%) were treated with a non‐statin LLT (1249 fish oil, 417 fibrates, 329 ezetimibe, 196 niacin). Concurrent statin treatment occurred in 73.7%, of which 45.4% were dosed under the guideline‐recommended intensity. Compared with patients on statin alone, patients receiving both a statin and non‐statin LLT (n = 1423) were more likely to be male, white race and to perceive themselves as higher risk of ASCVD compared with their peers (38.5% vs. 34.9%, p = .047). Only 27.4% of patients treated with non‐statin LLT alone perceived themselves at higher risk. Most (75.7%) patients treated with a non‐statin LLT alone reported never being treated with a statin, despite ASCVD in 30.8% of these patients. Among those previously treated with a statin, 59.3% reported being willing to try a statin again.ConclusionsNon‐statin LLT is used in one in four patients with or at risk for ASCVD; its use is frequently in place of statin therapy or in the absence of guideline‐recommended statin intensity. More work is needed to establish statins as first line therapy.

Background Current treatment guidelines strongly recommend statin therapy for secondary prevention. However, it remains unclear whether patients’ perceptions of cardiovascular risk, beliefs on cholesterol, or the intensity of prescribed statin therapy differs for patients with coronary artery disease ( CAD ) versus cerebrovascular disease (Ce VD ) versus both CAD and Ce VD ( CAD &Ce VD ). Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. Among individuals with Ce VD only (n=403), CAD only (n=2202), and Ce VD & CAD (n=627), no significant differences were observed in patient‐perceived cardiovascular disease risk, beliefs on cholesterol lowering, or perceived effectiveness and safety of statin therapy. However, patients with Ce VD only were less likely to receive any statin therapy (76.2% versus 86.2%; adjusted odds ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91), or guideline‐recommended statin intensity (34.6% versus 50.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.81) than those with CAD only. Individuals with Ce VD only were also less likely to achieve low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/ dL (59.2% versus 69.7%; adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64–0.99) than individuals with CAD alone. There were no significant differences in the use of any statin therapy or guideline‐recommended statin intensity between individuals with CAD &Ce VD and those with CAD only. Conclusions Despite lack of significant differences in patient‐perceived cardiovascular risk or statin beliefs, patients with Ce VD were significantly less likely to receive higher intensity statin or achieve low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/ dL than those with CAD only.

Background: Female patients have historically received less aggressive lipid management than male patients. Contemporary care patterns and the potential causes for these differences are unknown. Methods and Results: Examining the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management Registry—a nationwide registry of outpatients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease—we compared the use of statin therapy, guideline-recommended statin dosing, and reasons for undertreatment. We specifically analyzed sex differences in statin treatment and guideline-recommended statin dosing using multivariable logistic regression. Among 5693 participants (43% women) eligible for 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Guideline–recommended statin treatment, women were less likely than men to be prescribed any statin therapy (67.0% versus 78.4%; P <0.001) or to receive a statin at the guideline-recommended intensity (36.7% versus 45.2%; P <0.001). Women were more likely to report having previously never been offered statin therapy (18.6% versus 13.5%; P <0.001), declined statin therapy (3.6% versus 2.0%; P <0.001), or discontinued their statin (10.9% versus 6.1%; P <0.001). Women were also less likely than men to believe statins were safe (47.9% versus 55.2%; P <0.001) or effective (68.0% versus 73.2%; P <0.001) and more likely to report discontinuing their statin because of a side effect (7.9% versus 3.6%; P <0.001). Sex differences in both overall and guideline-recommended intensity statin use persisted after adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic factors, clinical characteristics, patient beliefs, and provider characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61–0.81; P <0.001; and odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.92; P <0.01, respectively). Sex differences were consistent across primary and secondary prevention indications for statin treatment. Conclusions: Women eligible for statin therapy were less likely than men to be treated with any statin or guideline-recommended statin intensity. A combination of women being offered statin therapy less frequently, while declining and discontinuing treatment more frequently, accounted for these sex differences in statin use.

Background Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation. Methods and Results This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin. Conclusions More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL ‐C) to identify untreated patients with LDL ‐C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid‐lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL ‐C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL ‐C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart‐documented LDL ‐C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non–college graduates (all P <0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P =0.0034), a high‐intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P =0.016), nonstatin lipid‐lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P =0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL ‐C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P <0.0001) than patients with prior LDL ‐C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL ‐C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL ‐C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL ‐C testing is associated with higher‐intensity lipid‐lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL ‐C levels.