Robert P Giugliano1, Anthony Keech2, Sabina A Murphy1, Kurt Huber3, S Lale Tokgozoglu4, Basil S Lewis5, Jorge Ferreira6, Armando Lira Pineda7, Ransi Somaratne7, Peter S Sever8, Terje R Pedersen9, Marc S Sabatine1,10. 1. TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) Study Office, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Third Department of Medicine, Cardiology, and Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department of Cardiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 5. Cardiovascular Clinical Research Institute, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. 6. Department of Cardiology, Hospital de Santa Cruz, Lisbon, Portugal. 7. Amgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California. 8. International Centre for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, England. 9. Ullevål and Medical Faculty, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 10. Deputy Editor.
Abstract
Importance: Current guidelines for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease focus on high-intensity statins and targeting or using a threshold low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of less than 70 mg/dL for the highest-risk patients. Whether further reduction of LDL-C beyond these boundaries would be beneficial is unknown. Objective: To compare outcomes of evolocumab vs placebo in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL and in those receiving background treatment with a maximal-potency statin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary ad hoc analysis of the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial compared randomized treatments in 2 subgroups of patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease currently receiving statin. Patients were classified by a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 or at least 70 mg/dL and by statin intensity (maximal: atorvastatin calcium, 80 mg/d, or rosuvastatin, 40 mg/d; submaximal: all other dosages). Patients with baseline LDL of less than 70 mg/dL either had a final screening LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL or a final screening non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of at least 100 mg/dL. Data were retrieved from 2013 to 2016 and analyzed in 2017 based on intention to treat. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety outcomes included adverse events and events of interest identified in the FOURIER trial. Interaction testing was used to assess the consistency of results in patients who did vs did not satisfy the above criteria. Results:A total of 27 564 patients (75.4% men and 24.6% women; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [9.0] years) were included in the analysis. Of 2034 patients (7.4%) who had a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL, evolocumab reduced the risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.07) to a similar degree as in the 25 529 patients who had baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P = .65 for interaction; 1 patient was missing baseline LDL-C data). Of 7533 patients (27.3%) receiving maximal-potency statins, evolocumab significantly reduced the primary endpoint (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) to a similar degree as in the 20 031 patients not receiving a maximal-potency statin (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .88 for interaction). The key secondary endpoint was reduced to a similar degree in both analyses. No major safety concerns were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Evolocumab was equally effective in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease regardless of whether the baseline LDL-C was less than 70 or at least 70 mg/dL and whether the background statin was of maximal or submaximal potency.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Current guidelines for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease focus on high-intensity statins and targeting or using a threshold low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of less than 70 mg/dL for the highest-risk patients. Whether further reduction of LDL-C beyond these boundaries would be beneficial is unknown. Objective: To compare outcomes of evolocumab vs placebo in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL and in those receiving background treatment with a maximal-potency statin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary ad hoc analysis of the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial compared randomized treatments in 2 subgroups of patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease currently receiving statin. Patients were classified by a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 or at least 70 mg/dL and by statin intensity (maximal: atorvastatin calcium, 80 mg/d, or rosuvastatin, 40 mg/d; submaximal: all other dosages). Patients with baseline LDL of less than 70 mg/dL either had a final screening LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL or a final screening non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of at least 100 mg/dL. Data were retrieved from 2013 to 2016 and analyzed in 2017 based on intention to treat. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Safety outcomes included adverse events and events of interest identified in the FOURIER trial. Interaction testing was used to assess the consistency of results in patients who did vs did not satisfy the above criteria. Results: A total of 27 564 patients (75.4% men and 24.6% women; mean [SD] age, 62.5 [9.0] years) were included in the analysis. Of 2034 patients (7.4%) who had a baseline LDL-C of less than 70 mg/dL, evolocumab reduced the risk for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.60-1.07) to a similar degree as in the 25 529 patients who had baseline LDL-C of at least 70 mg/dL (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P = .65 for interaction; 1 patient was missing baseline LDL-C data). Of 7533 patients (27.3%) receiving maximal-potency statins, evolocumab significantly reduced the primary endpoint (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98) to a similar degree as in the 20 031 patients not receiving a maximal-potency statin (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93; P = .88 for interaction). The key secondary endpoint was reduced to a similar degree in both analyses. No major safety concerns were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Evolocumab was equally effective in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease regardless of whether the baseline LDL-C was less than 70 or at least 70 mg/dL and whether the background statin was of maximal or submaximal potency.
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson; Karen M Eddleman; Nicole M Jarrett; Ken LaBresh; Lev Nevo; Janusz Wnek; Jeffrey L Anderson; Jonathan L Halperin; Nancy M Albert; Biykem Bozkurt; Ralph G Brindis; Lesley H Curtis; David DeMets; Judith S Hochman; Richard J Kovacs; E Magnus Ohman; Susan J Pressler; Frank W Sellke; Win-Kuang Shen; Sidney C Smith; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christopher P Cannon; Michael A Blazing; Robert P Giugliano; Amy McCagg; Jennifer A White; Pierre Theroux; Harald Darius; Basil S Lewis; Ton Oude Ophuis; J Wouter Jukema; Gaetano M De Ferrari; Witold Ruzyllo; Paul De Lucca; KyungAh Im; Erin A Bohula; Craig Reist; Stephen D Wiviott; Andrew M Tershakovec; Thomas A Musliner; Eugene Braunwald; Robert M Califf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marc S Sabatine; Robert P Giugliano; Anthony Keech; Narimon Honarpour; Huei Wang; Thomas Liu; Scott M Wasserman; Robert Scott; Peter S Sever; Terje R Pedersen Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Pamela B Morris; Christie M Ballantyne; Kim K Birtcher; David D Daly; Sondra M DePalma; Margo B Minissian; Carl E Orringer; Sidney C Smith Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Alberico L Catapano; Ian Graham; Guy De Backer; Olov Wiklund; M John Chapman; Heinz Drexel; Arno W Hoes; Catriona S Jennings; Ulf Landmesser; Terje R Pedersen; Željko Reiner; Gabriele Riccardi; Marja-Riita Taskinen; Lale Tokgozoglu; W M Monique Verschuren; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; David A Wood; Jose Luis Zamorano; Marie-Therese Cooney Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Louise Bowman; Jemma C Hopewell; Fang Chen; Karl Wallendszus; William Stevens; Rory Collins; Stephen D Wiviott; Christopher P Cannon; Eugene Braunwald; Emily Sammons; Martin J Landray Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Erin A Bohula; Marc P Bonaca; Eugene Braunwald; Philip E Aylward; Ramon Corbalan; Gaetano M De Ferrari; Ping He; Basil S Lewis; Piera A Merlini; Sabina A Murphy; Marc S Sabatine; Benjamin M Scirica; David A Morrow Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert P Giugliano; Terje R Pedersen; Jeong-Gun Park; Gaetano M De Ferrari; Zbigniew A Gaciong; Richard Ceska; Kalman Toth; Ioanna Gouni-Berthold; Jose Lopez-Miranda; François Schiele; François Mach; Brian R Ott; Estella Kanevsky; Armando Lira Pineda; Ransi Somaratne; Scott M Wasserman; Anthony C Keech; Peter S Sever; Marc S Sabatine Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: C Baigent; L Blackwell; J Emberson; L E Holland; C Reith; N Bhala; R Peto; E H Barnes; A Keech; J Simes; R Collins Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nicholas A Marston; Robert P Giugliano; Jeong-Gun Park; Andrea Ruzza; Peter S Sever; Anthony C Keech; Marc S Sabatine Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Marc S Sabatine; Stephen D Wiviott; KyungAh Im; Sabina A Murphy; Robert P Giugliano Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Daniel P Marcusa; Robert P Giugliano; Jeong-Gun Park; James A de Lemos; Christopher P Cannon; Marc S Sabatine Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Alanna M Chamberlain; Yan Gong; Kathryn McAuliffe Shaw; Jiang Bian; Wen-Liang Song; MacRae F Linton; Vivian Fonseca; Eboni Price-Haywood; Emily Guhl; Jordan B King; Rashmee U Shah; Jon Puro; Elizabeth Shenkman; Pamala A Pawloski; Karen L Margolis; Adrian F Hernandez; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 5.501