The differences in lipid lowering therapies and the LDL-C goal attainment in ASCVD patients documented by cardiologists and general practitioners in Germany - a 3-year journey

O. Weingärtner (Jena)1, S. Glück (München)2, K. Werdan (Halle (Saale))3, D. Thieme (Grande)4, J. Streich (Grande)4, A. de la Llave (Frankfurt)5, C. von Vultee (Frankfurt)5, W. Haerer (Ulm)6
1Universitätsklinikum Jena Klinik für Innere Medizin I - Kardiologie Jena, Deutschland; 2BNK Service GmbH Forschung und Versorgung München, Deutschland; 3Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale) Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin III - Forschungslabor Halle (Saale), Deutschland; 4Novartis Pharma GmbH Grande, Deutschland; 5Real World Solutions, IQVIA Frankfurt, Deutschland; 6Cardiologicum Herzklinik Ulm MVZ Überörtliche BAG Ulm, Deutschland

Background: Six years ago, the EAS/ESC guidelines for lipid management in ASCVD patients were put in place. To evaluate the clinical implementation in routine care the LipidSnapshot project was launched as a collaborative approach from industry and physician´s organizations to highlighting the German situation around general practitioners (GPs) and office-based cardiologists (OBCs) in secondary prevention.The aim was to confirm the global finding that especially high-risk patients suffer from a systemic undertreatment in lipid-lowering therapy resulting in a higher risk due to the non-achievement of their respective LDL-C goals.

Methods: Data from ASCVD patients obtained from a prospective, non-interventional multicenter research project with OBCs were compared to patient data from a retrospective, aggregated analysis of anonymous electronic medical records documented by GPs within the IQVIA Disease Analyzer. The proportion of patients reaching pre-defined LDL-C categories, differences in lipid lowering therapies (LLT), gender- and age-related differences in lipoprotein levels as well as LLTs in patients documented by OBCs compared to GPs were assessed in three consecutive years starting 2023.

Results: Data from patients at OBCs and patients documented by GPs were included. Mean age at GPs (25% female) between 72.4y to 71.1y and at OBCs (40% female) 73y for all three years, respectively (table 1). With 68.4 mg/dL at OBCs and 89 mg/dL at GPs both current populations show a slightly lower mean LDL-C value compared to the previous years (see table 2 for details). Additionally, the population achieving LDL-C values <55 mg/dL was 34.9% at OBCs compared with 17.7% at GPs, which increased in comparison to the previous years (Table 2). In the current analysis patients of OBCs without any LLT stagnated at 1.3% while patient population without LLT at GPs decreased slightly to 18.4% compared to previous years (table 3). Patient population with statine monotherapy at OBCs is decreasing over the past years to now 44.3% while the patients with statine combination therapy at OBCs is growing in parallel to now 47.5%. All other LLTs are still underrepresented (table 3). With around 60% the vast majority of all patient´s at GPs still receive statine monotherapy. Only 17.3% of the patients receive statine combination therapy which is below the patients receiving no LLT (table 3). Interestingly, in the group of patients achieving the 55mg/ dL LDL-C goal patients with any kind of PCSK9 treatment are overrepresented(table 4).

Conclusion: The majority of ASCVD patients in Germany still do not reach recommended LDL-C target levels. OBCs treat ASCVD patients more often with combined LLT and reach LDL-C targets more often than GPs. Still, one out of five very high-risk patients does not receive any LLT at all from GPs although the numbers a slightly decreasing over the past three years. Additionally, PSCK9 treated patients are more likely to reach LDL-C goals.  The data indicate a need to unify guidelines for physicians treating ASCVD patients in Germany.