Optimal pharmacologic approach to patients with hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol: randomized comparison of fenofibrate 160 mg and niacin 1500 mg

Lipid-lowering therapy for hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis: Recent advances

With the improvement of the living standard, hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) has become the second major cause of acute pancreatitis (AP) in China. Hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (HTG-AP) has its own unique characteristics. First, the elevation of blood amylase and lipase levels is not significant. Second, the severity of the disease positively correlates with blood triglyceride (TG) level. The goal of treatment of HTG-AP is to lower blood lipids rapidly. Common lipid-lowering methods include dietary modification, lipid-lowering drugs, low-molecular heparin combined with insulin, blood purification, and combined Chinese and Western medicine. This article reviews the recent advances on lipid-lowering approaches used in HTG-AP patients.

Role of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A review of current and emerging therapies

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is structurally like low-density lipoprotein (LDL) but differs in that it contains glycoprotein apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. Due to its prothrombotic and proinflammatory properties, Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of the global population has an Lp(a) level ≥50 mg/dL (or ≥125 nmol/L). Diet and lifestyle interventions have little to no effect on Lp(a) levels. Lipoprotein apheresis is the only approved treatment for elevated Lp(a) but is time-intensive for the patient and only modestly effective. Pharmacological approaches to reduce Lp(a) levels and its associated risks are of significant interest; however, currently available lipid-lowering therapies have limited effectiveness in reducing Lp(a) levels. Although statins are first-line agents to reduce LDL cholesterol levels, they modestly increase Lp(a) levels and have not been shown to change Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk. Alirocumab, evolocumab, and inclisiran reduce Lp(a) levels by 20-25%, yet the clinical implications of this reduction for Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk are uncertain. Niacin also lowers Lp(a) levels; however, its effectiveness in mitigating Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk remains unclear, and its side effects have limited its utilization. Recommendations for when to screen and how to manage individuals with elevated Lp(a) vary widely between national and international guidelines and scientific statements. Three investigational compounds targeting Lp(a), including small interfering RNA (siRNA) agents (olpasiran, SLN360) and an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen), are in various stages of development. These compounds block the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into apo(a), a key structural component of Lp(a), thereby substantially reducing Lp(a) synthesis in the liver. The purpose of this review is to describe current recommendations for screening and managing elevated Lp(a), describe the effects of currently available lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a) levels, and provide insight into emerging therapies targeting Lp(a).

Triglyceride Metabolism Modifies Lipoprotein(a) Plasma Concentration

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a significant cardiovascular risk factor. Knowing the mechanisms that regulate its concentration can facilitate the development of Lp(a)-lowering drugs. This study analyzes the relationship between triglycerides (TGs) and Lp(a) concentrations, cross-sectionally and longitudinally, and the influence of the number and composition of TG-rich lipoproteins, and the APOE genotype.

METHODS

Data from Aragon Workers Health Study (AWHS) (n = 5467), National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III phase 2 (n = 3860), and Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet (HUMS) (n = 2079) were used for cross-sectional TG and Lp(a) relationship. Lp(a) intrasubject variation was studied in AWHS participants and HUMS patients with repeated measurements. TG-rich lipoproteins were quantified by nuclear magnetic resonance in a subsample from AWHS. Apolipoproteins B and E were quantified by Luminex in very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) isolated by ultracentrifugation, from HUMS samples. APOE genotyping was carried in AWHS and HUMS participants. Regression models adjusted for age and sex were used to study the association.

RESULTS

The 3 studies showed an inverse relationship between TG and Lp(a). Increased VLDL number, size, and TG content were associated with significantly lower Lp(a). There was an inverse association between the apoE concentration in VLDL and Lp(a). No significant association was observed for apolipoprotein (apo)B. Subjects carrying the apoE2/E2 genotype had significantly lower levels of Lp(a).

CONCLUSION

Our results show an inverse relationship Lp(a)-TG. Subjects with larger VLDL size have lower Lp(a), and lower values of Lp(a) were present in patients with apoE-rich VLDL and apoE2/E2 subjects. Our results suggest that bigger VLDLs and VLDLs enriched in apoE are inversely involved in Lp(a) plasma concentration.

Clinical approach to the inflammatory etiology of cardiovascular diseases

Inflammation is an obligatory marker of arterial disease, both stemming from the inflammatory activity of cholesterol itself and from well-established molecular mechanisms. Raised progenitor cell recruitment after major events and clonal hematopoiesis related mechanisms have provided an improved understanding of factors regulating inflammatory phenomena. Trials with inflammation antagonists have led to an extensive evaluation of biomarkers such as the high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), not exerting a causative role, but frequently indicative of the individual cardiovascular (CV) risk. Aim of this review is to provide indication on the anti-inflammatory profile of agents of general use in CV prevention, i.e. affecting lipids, blood pressure, diabetes as well nutraceuticals such as n-3 fatty acids. A crucial issue in the evaluation of the benefit of the anti-inflammatory activity is the frequent discordance between a beneficial activity on a major risk factor and associated changes of hsCRP, as in the case of statins vs PCSK9 antagonists. In hypertension, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors exert an optimal anti-inflammatory activity, vs the case of sartans. The remarkable preventive activity of SLGT-2 inhibitors in heart failure is not associated with a clear anti-inflammatory mechanism. Finally, icosapent ethyl has been shown to reduce the CV risk in hypertriglyceridemia, with a 27 % reduction of hsCRP. The inflammation-based approach to arterial disease has considerably gained from an improved understanding of the clinical diagnostic strategy and from a better knowledge on the mode of action of numerous agents, including nutraceuticals.

Effect of Niacin on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Patients at Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol Goal but High Lipoprotein (a) Level: a 2-Year Follow-Up Study

Objective

To examine the effect of niacin on the progression of carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in patients with high level of lipoprotein (Lp) (a).

Methods

Patients at low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol goal but with Lp (a) >25 mg/dL and mean carotid IMT >0.75 mm were included. Eligible patients were randomized at a 1:2 ratio into one of two groups for 24 months: control or 1,500 mg extended release niacin. The primary study outcomes were the percentage changes in mean and maximal carotid IMT. The percentage change in lipid profiles including Lp (a) was analyzed as a secondary study outcome.

Results

Among 96 randomized patients, 31 completed the study (mean age: 65 years; male: 44%). At follow-up, the percentage change in mean carotid IMT was not significantly different between the two groups (−1.4%±15.5% and −1.1%±7.3% in the control and niacin groups, respectively, p=0.95). The percentage change in maximal carotid IMT was also similar in the two groups (0.7%±16.5% and −4.4%±11.6%, respectively, p=0.35). Elevation of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol tended to be higher in the niacin group (p=0.07), and there was a significant difference in the percentage change in hemoglobin A1c between the two groups (−1.9%±2.2% and 3.3%±6.7%, respectively, p=0.02). Reduction of Lp (a) was greater in the niacin-treated group compared to placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Treatment with niacin for two years did not inhibit the progression of carotid intima-media thickening in patients with high Lp (a) level. However, this study may have been underpowered to evaluate the primary study outcome.

Effect of fenofibrate in 1113 patients at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal but high triglyceride levels: Real-world results and factors associated with triglyceride reduction

Fibrates are used in patients with dyslipidemia and high cardiovascular risk. However, information regarding drug response to fibrate has been highly limited. We investigated treatment results and factors associated with triglyceride reduction after fenofibrate therapy using large-scale real-world data. Patients with one or more cardiovascular risk factors, at low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol goal but with triglyceride level ≥150 mg/dL, and undergoing treatment with fenofibrate 135–160 mg for the first time were included in this retrospective observational study. The outcome variable was the percentage changes of TG levels. The achievement rate of triglyceride <150 mg/dL was additionally analyzed. Factors associated with treatment results were also analyzed. Among 2546 patients who were initially screened, 1113 patients were enrolled (median age: 61 years; male: 71%). After median follow-up of 4 months, the median change in triglyceride was -60%, and 49% of the patients reached triglyceride <150 mg/dL. After adjusting for confounding variables, female sex, non-diabetic status, coronary artery disease, lower baseline triglyceride, and no statin use were identified to be independently associated with achievement of triglyceride <150 mg/dL. Among them, female sex, non-diabetic status, and coronary artery disease were also related to median or greater percentage reduction of triglyceride. In conclusion, only half of the study patients reached triglyceride levels <150 mg/dL after real-world fenofibrate therapy. This study indicates that more attention is needed on some subgroups to obtain optimal triglyceride levels when treating with fenofibrate.

Metabolic Alterations Associated with Atorvastatin/Fenofibric Acid Combination in Patients with Atherogenic Dyslipidaemia: A Randomized Trial for Comparison with Escalated-Dose Atorvastatin

In the current study, the metabolic effects of atorvastatin dose escalation versus atorvastatin/fenofibric acid combination were compared using metabolomics analyses. Men and women with combined hyperlipidaemia were initially prescribed atorvastatin (10 mg, ≥4 weeks). Patients who reached low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol targets, but had triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels ≥150 mg/dL and <50 mg/dL, respectively, were randomized to receive atorvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg/fenofibric acid 135 mg for 12 weeks. Metabolite profiling of serum was performed and changes in metabolites after drug treatment in the two groups were compared. Analysis was performed using patients' samples obtained before and after treatment. Of 89 screened patients, 37 who met the inclusion criteria were randomized, and 34 completed the study. Unlike that in the dose-escalation group, distinct clustering of both lipid and aqueous metabolites was observed in the combination group after treatment. Most lipid metabolites of acylglycerols and many of ceramides decreased, while many of sphingomyelins increased in the combination group. Atorvastatin dose escalation modestly decreased lysophosphatidylcholines; however, the effect of combination therapy was variable. Most aqueous metabolites decreased, while L-carnitine remarkably increased in the combination group. In conclusion, the atorvastatin/fenofibric acid combination induced distinct metabolite clustering. Our results provide comprehensive information regarding metabolic changes beyond conventional lipid profiles for this combination therapy.

Lipid lowering drugs and inflammatory changes: an impact on cardiovascular outcomes?

Inflammatory changes are responsible for maintenance of the atherosclerotic process and may underlie some of the most feared vascular complications. Among the multiple mechanisms of inflammation, the arterial deposition of lipids and particularly of cholesterol crystals is the one responsible for the activation of inflammasome NLRP3, followed by the rise of circulating markers, mainly C-reactive protein (CRP). Elevation of lipoproteins, LDL but also VLDL and remnants, associates with increased inflammatory changes and coronary risk. Lipid lowering medications can reduce cholesterolemia and CRP: patients with elevations of both are at greatest cardiovascular (CV) risk and receive maximum benefit from therapy. Evaluation of the major drug series indicates that statins exert the largest LDL and CRP reduction, accompanied by reduced CV events. Other drugs, mainly active on the triglyceride/HDL axis, for example, PPAR agonists, may improve CRP and the lipid pattern, especially in patients with metabolic syndrome. PCSK9 antagonists, the newest most potent medications, do not induce significant changes in inflammatory markers, but patients with the highest baseline CRP levels show the best CV risk reduction. Parallel evaluation of lipids and inflammatory changes clearly indicates a significant link, both guiding to patients at highest risk, and to the best pharmacological approach. Key messages Lipid lowering agents with "pleiotropic" effects provide a more effective approach to CV prevention In CANTOS study, patients achieving on-treatment hsCRP concentrations ≤2 mg/L had a higher benefit in terms of reduction in major CV events The anti-inflammatory activity of PCSK9 antagonists appears to be of a minimal extent.

A reappraisal of the risks and benefits of treating to target with cholesterol lowering drugs

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one cause of death globally, and lipid modification, particularly lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), is one of the cornerstones of prevention and treatment. However, even after lowering of LDLc to conventional goals, a sizeable number of patients continue to suffer cardiovascular events. More aggressive lowering of LDLc and optimization of other lipid parameters like triglycerides (TG) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) have been proposed as two potential strategies to address this residual risk. These strategies entail use of maximal doses of highly potent HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and combination therapy with other lipid modifying agents. Though statins in general are fairly well tolerated, adverse events like myopathy are dose related. There are further risks with combination therapy. In this article, we review the adverse effects of lipid modifying agents used alone and in combination and weigh these effects against the evidence demonstrating their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all cause mortality. For patients with established CVD, statins are the only group of drugs that have shown consistent reductions in hard outcomes. Though more aggressive lipid lowering with high dose potent statins can reduce rates of non fatal events and need for interventions, the incremental mortality benefits remain unclear, and their use is associated with a higher rate of drug related adverse effects. Myopathy and renal events have been a significant concern with the use of high potency statin drugs, in particular simvastatin and rosuvastatin. For patients who have not reached target LDL levels or have residual lipid abnormalities on maximal doses of statins, the addition of other agents has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes and carries an increased risk of adverse events. The clinical benefits of drugs to raise HDLc remain unproven. In patients without known cardiovascular disease, there is conflicting evidence as to the benefits of aggressive pursuit of numerical lipid targets, particularly with respect to all cause mortality. Certainly, in statin intolerant patients, alternative agents with a low side effect profile are desirable. Bile acid sequestrants are an effective and safe choice for decreasing LDLc, and omega-3 fatty acids are safe agents to decrease TG. There remains an obvious need to design and carry out large scale studies to help determine which agents, when combined with statins, have the greatest benefit on cardiovascular disease with the least added risk. These studies should be designed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes rather than surrogate endpoints, and require a comprehensive assessment and reporting of safety outcomes.

Effect of hypolipidemic treatment on emerging risk factors in mixed dyslipidemia: a randomized pilot trial

BACKGROUND

The effects of different hypolipidemic treatment strategies on emerging atherosclerosis risk factors remain unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prespecified analysis of a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01010516). Patients (n = 100) with mixed dyslipidaemia on a standard statin dose who had not achieved lipid targets were randomized to switch to the highest dose of rosuvastatin (40 mg/day) or to add-on-statin extended release nicotinic acid (ER-NA)/laropiprant (LRPT) or to add-on-statin micronized fenofibrate for a total of 3 months.

RESULTS

Following 3 months of treatment, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particle size increased equally in all groups. Similarly, all treatments were associated with comparable small dense LDL cholesterol reduction. Apolipoprotein B levels decreased by 15%, 7% and 4% in the rosuvastatin, add-on ER-NA/LRPT and add-on fenofibrate group, respectively (P < 0.01 for all compared with baseline, P < 0.01 for all comparisons between groups). Only add-on ER-NA/LRPT was associated with lipoprotein (a) reduction (26%, P < 0.01 compared with baseline). Rosuvastatin monotherapy and add-on ER-NA/LRPT groups were associated with 56% and 24% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (hsCRP), respectively (P < 0.01 compared with baseline), while add-on fenofibrate was not associated with changes in hsCRP concentration. Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2) activity decreased similarly in both rosuvastatin and add-on fenofibrate groups, while add-on ER-NA/LRPT was associated with a more pronounced Lp-PLA2 activity reduction. ER-NA/LRPT was associated with more side effects compared with rosuvastatin and add-on fenofibrate.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on ER-NA/LRPT followed by switch to the highest dose rosuvastatin were associated with more pronounced beneficial modifications in emerging cardiovascular risk factors compared with add-on fenofibrate in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia.

Fenofibric acid for hyperlipidemia

INTRODUCTION

3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (i.e., statins) are the mainstay of therapy for hyperlipidemia, as per the current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendation. However, the role of other agents, such as the fibrates, is continually being debated in the context of incremental risk reduction, especially in the setting of mixed dyslipidemia. Results from the ACCORD Trial have further added to the confusion. Fibrates also have a role to play in familial hyperlipidemias and in hypertriglyceridemia. Fenofibric acid is one of the newly approved forms of fenofibrate with enhanced bioavailability and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administation (FDA) for the treatment of various types of hyperlipidemia, in conjunction with statins.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the role of fenofibric acid in the context of results from recent randomized trials on fenofibrate, including the ACCORD Trial. It discusses the current status of fenofibric acid in the management of dyslipidemia, especially in combination with statins, and also addresses the comparative efficacy and safety profile of this new molecule against other agents in its class.

EXPERT OPINION

Fenofibric acid in combination with low- to moderate-dose statins is an effective and safe option in the treatment of mixed dyslipidemia, although the long-term effects on cardiovascular risk reduction need to be explored further.

Liver fat reduction with niacin is influenced by DGAT-2 polymorphisms in hypertriglyceridemic patients

Niacin reduces plasma triglycerides, but it may increase free fatty acids and insulin resistance during long-term treatment. We examined the effect of extended-release niacin on liver fat content in Chinese patients with dyslipidemia and whether the common diacylglycerol acyltransferase-2 (DGAT2) polymorphisms influenced this effect. The 39 patients (baseline liver fat content: 12.8 ± 7.6%, triglycerides: 3.30 ± 1.67 mmol/l) were treated with niacin, gradually increasing the dose to 2 g/day for a total of 23 weeks. The liver fat content and visceral/subcutaneous fat was measured before and after treatment. Subjects were genotyped for the DGAT2 rs3060 and rs101899116 polymorphisms. There were significant (P < 0.001) reductions in plasma triglycerides (-34.9 ± 37.6%), liver fat content (-47.2 ± 32.8%), and visceral fat (-6.3 ± 15.8%, P < 0.05) after niacin treatment. Mean body weight decreased by 1.46 ± 2.7% (1.17 ± 2.44 kg, P < 0.001) during the study, but liver fat changes remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, and body weight changes [mean absolute change (95% CI): -6.1% (-8.0, -4.3), P < 0.001]. The DGAT2 variant alleles were associated with a smaller reduction in liver fat content in response to niacin after adjustment for other covariates (P < 0.01). These findings suggest that niacin treatment may reduce liver fat content in Chinese patients with dyslipidemia and that the mechanism may involve inhibition of DGAT2. However, the findings might have been confounded by the small but significant reductions in body weight during the study. Future large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these findings.

Fenofibrate: a review of its use in dyslipidaemia

Fenofibrate is a fibric acid derivative indicated for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia in patients who have not responded to nonpharmacological therapies. The lipid-modifying effects of fenofibrate are mediated by the activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α. Fenofibrate also has nonlipid, pleiotropic effects (e.g. reducing levels of fibrinogen, C-reactive protein and various pro-inflammatory markers, and improving flow-mediated dilatation) that may contribute to its clinical efficacy, particularly in terms of improving microvascular outcomes. Fenofibrate improves the lipid profile (particularly triglyceride [TG] and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C] levels) in patients with dyslipidaemia. Compared with statin monotherapy, fenofibrate monotherapy tends to improve TG and HDL-C levels to a significantly greater extent, whereas statins improve low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol levels to a significantly greater extent. Fenofibrate is also associated with promoting a shift from small, dense, atherogenic LDL particles to larger, less dense LDL particles. Combination therapy with a statin plus fenofibrate generally improves the lipid profile to a greater extent than monotherapy with either agent in patients with dyslipidaemia and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus or the metabolic syndrome. In the pivotal FIELD and ACCORD trials in patients with type 2 diabetes, fenofibrate did not significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events to a greater extent than placebo, and simvastatin plus fenofibrate did not significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events to a greater extent than simvastatin plus placebo. However, the risk of some nonfatal macrovascular events and the incidence of certain microvascular outcomes were reduced significantly more with fenofibrate than with placebo in the FIELD trial, and in the ACCORD trial, patients receiving simvastatin plus fenofibrate were less likely to experience progression of diabetic retinopathy than those receiving simvastatin plus placebo. Subgroup analyses in the FIELD and ACCORD Lipid trials indicate that fenofibrate is of the greatest benefit in decreasing CV events in patients with atherogenic dyslipidaemia. Fenofibrate is generally well tolerated when administered alone or in combination with a statin. Thus, in patients with dyslipidaemia, particularly atherogenic dyslipidaemia, fenofibrate is a useful treatment option either alone or in combination with a statin.

Short-term effect of fenofibrate on C-reactive protein: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

C-reactive protein (CRP) is positively associated with risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Some but not all randomized and non-randomized clinical trials found significant associations between fenofibrate therapy and CRP but the direction and magnitude of the association varied across studies. The duration of treatment, patient populations and sample sizes varied greatly, and most short-term studies (i.e., ≤ 12 weeks) had fewer than 50 patients. In this study we meta-analyzed randomized clinical trials to determine the short-term effect of fenofibrate on CRP.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched PubMed and other online databases for short-term randomized clinical trials that reported CRP concentrations before and after fenofibrate treatment. Of the 81 studies examined, 14 studies with 540 patients were found eligible. Data for the change in CRP and corresponding measures of dispersion were extracted for use in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The weighted mean CRP concentrations before and after fenofibrate therapy were 2.15 mg/L and 1.53 mg/L (-28.8% change), respectively. Inverse-variance weighted random effects meta-analysis revealed that short-term fenofibrate treatment significantly lowers CRP by 0.58 mg/L (95% CI: 0.36-0.80). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (Q statistic = 64.5, P< 0.0001, I2 = 79.8%). There was no evidence of publication bias and sensitivity analysis revealed that omitting any of the 14 studies did not lead to a different conclusion from the overall meta-analysis result.

CONCLUSION

Short-term treatment with fenofibrate significantly lowers CRP concentration. Randomized trials that will recruit patients based with high baseline CRP concentrations and with change in CRP as a primary outcome are needed.