Same evidence, varying viewpoints: three questions illustrating important differences between United States and European cholesterol guideline recommendations
Fecha
2020Autor
Feldman, David I.
Michos, Erin D.
Stone, Neil J.
Gluckman, Ty J.
CainzosAchirica, Miguel
Virani, Salim S.
Blumenthal, Roger S.
Resumen
In 2018, the AHA/ACC Multisociety Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol was
released. Less than one year later, the 2019 ESC/ EAS Dyslipidemia Guideline was published.
While both provide important recommendations for managing atherosclerotic cardiovascular
disease (ASCVD) risk through lipid management, differences exist. Prior to the publication of
both guidelines, important randomized clinical trial data emerged on non-statin lipid lowering
therapy and ASCVD risk reduction. To illustrate important differences in guideline
recommendations, we use this data to help answer three key questions: 1) Are ASCVD event
rates similar in high-risk primary and stable secondary prevention?; 2) Does imaging evidence of
subclinical atherosclerosis justify aggressive use of statin and non-statin therapy (if needed) to
reduce LDL-C levels below 55 mg/dL as recommended in the European Guideline?; 3) Do LDL-C
levels below 70 mg/dL achieve a large absolute risk reduction in secondary ASCVD prevention?.
The US guideline prioritizes both the added efficacy and cost implications of non-statin therapy,
which limits intensive therapy to individuals with the highest risk of ASCVD. The European
approach broadens the eligibility criteria by incorporating goals of therapy in both primary and
secondary prevention. The current cost and access constraints of healthcare worldwide,
especially amidst a COVID-19 pandemic, makes the European recommendations more
challenging to implement. By restricting non-statin therapy to a subgroup of high- and, in
particular, very high-risk individuals, the US guideline provides primary and secondary ASCVD
prevention recommendations that are more affordable and attainable. Ultimately, finding a
common ground for both guidelines rests on our ability to design trials that assess costeffectiveness in addition to efficacy and safety.
Palabras clave
Same evidenceEnlace al recurso
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2020.100117Colecciones
Estadísticas Google Analytics
Comentarios
Respuesta Comentario Repositorio Expeditio
Gracias por tomarse el tiempo para darnos su opinión.