Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy (Feb 2022)

PCSK9 inhibitors revisited: Effectiveness and safety of PCSK9 inhibitors in a real-life Spanish cohort

  • Juan Vicente-Valor,
  • Xandra García-González,
  • Sara Ibáñez-García,
  • María Esther Durán-García,
  • Ana de Lorenzo-Pinto,
  • Carmen Rodríguez-González,
  • Irene Méndez-Fernández,
  • Juan Carlos Percovich-Hualpa,
  • Ana Herranz-Alonso,
  • María Sanjurjo-Sáez

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 146
p. 112519

Abstract

Read online

Introduction: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have emerged as a therapeutic option for patients with hypercholesterolemia who do not attain low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals and/or are intolerant to other lipid-lowering drugs. Our aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of PCSK9i in routine clinical practice and factors related to poor outcomes. Materials and methods: We conducted an ambispective study in 115 patients who recieved alirocumab or evolocumab, in a tertiary level hospital. From February 2017 to April 2020, patients were recruited and followed up for a median of 20.4 months. The main outcomes were relative reduction in LDL-C, percentage of patients achieving the therapeutic goals established by 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines, incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and drug-related adverse events (ADRs). Results: The median LDL-C achieved was 57.0 mg/dL (relative reduction of 59.9% from baseline, p< 0.001). After adjusting for confounders, smaller LDL-C reductions were related to female sex, absence of concomitant lipid-lowering therapy and treatment with alirocumab. Overall, 84.6% of the patients achieved the therapeutic goals. During follow-up, 7 MACEs were detected. ADRs, generally considered mild, affected 38.1% of the participants (mainly mialgias and arthralgias) and triggered discontinuations in 8.7% of cases. Conclusions: PCSK9i are effective and safe, although certain factors may influence their effectiveness. Interestingly, our results suggest that alirocumab and evolocumab may not be therapeutic equivalents, as initially suggested.

Keywords