Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C Recommendations for Residual Risk Reduction in ASCVD: A Simulation Study From DA VINCI

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Documents

  • Fulltext

    Final published version, 919 KB, PDF document

  • Antonio J Vallejo-Vaz
  • Sarah Bray
  • Guillermo Villa
  • Julia Brandts
  • Gaia Kiru
  • Jennifer Murphy
  • Maciej Banach
  • Stefano De Servi
  • Dan Gaita
  • Ioanna Gouni-Berthold
  • G. Kees Hovingh
  • Jacek J. Jozwiak
  • J. Wouter Jukema
  • Robert Gabor Kiss
  • Serge Kownator
  • Iversen, Helle Klingenberg
  • Vincent Maher
  • Luis Masana
  • Alexander Parkhomenko
  • André Peeters
  • Piers Clifford
  • Katarina Raslova
  • Peter Siostrzonek
  • Stefano Romeo
  • Dimitrios Tousoulis
  • Charalambos Vlachopoulos
  • Michal Vrablik
  • Alberico L. Catapano
  • Neil R. Poulter
  • Kausik K. Ray
  • On behalf of the DA VINCI Study Investigators

Purpose: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (< 70 vs. < 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. Methods: DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of < 70 or < 55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. Results: Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C < 70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81–115) mg/dl and 32% (25–43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12–46) and 39 (27–91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7–25%) and 22% (15–32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2–7%) and 6% (4–9%), respectively. Conclusion: In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach. Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.]

Original languageEnglish
JournalCardiovascular Drugs and Therapy
Volume37
Issue number5
Pages (from-to)941-953
ISSN0920-3206
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

    Research areas

  • Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Cardiovascular disease prevention, Cardiovascular risk, LDL-C, Lipid-lowering, Statins

ID: 314280240