BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )

Background Studies of the treatment of patients in-hospital with a specific diagnosis show that physicians with a subspecialisation relevant to this diagnosis can provide a better quality of care. However, studies including patients with a range of diagnoses show a more negligible effect of being attended by a relevant subspecialist. This project aimed to study a more extensive set of patients and diagnoses in an environment where the subspecialist present could be controlled. Thus, this study investigated whether being attended by a physician with a subspeciality relevant to the patient’s primary diagnosis was prospectively associated with readmission, in-hospital mortality, or length of stay compared to a physician with a subspeciality not relevant to the patient’s primary diagnosis. Methods We have conducted a retrospective register-based study of 11,059 hospital admissions across 9 years at a local hospital in south-eastern Norway, where it was possible to identify the physician attending the patients at the beginning of the stay. The outcomes studied were emergency readmissions to the same ward within 30 days, any in-hospital mortality and the total length of stay. The patients admitted were matched with the consultant(s) responsible for their treatment. Then, the admissions were divided into two groups according to their primary diagnosis. Was their diagnosis within the subspeciality of the attending consultant (relevant subspecialist) or not (non-relevant subspecialist). The two groups were then compared using bivariable and multivariable models adjusted for patient characteristics, comorbidities, diagnostic group and physician sex. Results A relevant subspecialist was present during the first 3 days in 8058 (73%) of the 11,059 patient cases. Patients attended to by a relevant subspecialist had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.09) for being readmitted and 0.71 (0.48 to 1.04) for dying in the hospital and had a length of stay that was 0.18 (− 0.07 to 0.42) days longer than for those attended to by a non-relevant subspecialist. Conclusions This study found that patients attended by a relevant subspecialist did not have a significantly different outcome to those attended by a non-relevant subspecialist.