Intensity of and Adherence to Lipid‐Lowering Therapy as Predictors of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease
Faizan Mazhar,Paul Hjemdahl,Catherine M. Clase,Kristina Johnell,Tomas Jernberg,Arvid Sjölander,Juan Jesus Carrero
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025813
2022-07-07
Abstract:Background The effectiveness of lipid‐lowering therapy (LLT) is affected by both intensity and adherence. This study evaluated the associations of LLT intensity, adherence, and the combination of these 2 aspects of LLT management with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with coronary heart disease. Methods and Results This is an observational study of all adults who suffered a myocardial infarction or had coronary revascularization during 2012 to 2018 and initiated LLT in Stockholm, Sweden. Study exposures were LLT adherence (proportion of days covered), LLT intensity (expected reduction of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol), and the combined measure of adherence and intensity. At each LLT fill, adherence and intensity during the previous 12 months were calculated. The primary outcomes were MACE (nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke and death); secondary outcomes were low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment and individual components of MACE. We studied 20 490 patients aged 68±11 years, 75% men, mean follow‐up 2.6±1.1 years. Every 10% increase in 1‐year adherence, intensity, or adherence‐adjusted intensity was associated with a lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93–0.96]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88–0.96]; and HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.89–0.94], respectively) and higher odds of attaining low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goals (odds ratio [OR],1.12 [95% CI, 1.10–1.15]; OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.34–1.51], and OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.19–1.24], respectively). Among patients with good adherence (≥80%), the risk of MACE was similar with low‐moderate and high‐intensity LLT despite differences in the low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment with the treatment intensities. Discontinuation ≥1 year increased the risk markedly (HR,1.66 [95% CI, 1.23–2.22]). Conclusions In routine care, good adherence to LLT was associated with the greatest benefit for patients with coronary heart disease. Strategies that improve adherence and use of intensive therapies could substantially reduce cardiovascular risk. Nonstandard Abbreviations and Acronyms LLT lipid‐lowering therapy MACE major adverse cardiovascular events PDC proportion of days covered Clinical Perspective What Is New? Both adherence and treatment intensity can alter the effectiveness of lipid‐lowering therapy (LLT) in routine clinical practice; suboptimal LLT management may affect cardiovascular disease recurrence and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) goal attainment. This study evaluated a combined measure of adherence and treatment intensity using a roll‐out design, and we assessed adherence at each LLT fill. This minimizes the immortal‐time bias of evaluating treatment adherence within fixed periods. We controlled for LDL‐C levels and the frequency of LDL‐C testing, which are important time‐dependent confounders, because regular LDL‐C monitoring may indicate health‐seeker or compliant behaviors and motivate treatment decisions. What Are the Clinical Implications? Optimal LLT use had a significant prognostic benefit, regardless of treatment intensity, in post–myocardial infarction or revascularized patients with coronary heart disease. Good adherence to LLT was more important than LLT intensity or achieved LDL‐C levels for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary heart disease. The highest cardiovascular risk was observed among those who discontinued LLT. Strategies that improve adherence and greater use of intensive therapies could substantially reduce cardiovascular risk in secondary prevention. Patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) require targeted risk management strategies, including effective lipid‐lowering therapy (LLT) because of their high rates of subsequent cardiovascular events and death (ie, secondary cardiovascular prevention). 1 Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefit of treating with statins, particularly with high‐intensity statins 2 and, when needed, with further intensification by nonstatin LLT. 3 , 4 Because each 1 mmol/L (38.6 mg/dL) reduction i -Abstract Truncated-