Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

The paper presents a post-hoc analysis of the intensity of dyslipidaemia care operated in the first 2 years of Multiple-Intervention-in-type–2-Diabetes.ITaly (MIND.IT) study.

Design and methods

MIND.IT is a multicentric, randomized, two-parallel arm trial involving 1461 type 2 diabetic patients at high cardiovascular (CV) risk. The study compares the usual care (UC) of CV prevention with a multifactorial intensive care (IC) approach aiming at achieving target values for the main CV risk factors according to a step-wise treat-to-target approach.

Results

Proportion of patients on target for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was about 10% at baseline and increased significantly more with IC than UC (43 vs. 27%; p < 0.001). However, the majority (57%) of patients, in this intended intensively treated cohort, failed to achieve the proposed target. Average LDL-C decreased from 144 ± 35 to 108 ± 31 mg/dl with IC and from 142 ± 28 to 118 ± 32 with UC (p-for-interaction <0.0001). IC was associated with a significantly greater increase in statin prescription and lower withdrawal from treatment than UC (43 vs. 11% and 28 vs. 61%, respectively; both p < 0.001). However, the new treatments were characterized in both groups by the use of low starting doses (≤10 mg of atorvastatin, equivalent dose in more than 90% of patients) without increase in case of missed target.

Conclusions

The application of a multifactorial treat-to-target intervention is associated with a significant improvement in LDL-C beyond usual practice. However, the change in LDL-C appears to be more related to an increased number of treated patients and a decreased treatment withdrawal than to a true treat-to-target approach.

Keywords

Cardiovascular cholesterol diabetes intervention lipid statins treatment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Turner

Millns

Neil

. Risk factors for coronary artery disease in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus: United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS: 23). BMJ 1998; 316: 823–828.

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2008; 371: 117–125.

National Institute of Health, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and National Cholesterol Education Program. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Executive Summary 2001. NIH, 2001. Publication no. 01–3670.

American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2011. Diabetes Care 2011; 34: S11–S61.

Catapano

Reiner

De Backer

. European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias. Atherosclerosis 2011; 217: 3–46.

Perk

De Backer

Gohlke

. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012): the Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice. Atherosclerosis 2012; 223: 1–68.

Grundy

Cleeman

Merz

. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation 2004; 110: 227–239.

Brunzell

Davidson

Furberg

. Lipoprotein management in patients with cardiometabolic risk: consensus statement from the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Diabetes Care 2008; 31: 811–822.

Jellinger

Smith

Mehta

. American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists’ guidelines for management of dyslipidemia and prevention of atherosclerosis. Endocr Pract 2012; 18(Suppl 1): 1–78.

10.

Smith

Jr Allen

Blair

. AHA/ACC guidelines for secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2006 update: endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circulation 2006; 113: 2363–2372.

11.

Frolkis

Pearce

Nambi

. Statins do not meet expectations for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels when used in clinical practice. Am J Med 2002; 113: 625–629.

12.

Davidson

. Differences between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness. Am J Manag Care 2006; 12: S405–S411.

13.

Nag

Daniel

Bullano

. LDL-C goal attainment among patients newly diagnosed with coronary heart disease or diabetes in a commercial HMO. J Manag Care Pharm 2007; 13: 652–663.

14.

Kotseva

Stagmo

De Bacquer

. Treatment potential for cholesterol management in patients with coronary heart disease in 15 European countries: findings from the EUROASPIRE II survey. Atherosclerosis 2008; 197: 710–717.

15.

Van Ganse

Laforest

Alemao

. Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Europe: the Return on Expenditure Achieved for Lipid Therapy (REALITY) study. Curr Med Res Opin 2005; 21: 1389–1399.

16.

Schwandt

Brady

. Achieving lipid goals in Europe: how large is the treatment gap? Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2004; 2: 431–449.

17.

Orozco-Beltrán

Gil-Guillen

Quirce

. Control of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. The gap between guidelines and reality in Spain. Int J Clin Pract 2007; 61: 909–915.

18.

Reiner

Sonicki

Tedeschi-Reiner

. Physicians’ perception, knowledge and awareness of cardiovascular risk factors and adherence to prevention guidelines: the PERCRO-DOC survey. Atherosclerosis 2010; 213: 598–603.

19.

Vaccaro

Boemi

Cavalot

. The clinical reality of guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes in Italy. Atherosclerosis 2008; 198: 396–402.

20.

EUROASPIRE I and II Group and European Action on Secondary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events. Clinical reality of coronary prevention guidelines: a comparison of EUROASPIRE I and II in nine countries. EUROASPIRE I and II Group. European Action on Secondary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events. Lancet 2001; 357: 995–1001.

21.

Vlek

Visseren

Algra

. Trends in vascular risk factors and medication use in patients with various manifestations of vascular diseases or type 2 diabetes mellitus from 1996 to 2007: the Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease study. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010; 17: 628–636.

22.

Goldenberg

Glueck

. Efficacy, effectiveness and real life goal attainment of statins in managing cardiovascular risk. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2009; 5: 369–376.

23.

Andrade

Walker

Gottlieb

. Discontinuation of antihyperlipidemic drugs – do rates reported in clinical trials reflect rates in primary care settings? N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1125–1131.

24.

Simons

Levis

Simons

. Apparent discontinuation rates in patients prescribed lipid-lowering drugs. Med J Aust 1996; 164: 208–211.

25.

Perreault

Dragomir

Blais

. Impact of better adherence to statin agents in the primary prevention of coronary artery disease. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2009; 65: 1013–1024.

26.

Jackevicius

. Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of primary nonadherence after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2008; 11: 1028–1036.

27.

Rasmussen

Chong

Alter

. Relationship between adherence to evidence-based pharmacotherapy and long-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2007; 297: 177–186.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

Effectiveness of treat-to-target strategy for LDL-cholesterol control in type 2 diabetes: post-hoc analysis of data from the MIND.IT study