INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceuticals are commonly used to help at-risk patients reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in an effort to prevent atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Although both the cholesterol inhibitor ezetimibe and the newer generation bile acid sequestrant colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) effectively reduce LDL-C levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia, real-world evidence based on clinical outcomes is lacking. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of healthcare insurance claims data from a large national healthcare payer was conducted to evaluate outcomes within 12 months among 2,067 patients with hypercholesterolemia after the initiation of treatment with colesevelam HCl (679 patients) as compared with ezetimibe (1,388 patients). Outcomes evaluated were (1) composite cardiovascular event which included myocardial infarction, stroke, angina, or revascularization and (2) macrovascular complication event which was a wider-encompassing measure that included all composite cardiovascular outcomes along with atherosclerosis, aneurysm, embolism, and peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS: An adjusted logistic regression model found lower odds of a composite cardiovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.97) within 12 months for subjects initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl compared with subjects initiating treatment with ezetimibe. The unadjusted OR was slightly lower (OR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.30-0.90). The odds ratio for the wider-encompassing macrovascular complication event occurring within 12 months of initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl or ezetimibe was not statistically significant (OR 0.821, 95 % CI 0.49-1.35). DISCUSSION: The evidence of lower risk for composite cardiovascular event rates for subjects treated with colesevelam HCl compared with those treated with ezetimibe suggests the potential need to consider risk of clinical outcomes, in addition to LDL-C levels, in real-world practice when choosing a pharmaceutical treatment.
INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceuticals are commonly used to help at-risk patients reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in an effort to prevent atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Although both the cholesterol inhibitor ezetimibe and the newer generation bile acid sequestrant colesevelam hydrochloride (HCl) effectively reduce LDL-C levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia, real-world evidence based on clinical outcomes is lacking. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of healthcare insurance claims data from a large national healthcare payer was conducted to evaluate outcomes within 12 months among 2,067 patients with hypercholesterolemia after the initiation of treatment with colesevelam HCl (679 patients) as compared with ezetimibe (1,388 patients). Outcomes evaluated were (1) composite cardiovascular event which included myocardial infarction, stroke, angina, or revascularization and (2) macrovascular complication event which was a wider-encompassing measure that included all composite cardiovascular outcomes along with atherosclerosis, aneurysm, embolism, and peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS: An adjusted logistic regression model found lower odds of a composite cardiovascular event (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.97) within 12 months for subjects initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl compared with subjects initiating treatment with ezetimibe. The unadjusted OR was slightly lower (OR 0.52, 95 % CI 0.30-0.90). The odds ratio for the wider-encompassing macrovascular complication event occurring within 12 months of initiating treatment with colesevelam HCl or ezetimibe was not statistically significant (OR 0.821, 95 % CI 0.49-1.35). DISCUSSION: The evidence of lower risk for composite cardiovascular event rates for subjects treated with colesevelam HCl compared with those treated with ezetimibe suggests the potential need to consider risk of clinical outcomes, in addition to LDL-C levels, in real-world practice when choosing a pharmaceutical treatment.
Authors: H H Knapp; H Schrott; P Ma; R Knopp; B Chin; J M Gaziano; J M Donovan; S K Burke; M H Davidson Journal: Am J Med Date: 2001-04-01 Impact factor: 4.965