The Use of Fibric Acid Derivatives in Cardiovascular Prevention

Dyslipidemia in Diabetes: When and How to Treat?

Elevated triglyceride and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) are common in type 2 diabetes, but increased atherogenic particles and dysfunctional HDL are demonstrable in both types 1 and 2 diabetes, contributing to a two-fold increase in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). ASCVD risk accelerates with diabetes duration and severity, aging, risk factors, and risk enhancers. Using statins or other LDL-C-lowering agents if needed in adults with intermediate or greater degrees of risk is recommended. Although hypertriglyceridemia enhances risk, most guidelines do not recommend fibrates or omega 3 fatty acid for risk reduction except for icosapent ethyl in patients with ASCVD.

Fibrates in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Comments on the results of a systematic review of the Cochrane Collaboration

Fibrates are drugs that reduce triglycerides, elevate high-density lipoproteins, as well as decrease small, dense LDL particles. The results of a study have recently been published by the Cochrane Collaboration on fibrates efficacy and safety in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. This study includes a systematic review and a meta-analysis of 6 studies (16,135 patients) that evaluated the clinical benefits of fibrates compared to placebo use or other lipid-lowering drugs. This review showed evidence of a protective effect of the fibrates compared with placebo as regards a reduction 16% of a compound objective of death due to cardiovascular disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal cerebrovascular accident (NNT: 112), and that reduce coronary morbidity and mortality by 21% (NNT: 125). In addition, fibrates could reduce previously established diabetic retinopathy. However, fibrates do not influence total mortality, or non-cardiovascular mortality. Its joint use with statins does not benefit patients without established cardiovascular disease, compared to the use of statins in monotherapy. Fibrates are safe, although they can elevate serum creatinine levels.

Fibrates in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (infarction and stroke). Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane collaboration

Fibrates are a group of drugs that are known mainly for reducing triglycerides, increasing high density lipoproteins (HDL), and reducing the fraction of small, dense LDL particles. The results of a Cochrane Collaboration study have recently been published on their efficacy and safety in the secondary prevention of severe cardiovascular accidents, including coronary and cerebrovascular disease. The study included randomised clinical trials in which the fibrate was compared with placebo or with no treatment. Clinical trials comparing two different fibrates were excluded. The clinical trials evaluated included a total of 16,112 patients (13 trials). The meta-analysis (including all the trials with fibrates) showed evidence of a protective effect of the fibrates compared with placebo as regards a compound objective of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death of cardiovascular origin (hazard ration of 0.88, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.83 to 0.94; in 16,064 individuals included in 12 studies). Thus, the results showed, with a moderate level of evidence, that fibrates could be effective in secondary prevention considering a compound objective of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death of cardiovascular origin.

Fibrates for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease events

BACKGROUND

Fibrates are effective for modifying atherogenic dyslipidaemia, and particularly for lowering serum triglycerides. However, evidence that fibrates reduce mortality and morbidity associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), or overall mortality and morbidity, in the primary prevention of CVD is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This Cochrane Review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of fibrates versus placebo or usual care or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (all from inception to 19 May 2016). We searched four clinical trial registers (last searched on 3 August 2016) with the help of an experienced professional librarian. We searched the databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effects of fibrate therapy in the primary prevention of CVD events. We did not impose any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We aimed to include all RCTs comparing the effects of fibrate monotherapy versus placebo or usual care, or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone. Included studies had a follow-up of at least six months for the primary prevention of CVD events. We excluded trials with clofibrate, because it was withdrawn from the market in 2002.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential study inclusion. Two review authors independently retrieved the full-text papers and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggregate data on primary and secondary outcomes. We tested for heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q-test and used the I² statistic to measure inconsistency of treatment effects across studies. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler software (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible trials including 16,135 individuals. The mean age of trial populations varied across trials; between 47.3 and 62.3 years. Four trials included individuals with diabetes mellitus type 2 only. The mean treatment duration and follow-up of participants across trials was 4.8 years. We judged the risks of selection and performance bias to be low; risks of detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias were unclear. Reporting of adverse effects by included trials was very limited; that is why we used discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects as a proxy for adverse effects. Patients treated with fibrates had a reduced risk for the combined primary outcome of CVD death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke compared to patients on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence). For secondary outcomes we found RRs for fibrate therapy compared with placebo of 0.79 for combined coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence); 1.01 for overall mortality (95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); 1.01 for non-CVD mortality (95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); and 1.38 for discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects (95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; participants = 4805; studies = 3; I² = 74%; very low-quality of evidence). Data on quality of life were not available from any trial. Trials that evaluated fibrates in the background of statins (2 studies) showed no benefits in preventing cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence suggests that fibrates lower the risk for cardiovascular and coronary events in primary prevention, but the absolute treatment effects in the primary prevention setting are modest (absolute risk reductions < 1%). There is low-quality evidence that fibrates have no effect on overall or non-CVD mortality. Very low-quality evidence suggests that fibrates are not associated with increased risk for adverse effects.

Fibrates for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke

BACKGROUND

Fibrates are a class of drugs characterised by mainly lowering high triglyceride, raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and lowering the small dense fraction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Their efficacy for secondary prevention of serious vascular events is unclear, and to date no systematic review focusing on secondary prevention has been undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fibrates for the prevention of serious vascular events in people with previous cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease and stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2014) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2014 week 41), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM) (1978 to 2014), the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 2014), Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP) (1989 to 2014). We also searched other resources, such as ongoing trials registers and databases of conference abstracts, to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a fibrate (for example gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) was compared with placebo or no treatment. We excluded RCTs with only laboratory outcomes. We also excluded trials comparing two different fibrates without a placebo or no-treatment control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We contacted authors of trials for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving a total of 16,112 participants. Eleven trials recruited participants with history of coronary heart disease, two trials recruited participants with history of stroke, and one trial recruited participants with a mix of people with CVD. We judged overall risk of bias to be moderate. The meta-analysis (including all fibrate trials) showed evidence for a protective effect of fibrates primarily compared to placebo for the primary composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.94; participants = 16,064; studies = 12; I(2) = 45%, fixed effect). Fibrates were moderately effective for preventing MI occurrence (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.93; participants = 13,942; studies = 10; I(2) = 24%, fixed effect). Fibrates were not effective against all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 23%), death from vascular causes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect), and stroke events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 11,719; studies = 6; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect). Excluding clofibrate trials, as the use of clofibrate was discontinued in 2012 due to safety concerns, the remaining class of fibrates were no longer effective in preventing the primary composite outcome (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; participants = 10,320; studies = 7; I(2) = 50%, random effects). However, without clofibrate data, fibrates remained effective in preventing MI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94; participants = 8304; studies = 6; I(2) = 47%, fixed effect). There was no increase in adverse events with fibrates compared to control. Subgroup analyses showed the benefit of fibrates on the primary composite outcome to be consistent irrespective of age, gender, and diabetes mellitus.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate evidence showed that the fibrate class can be effective in the secondary prevention of composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, and vascular death. However, this beneficial effect relies on the inclusion of clofibrate data, a drug that was discontinued in 2002 due to its unacceptably large adverse effects. Further trials of the use of fibrates in populations with previous stroke and also against a background treatment with statins (standard of care) are required.

Nonstatin therapies for management of dyslipidemia: a review

PURPOSE

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Recently published cholesterol treatment guidelines emphasize the use of statins as the preferred treatment strategy for both primary and secondary prevention of CVD. However, the optimal treatment strategy for patients who cannot tolerate statin therapy or those who need additional lipid-lowering therapy is unclear in light of recent evidence that demonstrates a lack of improved cardiovascular outcomes with combination therapy. The purpose of this review is to summarize and interpret evidence that evaluates nonstatin drug classes in reducing cardiovascular outcomes, to provide recommendations for use of nonstatin therapies in clinical practice, and to review emerging nonstatin therapies for management of dyslipidemia.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified through searches of PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews by using the terms niacin, omega-3 fatty acids (FAs), clofibrate, fibrate, fenofibrate, fenofibric acid, gemfibrozil, cholestyramine, colestipol, colesevelam, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9), cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP), and cardiovascular outcomes. Only English language, human clinical trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews were included. Additional references were identified from citations of published articles.

FINDINGS

Niacin may reduce cardiovascular events as monotherapy; however, recent trials in combination with statins have failed to show a benefit. Trials with omega-3 FAs have failed to demonstrate significant reductions in cardiovascular outcomes. Fibrates may improve cardiovascular outcomes as monotherapy; however, trials in combination with statins have failed to show a benefit, except in those with elevated triglycerides (>200 mg/dL) or low HDL-C (<40 mg/dL). There is a lack of data that evaluates bile acid sequestrant in combination with statin therapy on reducing cardiovascular events. Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy can reduce cardiovascular outcomes in those with chronic kidney disease and following vascular surgery or acute coronary syndrome. Long-term effects of emerging nonstatin therapies (CETP and PCSK9 inhibitors) are currently being evaluated in ongoing Phase III trials.

IMPLICATIONS

Nonstatin therapies have a limited role in reducing cardiovascular events in those maintained on guideline-directed statin therapy. In certain clinical situations, such as patients who are unable to tolerate statin therapy or recommended intensities of statin therapy, those with persistent severe elevations in triglycerides, or patients with high cardiovascular risk, some nonstatin therapies may be useful in reducing cardiovascular events. Future research is needed to evaluate the role of nonstatin therapies in those who are unable to tolerate guideline-directed statin doses.

Effects of established hypolipidemic drugs on HDL concentration, subclass distribution, and function

The knowledge of an inverse relationship between plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations and rates of cardiovascular disease has led to the concept that increasing plasma HDL-C levels would be protective against cardiovascular events. Therapeutic interventions presently available to correct the plasma lipid profile have not been designed to specifically act on HDL, but have modest to moderate effects on plasma HDL-C concentrations. Statins, the first-line lipid-lowering drug therapy in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention, have quite modest effects on plasma HDL-C concentrations (2-10%). Fibrates, primarily used to reduce plasma triglyceride levels, also moderately increase HDL-C levels (5-15%). Niacin is the most potent available drug in increasing HDL-C levels (up to 30%), but its use is limited by side effects, especially flushing.The present chapter reviews the effects of established hypolipidemic drugs (statins, fibrates, and niacin) on plasma HDL-C levels and HDL subclass distribution, and on HDL functions, including cholesterol efflux capacity, endothelial protection, and antioxidant properties.

Differential effects of fenofibrate and extended-release niacin on high-density lipoprotein particle size distribution and cholesterol efflux capacity in dyslipidemic patients

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of therapies that raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) to lower cardiovascular disease risk is currently under debate, and further research into the relationship between HDL-C and function is required.

OBJECTIVE

o investigate whether 2 established HDL-C-raising therapies had differential effects on parameters of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) quality and function, such as HDL particle profile and cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC), in patients with dyslipidemia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with dyslipidemia, 24 with low HDL-C levels (<40 mg/dL) and 42 with normal HDL-C levels (40-59 mg/dL), were treated for 6 weeks with fenofibrate (160 mg/d) or extended-release (ER) niacin (0.5 g/d for 3 weeks, then 1 g/d) with 4 weeks of washout between treatments. Lipoprotein particle size distribution was determined using nuclear magnetic resonance, and pathway-specific serum CECs were assessed in J774 macrophages, hepatoma, and Chinese hamster ovary-human adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette transporter G1 cells. Comparable increases in HDL-C and apolipoprotein A-I levels were seen with fenofibrate and ER niacin. There was a shift toward larger HDL, predominantly to medium-size HDL particles for fenofibrate (+209%) and to large HDL particles for ER niacin (+221%). Minor changes in serum CECs were observed with fenofibrate and ER niacin for all the efflux pathways measured. Small increases in plasma cholesteryl ester transfer protein and lecithin: cholesterol acyltransferase concentrations, and decreases in cholesteryl ester transfer protein activity were seen with both drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Fenofibrate and ER niacin increased plasma HDL-C level similarly, but modulated HDL particle size distribution differently; however, these changes did not result in differential effects on serum CECs.