Just how much should statin prescribing be driven by LDL-C @JAMA rather than total CV risk?
LDL-C lowering meta-analyzed
Twenty years of embroilment in the (quite unnecessary) statin wars has left me with a number of basic convictions, three of which are:
– LDL-C is a risk factor, but you should use LDL-C lowering drugs according to total cardiovascular risk, not LDL-C alone
– statins are for practical purposes the only LDL-C lowering drugs worth using
– it is pointless remeasuring LDL-C once it has been lowered by a statin.
Here’s a meta-analysis which questions the usefulness of statins in people with low baseline levels of LDL-C, defined as below 100mg/dl in the curious units used by Americans, or 2.4 mmol/L in the rest of the world. It is a marvellously thorough and well-illustrated analysis of 32 RCTs, which can’t be summarised in a few words, though it is worth quoting this sentence:” This analysis further supports individualizing estimates of the potential for a cardiovascular risk reduction benefit from LDL-C–lowering therapy based on consideration of not only a patient’s absolute risk and current LDL-C level, but also an individualized estimate of the risk reduction based on current LDL-C level and the outcomes desired.” Maybe.
Navarese EP, Robinson JG, Kowalewski M, et al. Association Between Baseline LDL-C Level and Total and Cardiovascular Mortality After LDL-C Lowering - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1566–1579. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2678614
Key Points
Question Does the magnitude of reductions in total and cardiovascular mortality after low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering depend on the baseline LDL-C level?
Findings In this meta-analysis of 34 randomized clinical trials that included 270 288 participants, more intensive LDL-C–lowering therapy was associated with a progressive reduction in total mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (rate ratio, 0.91 for each 40-mg/dL increase in baseline level); however, this relationship was not present with baseline LDL-C levels less than 100 mg/dL. There was a similar relationship for cardiovascular mortality.
Meaning The greatest benefit from LDL-C–lowering therapy may occur for patients with baseline LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL or greater.
Abstract
Importance Effects on specific fatal and nonfatal end points appear to vary for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)–lowering drug trials.
Objective To evaluate whether baseline LDL-C level is associated with total and cardiovascular mortality risk reductions.
Data Sourcesand Study Selection Electronic databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, TCTMD, ClinicalTrials.gov, major congress proceedings) were searched through February 2, 2018, to identify randomized clinical trials of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies.
Data Extraction and Synthesis Two investigators abstracted data and appraised risks of bias. Intervention groups were categorized as “more intensive” (more potent pharmacologic intervention) or “less intensive” (less potent, placebo, or control group).
Main Outcomes and Measures The coprimary end points were total mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Random-effects meta-regression and meta-analyses evaluated associations between baseline LDL-C level and reductions in mortality end points and secondary end points including major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
Results In 34 trials, 136 299 patients received more intensive and 133 989 received less intensive LDL-C lowering. All-cause mortality was lower for more vs less intensive therapy (7.08% vs 7.70%; rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88 to 0.96]), but varied by baseline LDL-C level. Meta-regression showed more intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with greater reductions in all-cause mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (change in RRs per 40-mg/dL increase in baseline LDL-C, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96]; P = .001; absolute risk difference [ARD], −1.05 incident cases per 1000 person-years [95% CI, −1.59 to −0.51]), but only when baseline LDL-C levels were 100 mg/dL or greater (P < .001 for interaction) in a meta-analysis. Cardiovascular mortality was lower for more vs less intensive therapy (3.48% vs 4.07%; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.89]) but varied by baseline LDL-C level. Meta-regression showed more intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in cardiovascular mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (change in RRs per 40-mg/dL increase in baseline LDL-C, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94]; P < .001; ARD, −1.0 incident cases per 1000 person-years [95% CI, −1.51 to −0.45]), but only when baseline LDL-C levels were 100 mg/dL or greater (P < .001 for interaction) in a meta-analysis. Trials with baseline LDL-C levels of 160 mg/dL or greater had the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84]; P < .001; 4.3 fewer deaths per 1000 person-years) in a meta-analysis. More intensive LDL-C lowering was also associated with progressively greater risk reductions with higher baseline LDL-C level for myocardial infarction, revascularization, and MACE.
Conclusions and Relevance In these meta-analyses and meta-regressions, more intensive compared with less intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in risk of total and cardiovascular mortality in trials of patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels. This association was not present when baseline LDL-C level was less than 100 mg/dL, suggesting that the greatest benefit from LDL-C–lowering therapy may occur for patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels.
Navar AM, Peterson ED. Challenges in Interpreting the Lipid-Lowering Trials - Biology vs Ecology. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1549–1551. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2678596?redirect=true