Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targeting with pitavastatin + ezetimibe for patients with acute coronary syndrome and dyslipidaemia: the HIJ-PROPER study, a prospective, open-label, randomized trial

Is Targeting LDL-C Levels Below 70 mg/dL Beneficial for Cardiovascular and Overall Health? A Critical Examination of the Evidence

Over the past two decades, cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines have progressively lowered LDL-C targets to <70 mg/dL for high-risk individuals based on the assumption of a linear relationship between LDL-C levels and CVD risk. However, the available evidence challenges this premise. Multiple studies demonstrate a weak or inconsistent association between LDL-C levels and atherosclerosis progression at the individual patient-level. Systematic reviews supporting the linearity assumption have notable limitations, including extrapolation beyond observed LDL-C ranges and potential ecological fallacy, as meta-regression analyses rely on study-level data, while patient-level data within the same trials often show no association between LDL-C reduction and CVD outcomes. Moreover, randomized controlled trials explicitly designed to assess LDL-C targets have yielded inconclusive and biased results. LDL-C itself is a heterogeneous marker, with particle size and composition influencing its atherogenicity. The cardiovascular benefits of lipid-lowering therapies may arise in part from pleiotropic effects unrelated to LDL-C lowering. Additionally, several studies indicate that higher LDL-C levels are paradoxically associated with longevity in elderly populations that is equal to or even greater than that of the general population. Collectively, this body of evidence raises questions about the validity of current LDL-C targets < 70 mg/dL in high-risk patients.

Effect of PCSK9 inhibitor usage on coronary endothelial dysfunction in patients with hypercholesterolemia after coronary stenting: The CuVIC-2 trial

BACKGROUND

The effects of evolocumab on coronary endothelial dysfunction (CED), a hallmark of atherogenesis, are unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether evolocumab, in combination with high-dose statins, could ameliorate CED in patients who underwent coronary stenting.

METHODS

The CuVIC-2 trial was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. CED was defined as intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh)-induced contractile responses with signs of myocardial ischemia. We originally intended to enroll 160 participants but altered the study design due to the COVID-19 pandemic and then recruited 41 participants. The revised primary endpoint was the coronary contraction rate in response to ACh assessed in a core laboratory, ensuring a statistical power of over 80 % using the mixed model for repeated measures.

RESULTS

The evolocumab in combination with high-dose statins with or without ezetimibe (EV + S) group included 19 males and 4 females aged 62 ± 13 years. The high-dose statins with or without ezetimibe (S) group included 13 males and 5 females aged 64 ± 11 years. Compared with the S group, the EV + S group presented a significantly greater decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 28 weeks; 83 ± 17 to 20 ± 16 mg/dL (-76 % from the baseline) in the EV + S group and 88 ± 16 to 81 ± 20 mg/dL (-7 % from the baseline) in the S group (p < 0.0001). At 28 weeks, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of the coronary artery constriction rate across all doses [mean difference: 4.8 % (95 % CI: -13.6 to 23.2); p = 0.6].

CONCLUSIONS

Amelioration of CED by evolocumab was not observed in this trial with several limitations.

Impact of Lipid-Lowering Combination Therapy With Statins and Ezetimibe vs Statin Monotherapy on the Reduction of Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of combination lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) compared with statin monotherapy for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, associated adverse events, and outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant articles published from inception until the end of June 2024. The outcomes were assessed using pooled odds ratios (ORs) for categorical data and mean difference for continuous data, with corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies (11 randomized controlled trials and 3 cohort studies) with 108,373 very high-risk patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age of the patients in the combination LLT group and the statin monotherapy group was 67.31 and 67.89 years, respectively. Pooled analysis revealed that combination LLT significantly more effectively reduced the LDL-C level from baseline (mean difference, -12.96 mg/dL; 95% CI, -17.27 to -8.65; P<.001) and significantly reduced all-cause mortality (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97; P=.02), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97; P=.02), and stroke incidence (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91; P<.001), with an insignificant effect on cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.12; P=.26) when compared with statin monotherapy. The risk of adverse events and the therapy discontinuation rate were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

Combination LLT was associated with an overall greater reduction in LDL-C, the same risk of adverse effects, and significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke compared with statin monotherapy. Forthcoming guidelines should consider the lipid-lowering combination therapy as early as possible, preferably up-front, for more effective LDL-C goal achievement and significant reduction of cardiovascular disease outcomes and mortality in high- and very high-risk patients.

Cardiovascular benefits of statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy versus statin monotherapy in acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of adding ezetimibe to statin therapy for event reduction in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remains a topic of ongoing debate.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ezetimibe plus statin versus statin monotherapy in patients with ACS. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for eligible trials. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical analyses were performed using RStudio version 4.2.3 (RStudio, PBC).

RESULTS

Six RCTs comprising 20 574 patients with ACS were included, of whom 10 259 (49.9%) were prescribed ezetimibe plus statin. The patient population had an average age of 63.8 years, and 75.1% were male. Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe plus statin significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio 0.93; 95% CI 0.90-0.97; P  < 0.01) and nonfatal myocardial infarction (risk ratio 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.95; P  < 0.01). There was no significant difference between groups for revascularization (risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.90-1.00; P  = 0.03), all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.63-1.21; P  = 0.42), or unstable angina (risk ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.86-1.27; P  = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of patients with ACS, the combination of ezetimibe plus statin was associated with a reduction in MACE and nonfatal myocardial infarction, compared with statin monotherapy.

Lipid-lowering therapies and long-term stroke prevention in East Asians: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Stroke prevention is a pressing global health priority, with reducing elevated lipids recognized as a key strategy. East Asians, constituting more than 1.6 billion individuals and the largest racial group worldwide, are a key demographic in this effort. Yet, the effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapies for stroke prevention in this population remains uncertain.

AIMS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 3 years of follow-up to evaluate the long-term impact of lipid-lowering therapies on stroke incidence in East Asians. We systematically searched four electronic databases up to 11 January 2024. The association was quantified using relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic. In addition, we utilized the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to assess the risk of bias in each included RCT and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

This study incorporated data from nine large-scale RCTs involving 54,354 participants. Our findings of overall analyses revealed that lipid-lowering therapies did not significantly affect the long-term incidence of all strokes (9 RCTs; 54,354 participants; RR = 0.98 (95% CI = 0.87-1.10); P = 0.75), ischemic stroke (7 RCTs; 52,059 participants; RR = 0.91 (95% CI, = 0.79-1.04); P = 0.16), or hemorrhage stroke (7 RCTs; 52,059 participants; RR = 1.24 (95% CI = 0.97-1.59); P = 0.09) in East Asians. Notably, there was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias, and the quality of evidence assessed using GRADE methodologies was rated as high. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of our results, with no single study significantly affecting the overall findings. Furthermore, subgroup analyses consistently supported the conclusions, further bolstering the reliability of our study.

CONCLUSIONS

Lipid-lowering therapies did not demonstrate any beneficial effects on long-term stroke prevention among East Asians.

Efficacy and safety of lipid-lowering therapies in combination with or without statin to reduce the cardiovascular risk: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background and aims

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) pose a significant global health burden. Lowering low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol is the primary therapeutic aim for preventing primary and secondary CVD events. While statins are the standard treatments, their limitations, such as side effects and intolerance in certain patient groups, necessitate exploration of alternative lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs). We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating cardiovascular outcomes associated with non-statin LLTs (bempedoic acid, alirocumab, evolocumab, ezetimibe, and inclisiran) in adults with CVD or high cardiovascular risk.

Methods

EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries were systematically searched for eligible studies, from inception until February 08, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction and validation were conducted, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool-2 for RCTs.

Results

The search strategy yielded 2104 citations. Post screening for eligibility, nine unique trials/studies (84 publications) were identified. Among these, one trial each was identified for bempedoic acid and alirocumab, three for evolocumab, and four for ezetimibe. No published literature documenting the cardiovascular outcomes of inclisiran was identified. Only one trial (CLEAR Outcomes) included statin-intolerant patients at baseline. Most studies evaluated a 3-component, 4-component, or 5-component major adverse cardiovascular events composite as an outcome along with individual components. The quality of the included trials was found to be fair-to-good.

Conclusions

The systematic review findings emphasise the significance of considering non-statin LLTs as viable treatment options for individuals with CVD or high cardiovascular risk who cannot tolerate or achieve optimal lipid control with statin therapy alone.

Benefits of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses have investigated the efficacy of lipid-lowering therapies for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; however, few have focused on patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the benefits of intensive lipid-lowering therapy with those of background statin therapy in patients with ACS.

METHODS

Searches were performed on PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for articles published until April 13, 2023. Randomized controlled trials that compared intensive lipid-lowering therapies and background statin therapies in patients with prior ACS and recorded the outcome of three-point major cardiovascular events (MACE) were included. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as a measure of primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine trials involving 38,640 patients with ACS were identified. Pooled results suggested that intensive lipid-lowering therapies are associated with a reduction in the risk of three-point MACE (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94; p < 0.001), recurrent ACS (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96; p = 0.013), nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; p < 0.001), stroke (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.94; p = 0.003), and unstable angina-related hospitalization (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.99; p = 0.046), but not all-cause mortality (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.07; p = 0.329), cardiovascular disease-related mortality (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.06; p = 0.457) or coronary revascularization (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-1.00; p = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive lipid-lowering therapies may reduce the risk of three-point MACE, recurrent ACS, nonfatal MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina in patients with ACS undergoing background statin therapy. These results may assist in clinical decision-making for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events to initiate intensive lipid-lowering therapies immediately after ACS.

Efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in the treatment of composite cardiovascular events with hypercholesterolemia: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Statins are the gold standard in the treatment of dyslipidemia, significantly reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Plus Ezetimibe compared with High-intensity Rosuvastatin in treating Composite Cardiovascular Events.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, China Biological Literature Database, Wan Fang Database, and Weipu Database were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of the two therapies from the time of construction to December 2023. The Jadad scale assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of outcomes was estimated by the I2 test, where we applied risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI to present continuous outcomes. We used funnel plots to assess study publication bias and sensitivity analysis was used to address significant clinical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis described 21 RCTs involving 24592 participants. The findings indicated that moderate-intensity statin combination therapy improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD -8.06, 95% CI [-9.48, -6.64] p < 0.05), total cholesterol (TG) (MD -5.66, 95% CI [-8.51, -2.82] p < 0.05), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) (MD -17.04, 95% CI [-29.55, -4.54] p < 0.05) to a greater extent and superior in achieving LDL-C <70 (RR1.26, 95% CI [1.22, 1.29] p < 0.05) and LDL-C <55 (RR1.66, 95% CI [1.56, 1.77] p < 0.05) ratios and in the incidence of adverse events than the high-intensity Rosuvastatin monotherapy group. However, there was no statistical difference between the two in improving HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and preventing long-term composite adverse cardiovascular events (ACE). Funnel plots indicated publication bias. Sensitivity analysis suggested instability in long-term composite cardiovascular events, HDL-C, and TC results.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe with combination therapy had better efficacy and safety than high-intensity statins. Future validation is needed with more long-term high-quality large samples.

Efficacy and diabetes risk of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUNDS

High-intensity statin is recommended for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and ezetimibe is recommended to be added in patients not achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe can reduce LDL-C levels similar to high-intensity statin. The aim of this study is to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe as the first-line strategy compared to high-intensity statin in patients undergoing PCI.

METHOD

Data was obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea. Patients who underwent PCI from 2012 to 2017 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, revascularization, or ischemic stroke. The safety endpoint was new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM).

RESULTS

A total of 45,501 patients received high-intensity statin (n = 38,340) or moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (n = 7,161). Among propensity-score-matched 7,161 pairs, MACCEs occurred in 1,460 patients with high-intensity statin and 1,406 patients with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (33.8% vs. 31.9%, hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.03, P = 0.27) at a median follow-up of 2.7 years. DM was newly diagnosed in 398 patients with high-intensity statin and 342 patients with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (12.5% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.97, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing PCI, moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe demonstrated a similar risk of MACCEs but a lower risk of new-onset DM than high-intensity statin. Early combination treatment of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe may be a useful and safe lipid-lowering strategy after PCI.

Addition of Ezetimibe to Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy Is Associated With a Lower Incidence of Heart Failure in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether intensive lipid-lowering therapy with pitavastatin and ezetimibe lowers the incidence of heart failure (HF) events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the HIJ-PROPER study, 1,734 patients with ACS were randomly assigned to either pitavastatin plus ezetimibe therapy (n=864) or pitavastatin monotherapy (n=857). We examined the incidence of HF between these 2 groups over a 3.9-year period after ACS. The primary endpoint of the study was hospitalization for HF. The mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels during the follow-up period were 65.1 mg/dL in the pitavastatin plus ezetimibe group and 84.6 mg/dL in the pitavastatin monotherapy group. The incidence of HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the pitavastatin plus ezetimibe group than in the pitavastatin monotherapy group (19 [2.2%] vs. 40 [4.7%] patients; hazard ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.81; P<0.005). This trend was consistent after multivariable analysis using multiple models.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with pitavastatin and ezetimibe is associated with a lower incidence of hospitalization for HF in patients with ACS.

Comparative Efficacy of Colchicine and Intensive Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Lowering in Patients with Atherosclerotic Diseases receiving Statins: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

AIMS

Adding intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering agents or colchicine to statin has been shown to result in additional cardiovascular benefits for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these supplementary agents in patients with ASCVD receiving statin.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The primary efficacy endpoint was the main adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and the secondary efficacy endpoints were myocardial infarct, stroke, coronary revascularization, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality, respectively. The safety endpoints were treatment discontinuation and non-cardiovascular death. We obtained estimates for efficacy outcomes and safety endpoints and presented these estimates as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We ranked the comparative efficacy and safety of all drugs with P-scores.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials totaling 85,823 participants treated with colchicine (5926 participants), intensive LDL-C lowering (37,854 participants) via proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 protein (NPC1L1) inhibitor or ATP citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor, or statin alone (42,043 participants) were included. Colchicine was associated with a greater reduction in the risk of MACE (RR 0.72, 0.69-0.91), stroke (RR 0.55, 0.33-0.92), and coronary revascularization (RR 0.73, 0.60-0.90) compared with NPC1L1 inhibitor, and it provided a larger reduction in the risk of MACE (RR 0.79, 0.69-0.91) compared to PCSK9 inhibitor. However, colchicine was associated with increased risk of non-cardiovascular death compared with NPC1L1 inhibitor (RR 1.48, 1.04-2.10) and PCSK9 inhibitor (RR 1.57, 1.08-2.27). Although no regimen prolonged survival, colchicine had worse performance on non-cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ASCVD receiving statin, colchicine seems to be more effective than intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy with PCSK9 inhibitor or NPC1L1 inhibitor for cardiovascular prevention. However, using colchicine as an alternative to intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy may need to be weighed against the cardiovascular benefits and the potential harms of higher non-cardiovascular death.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42023441385.

Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke among Patients Treated with High-Intensity Statins versus Pitavastatin-Ezetimibe: A Population Based Study

High-intensity statin (HIS) is recommended for high-risk patients in current guidelines. However, the risk of hemorrhagic stroke (HS) with HIS is a concern for Asians. Pitavastatin carries pharmacological differences compared with other statins. We compared the risk of HS in patients treated with pitavastatin-ezetimibe vs. HIS. We conducted a population-based, propensity score-matched cohort study using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From January 2013 to December 2018, adults (≥ 18 years) who received pitavastatin 2-4 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day (combination group, N = 3,767) and those who received atorvastatin 40 mg/day or rosuvastatin 20 mg/day (HIS group, N = 37,670) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was HS. We also assessed the difference of a composite safety endpoint of hepatitis or myopathy requiring hospitalization and new-onset diabetes mellitus. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between study endpoints and different treatment. After a mean follow-up of 3.05 ± 1.66 years, less HS occurred in combination group (0.74%) than in HIS group (1.35%) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95]. In subgroup analysis, the lower risk of HS in combination group was consistent among all pre-specified subgroups. There was no significant difference of the composite safety endpoint between the 2 groups (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.02). In conclusion, pitavastatin-ezetimibe combination treatment had less HS compared with high-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Pitavastatin-ezetimibe may be a favorable choice for Asians who need strict lipid control but with concern of HS.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Ezetimibe Combination Therapy and High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes

CONTEXT

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering therapy is considerably important in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes. Studies comparing CVD, stroke, and mortality outcomes of low- or moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with diabetes remain lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the primary prevention effect of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death between combination therapy of low- or moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe and high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with diabetes using the Korean National Health Insurance claims database.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥20 years with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia were enrolled. The combination therapy of low- or moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe was compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy after a propensity score-matched analysis. The incidence of composite outcomes consisting of MI, stroke, and all-cause death and each component were analyzed.

RESULTS

In moderate-intensity statin therapy with ezetimibe combination therapy, LDL-C (74 ± 37.9 mg/dL vs 80.8 ± 38.8 mg/dL, P < .001) and the incidence of composite outcomes were lower (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98) than those in high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meanwhile, no significant difference was observed in the LDL-C levels and composite outcomes between low-intensity statins with ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Adding ezetimibe to a moderate-intensity statin in patients with type 2 diabetes has a greater LDL-C-lowering effect and greater primary prevention of composite outcomes than that of high-intensity statin monotherapy.

Impact of early initiation of ezetimibe in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Scant data is available on the efficacy and safety of adding ezetimibe to high-intensity statin therapy for early and rapid reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) within 4-12 weeks of an acute-event in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We undertook this meta-analysis to address this knowledge-gap.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving patients with ACS receiving ezetimibe in intervention arm, and placebo/active comparator in control arm. Primary outcome was to evaluate changes in LDL-C levels post-ACS. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate alterations in other lipid parameters and adverse events.

RESULTS

From initially screened 4561 articles, data from 11 studies (20,291 patients) were analyzed. Compared to controls, patients receiving ezetimibe had significantly lower LDL-C at 7-days [MD -19.55 mg/dl(95 %CI:-36.46 to -2.63);P = 0.02;I2 = 91 %], 1-month [MD-24.67 mg/dl (95 %CI:-34.59 to -14.76);P < 0.001;I2 = 81 %], 3-months [MD -18.01 mg/dl(95 %CI:-24.11 to -11.90);P < 0.001;I2 = 92 %] and 10-12 months [MD -16.90 mg/dl (95 % CI: -17.67 to -16.12); P < 0.001; I2 = 0 %] of treatment. Compared to controls, patients receiving ezetimibe had significantly lower total cholesterol at 7-days [MD-21.05 mg/dl(95 %CI:-26.73 to -15.37);P < 0.001;I2 = 0 %], 1-month [MD-25.56 mg/dl(95 %CI:-38.29 to -12.83);P < 0.001;I2 = 85 %], 3-months [MD-22.54 mg/dl(95 %CI:-36.90 to -8.19);P = 0.002;I2 = 22 %] and 12-months [MD-19.68 mg/dl(95 %CI:-20.78 to -18.59);P < 0.001;I2 = 0 %] of treatment. Death from any cause, ACS and non-fatal stroke [OR0.89(95 %CI:0.83-0.96);P = 0.002;I2 = 0 %], non-fatal myocardial infarction [OR0.86(95 %CI:0.79-0.94);P = 0.001;I2 = 0 %] and ischemic stroke [OR0.80(95 %CI:0.68-0.94);P = 0.009;I2 = 0 %] was significantly reduced in patients receiving ezetimibe.

CONCLUSION

Addition of ezetimibe to high-intensity statin therapy at the time of ACS event is associated with significantly better cholesterol reduction at day-7,1-month, 3- months and 1-year of follow-up, which translates into a significantly lower recurrent cardiovascular events post an index event of ACS.

CONCISE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Addition of ezetimibe to high-intensity statin therapy at the time of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) index event is associated with significantly better low density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol reduction at day-7, 1-month, 3-months and 1-year of follow-up, which translates into a significantly lower recurrent cardiovascular events (death from any cause, major ACS, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke) post an index event of ACS.

Effect of lipid-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein levels: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Chronic low-degree inflammation is a hallmark of atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease. To assess the effect of lipid-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker of inflammation, we conducted a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were: (i) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in human, Phase II, III, or IV; (ii) English language; (iii) comparing the effect of lipid-lowering drugs vs. placebo; (iv) reporting the effects on CRP levels; (v) with intervention duration of more than 3 weeks; (vi) and sample size (for both intervention and control group) over than 100 subjects. The between-group (treatment-placebo) CRP absolute mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each drug class separately. A total of 171 668 subjects from 53 RCTs were included. CRP levels (mg/L) were significantly decreased by statins [-0.65 (-0.87 to -0.43), bempedoic acid; -0.43 (-0.67 to -0.20), ezetimibe; -0.28 (-0.48 to -0.08)], and omega-3 fatty acids [omega3FAs, -0.27 (-0.52 to -0.01)]. CRP was reduced by -0.40 (-1.17 to 0.38) with fibrates, although not statistically significant. A slight increase of CRP concentration was observed for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [0.11 (0.07-0.14)] and cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors [0.10 (0.00-0.21)], the latter being not statistically significant. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant correlation between changes in CRP and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) or triglycerides. Statins, bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, and omega3FAs significantly reduce serum CRP concentration, independently of LDL-C reductions. The impact of this anti-inflammatory effect in terms of CV prevention needs further investigation.

Treatment of dyslipidemia in acute coronary syndrome

Despite numerous improvements in the management of acute coronary syndrome(ACS), it is a major cause of mortality in India. Lipids play a critical role in pathogenesis of ACS and reduction of lipid parameters plays a pivotal role in secondary prevention. High total cholesterol and high low-density lipoprotein(LDL) are the major lipid abnormalities globally as well as in Indians. Among all the lipid parameters, LDL is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapies across the globe. High-dose statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, and bempedoic acid are recommended therapies for LDL reduction in ACS patients. Statins have pleiotropic effects on the modulation of thrombogenesis, endothelial dysfunction, and myocardial protection. Multiple randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown that the use of high-dose statin has significant benefits in ACS. LDL reduction goal is < 55 mg/dl or at least 50 % reduction from the baseline regardless of age or gender. Non-fasting LDL should be measured soon after the ACS as it varies minimally with food intake. The first line of therapy after ACS is to advise lifestyle modifications, combination therapy including high-dose statin with ezetimibe, and evaluation after 4-6 weeks of the index event. If the goal is not achieved then PCSK 9 inhibitors or Bempedoic acid should be used in combination with statins and ezetimibe to reduce recurrent ischaemic events. Despite the proven effect of these lipid-lowering therapies, undertreatment is still a big hurdle across the globe. Prohibitive costs, adverse effects, medication non-adherence, variation in health practice in different countries, and clinical inertia to prescribe this medication by physicians are the main reasons for the undertreatment.

A Clinical Case of Probable Sitosterolemia

Sitosterolemia is a rare genetic lipid disorder characterized by elevated plant sterols in the serum. A 24-year-old Japanese woman was referred to our hospital due to a high serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of 332 mg/dL. At first, she was suspected to suffer from familial hypercholesterolemia, and thus received lipid-lowering agents. Although her LDL-C level remained high (220 mg/dL) with diet therapy plus 10 mg/day rosuvastatin, it was drastically decreased to 46 mg/dL with the addition of 10 mg/day ezetimibe. Finally, her LDL-C level was well-controlled at about 70 mg/dL with 10 mg/day ezetimibe alone. Furthermore, while her serum sitosterol level was elevated at 10.5 μg/mL during the first visit to our hospital, it decreased to 3.6 μg/mL with the 10 mg/day ezetimibe treatment alone. These observations suggest that she might probably suffer from sitosterolemia. Therefore, targeted gene sequencing analysis was performed using custom panels focusing on the exome regions of 21 lipid-associated genes, including ABCG5, ABCG8, and familial hypercholesterolemia-causing genes (LDL receptor, LDLRAP1, PCSK9, and apolipoprotein B). We finally identified a heterozygous ABCG8 variant (NM_022437.2:c.1285A>G or NP_071882.1:p.Met429Val) in our patient. The same gene mutation was detected in her mother. We report here a rare case exhibiting probable sitosterolemia caused by a heterozygous Met429Val variant in the ABCG8 gene and additional unknown variants.

Association of Serum Levels of Cholesterol Absorption and Synthesis Markers with the Presence of Cardiovascular Disease: The CACHE Study CVD Analysis

AIM

Serum levels of cholesterol absorption and synthesis markers have been associated with cardiovascular risk in the United States and European countries. In this study, we examined the relevance of these biomarkers and the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Japanese individuals.

METHODS

The CACHE consortium, comprising of 13 research groups in Japan possessing data on campesterol, an absorption marker, and lathosterol, a synthesis marker measured by gas chromatography, compiled the clinical data using the REDCap system.

RESULTS

Among the 2,944 individuals in the CACHE population, those with missing campesterol or lathosterol data were excluded. This cross-sectional study was able to analyze data from 2,895 individuals, including 339 coronary artery disease (CAD) patients, 108 cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) patients, and 88 peripheral artery disease (PAD) patients. The median age was 57 years, 43% were female, and the median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels were 118 mg/dL and 98 mg/dL, respectively. We assessed the associations of campesterol, lathosterol, and the ratio of campesterol to lathosterol (Campe/Latho ratio) with the odds of CVD using multivariable-adjusted nonlinear regression models. The prevalence of CVD, especially CAD, showed positive, inverse, and positive associations with campesterol, lathosterol, and the Campe/Latho ratio, respectively. These associations remained significant even after excluding individuals using statins and/or ezetimibe. The associations of the cholesterol biomarkers with PAD were determined weaker than those with CAD. Contrarily, no significant association was noted between cholesterol metabolism biomarkers and CeVD.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that both high cholesterol absorption and low cholesterol synthesis biomarker levels were associated with high odds of CVD, especially CAD.

Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe vs high-intensity statin according to baseline LDL-C in the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A post-hoc analysis of the RACING randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Whether the effect of a combination strategy rather than increasing doses of one drug to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is consistent across baseline LDL-C levels remains uncertain.

METHODS

In the RACING trial, which showed a non-inferiority of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) to high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) for the primary outcome (3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular event, or stroke), the heterogeneity in treatment effect according to baseline LDL-C levels was assessed for the primary and secondary outcomes (clinical efficacy and safety).

RESULTS

Of 3780 participants, 2817 participants (74.5%) had LDL-C <100 mg/dL, and 963 participants (25.5%) had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. The treatment effect of combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy was similar among the lower LDL-C subset (8.8% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.08, p = 0.19) and the higher LDL-C subset (10.8% vs. 9.6 %; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.7, p = 0.53) without a significant interaction (interaction p = 0.22). Of the secondary outcomes, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL was greater in the combination therapy group regardless of baseline LDL-C levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Among ASCVD patients, there was no heterogeneity in the effect of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy in the higher and lower baseline LDL-C levels for the 3-year composite of cardiovascular outcomes.

Effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy on mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can quickly restore myocardial perfusion after acute coronary syndrome. Whether and which lipid-lowering regimens are effective in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and mortality risk after PCI remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the benefits of different lipid-lowering regimens on the risk of MACEs and mortality in the post-PCI population by network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Public databases, including PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, were searched from inception to August 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on lipid-lowering regimens in post-PCI populations were included and analysed. The outcomes were the incidence of all-cause mortality and MACEs, whether reported as dichotomous variables or as HRs.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine RCTs were included. For MACEs, alirocumab plus rosuvastatin (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.44), evolocumab plus ezetimibe and statins (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.59), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) plus pitavastatin (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.96) and icosapent ethyl plus statins (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86) had significant advantages and relatively high rankings. For mortality, rosuvastatin (OR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.84), ezetimibe plus statins (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.89) and icosapent ethyl plus statins (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96) had significant advantages compared with the control.

CONCLUSION

EPA, especially icosapent ethyl, plus statins had a beneficial effect on reducing the risk of MACEs and mortality in post-PCI patients. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type-9 inhibitors plus statins were able to reduce the risk of MACEs, but the risk of mortality remained unclear.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018099600.

Efficacy and Safety of Pitavastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-Dose Combination vs. Pitavastatin: Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

AIM

We compared the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. A total of 293 patients were randomly assigned into four groups receiving 2 mg pitavastatin, 4 mg pitavastatin, 2 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 LD), and 4 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 HD) once daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The percentage changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the primary endpoint, were -39.5% for 2 mg pitavastatin, -45.2% for 4 mg pitavastatin, -51.4% for K-924 LD, and -57.8% for K-924 HD. Compared with pitavastatin monotherapy, the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination significantly reduced LDL-C, total cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Meanwhile, the cholesterol synthesis marker, lathosterol, was significantly decreased with pitavastatin monotherapy and the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, although the decrease was attenuated in the latter. On the other hand, the cholesterol absorption markers, beta-sitosterol and campesterol, were reduced with the fixed-dose combination but not with pitavastatin monotherapy. The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions was not significantly different between the two groups receiving the fixed-dose combination and monotherapy. The mean values of laboratory tests that are related to liver function and myopathy increased but remained within the reference range in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination showed an excellent LDL-C-reducing effect by the complementary pharmacological action of each component, and its safety profile was similar to that of pitavastatin monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04289649).

Expanding the therapeutic landscape: ezetimibe as non-statin therapy for dyslipidemia

Dyslipidemia is a significant risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and statins are the primary therapeutic options for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, it can be challenging to achieve optimal LDL-C goals with statin monotherapy. Ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, offers a potential non-statin therapy to optimize LDL-C management. Key clinical trials, such as IMPROVE-IT and RACING, have demonstrated that the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy leads to further decreases in LDL-C or significant decreases in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), particularly in patients with high ASCVD risk. Subsequent meta-analyses and clinical trials have further supported the beneficial effect of ezetimibe, suggesting additive decreases in LDL-C and MACEs, as well as pleiotropic effects. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the clinical implications of ezetimibe for managing dyslipidemia; it also evaluates the available evidence that supports the role of ezetimibe as an adjunct non-statin therapy for long-term use. However, the long-term pleiotropic effects of ezetimibe remain controversial because of limited clinical data. Therefore, additional research is needed to clarify its potential benefits beyond LDL-C reduction. Nonetheless, an understanding of the role of ezetimibe in dyslipidemia management will help clinicians to develop effective treatment strategies.

Intensive Statin Therapy Versus Upfront Combination Therapy of Statin and Ezetimibe in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis Based on the PL-ACS Data

Background We aimed to compare statin monotherapy and upfront combination therapy of statin and ezetimibe in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). Methods and Results The study included consecutive patients with ACS included in the PL-ACS (Polish Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes), which is a national, multicenter, ongoing, prospective observational registry that is mandatory for patients with ACS hospitalized in Poland. Data were matched using the Mahalanobis distance within propensity score matching calipers. Multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis, including all variables, was next used in propensity score matching analysis. Finally, 38 023 consecutive patients with ACS who were discharged alive were included in the analysis. After propensity score matching, 2 groups were analyzed: statin monotherapy (atorvastatin or rosuvastatin; n=768) and upfront combination therapy of statin and ezetimibe (n=768 patients). The difference in mortality between groups was significant during the follow-up and was present at 1 (5.9% versus 3.5%; P=0.041), 2 (7.8% versus 4.3%; P=0.019), and 3 (10.2% versus 5.5%; P=0.024) years of follow-up in favor of the upfront combination therapy, as well as for the overall period. For the treatment, rosuvastatin significantly improved prognosis compared with atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR], 0.790 [95% CI, 0.732-0.853]). Upfront combination therapy was associated with a significant reduction of all-cause mortality in comparison with statin monotherapy (OR, 0.526 [95% CI, 0.378-0.733]), with absolute risk reduction of 4.7% after 3 years (number needed to treat=21). Conclusions The upfront combination lipid-lowering therapy is superior to statin monotherapy for all-cause mortality in patients with ACS. These results suggest that in high-risk patients, such an approach, rather than a stepwise therapy approach, should be recommended.

Intensive lipid-lowering therapy for early achievement of guideline-recommended LDL-cholesterol levels in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction ("Jena auf Ziel")

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Currently, less than 20% of patients at very high-risk achieve ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guideline-recommended LDL-C target levels in Europe. "Jena auf Ziel-JaZ" is a prospective cohort study in which early combination therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg was initiated on admission in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and lipid-lowering therapy was escalated during follow-up with bempedoic acid and PCSK9 inhibitors to achieve recommended LDL-C targets in all patients. Moreover, we evaluated side-effects of lipid-lowering therapy.

METHODS

Patients admitted with STEMI at Jena University Hospital were started on atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg on admission. Patients were followed for EAS/ESC LDL-C target achievement during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 85 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. On discharge, 32.9% achieved LDL-C targets on atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg. After 4-6 weeks, 80% of all patients on atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe started at the index event were on ESC/EAS LDL-C targets. In 20%, combined lipid-lowering therapy was escalated with either bempedoic acid or PCSK9 inhibitors. All patients achieved LDL-C levels of or below 55 mg/dL during follow-up on triple lipid-lowering therapy. Combined lipid-lowering therapy was well-tolerated with rare side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Early combination therapy with a high-intensity statin and ezetimibe and escalation of lipid-lowering therapy with either bempedoic acid or PCSK9 inhibitors gets potentially all patients with STEMI on recommended ESC/EAS LDL-C targets without significant side effects.

ANMCO position paper on the management of hypercholesterolaemia in patients with acute coronary syndrome

Patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) present a high risk of recurrence and new adverse cardiovascular events after hospital discharge. Elevated plasma LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels have been shown to be a causal factor for the development of coronary heart disease, and robust clinical evidence has documented that LDL-C levels decrease linearly correlates with a reduction in cardiovascular events. Recent studies have also demonstrated the safety and efficacy of an early and significant reduction in LDL-C levels in patients with ACS. In this position paper, Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists proposes a decision algorithm on early adoption of lipid-lowering strategies at hospital discharge and short-term follow-up of patients with ACS, in the light of the multiple evidence generated in recent years on the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia and the available therapeutic options, considering current reimbursement criteria.

Intravascular imaging assessment of pharmacotherapies targeting atherosclerosis: advantages and limitations in predicting their prognostic implications

Intravascular imaging has been often used over the recent years to examine the efficacy of emerging therapies targeting plaque evolution. Serial intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, or near-infrared spectroscopy-intravascular ultrasound studies have allowed us to evaluate the effects of different therapies on plaque burden and morphology, providing unique mechanistic insights about the mode of action of these treatments. Plaque burden reduction, a decrease in necrotic core component or macrophage accumulation-which has been associated with inflammation-and an increase in fibrous cap thickness over fibroatheromas have been used as surrogate endpoints to assess the value of several drugs in inhibiting plaque evolution and improving clinical outcomes. However, some reports have demonstrated weak associations between the effects of novel treatments on coronary atheroma and composition and their prognostic implications. This review examines the value of invasive imaging in assessing pharmacotherapies targeting atherosclerosis. It summarizes the findings of serial intravascular imaging studies assessing the effects of different drugs on atheroma burden and morphology and compares them with the results of large-scale trials evaluating their impact on clinical outcome. Furthermore, it highlights the limited efficacy of established intravascular imaging surrogate endpoints in predicting the prognostic value of these pharmacotherapies and introduces alternative imaging endpoints based on multimodality/hybrid intravascular imaging that may enable more accurate assessment of the athero-protective and prognostic effects of emerging therapies.

Phytosterols and Cardiovascular Risk Evaluated against the Background of Phytosterolemia Cases-A German Expert Panel Statement

Phytosterols (PSs) have been proposed as dietary means to lower plasma LDL-C. However, concerns are raised that PSs may exert atherogenic effects, which would offset this benefit. Phytosterolemia was thought to mimic increased plasma PSs observed after the consumption of PS-enriched foods. This expert statement examines the possibility of specific atherogenicity of PSs based on sterol metabolism, experimental, animal, and human data. Observational studies show no evidence that plasma PS concentrations would be associated with an increased risk of atherosclerosis or cardiovascular (CV) events. Since variants of the ABCG5/8 transporter affect the absorption of cholesterol and non-cholesterol sterols, Mendelian randomization studies examining the effects of ABCG5/8 polymorphisms cannot support or refute the potential atherogenic effects of PSs due to pleiotropy. In homozygous patients with phytosterolemia, total PS concentrations are ~4000% higher than under physiological conditions. The prevalence of atherosclerosis in these individuals is variable and may mainly relate to concomitant elevated LDL-C. Consuming PS-enriched foods increases PS concentrations by ~35%. Hence, PSs, on a molar basis, would need to have 20-40 times higher atherogenicity than cholesterol to offset their cholesterol reduction benefit. Based on their LDL-C lowering and absence of adverse safety signals, PSs offer a dietary approach to cholesterol management. However, their clinical benefits have not been established in long-term CV endpoint studies.

Lowering of Blood Lipid Levels with a Combination of Pitavastatin and Ezetimibe in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Objectives: According to the findings of randomized controlled trials, blood lipid levels in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) can be significantly decreased through a combination of pitavastatin and ezetimibe; however, the effects and clinical applications of this treatment remain controversial. This meta-analysis was aimed at objectively assessing the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin and ezetimibe in lowering blood lipid levels.

Design: Relevant studies were retrieved from electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and WanFang Data, from database inception to June 8, 2022. The levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients’ serum after treatment were the primary endpoint.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (2586 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis indicated that pitavastatin plus ezetimibe resulted in significantly lower levels of LDL-C [standardized mean difference (SMD)=−0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) (−1.15 to −0.58), P<0.01], TC [SMD=−0.84, 95% CI (−1.10 to −0.59), P<0.01], and TG [SMD=−0.59, 95% CI (−0.89 to −0.28), P<0.01] than pitavastatin alone.

Conclusions: Pitavastatin plus ezetimibe significantly decreased serum LDL-C, TC, and TG levels in patients with CHD.

Extent of Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and All-cause and Cardiovascular Mortality Benefit: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Lipid-modifying agents steadily lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with the aim of reducing mortality. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine whether all-cause or cardiovascular (CV) mortality effect size for lipid-lowering therapy varied according to the magnitude of LDL-C reduction. Electronic databases were searched, including PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov , from inception to December 31, 2019. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials that compared lipid-modifying agents (statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK-9 inhibitors) versus placebo, standard or usual care or intensive versus less-intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy in adults, with or without known history of CV disease with a follow-up of at least 52 weeks. All-cause and CV mortality as primary end points, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non-CV death as secondary end points. Absolute risk differences [ARD (ARDs) expressed as incident events per 1000 person-years], number needed to treat (NNT), and rate ratios (RR) were assessed. Sixty randomized controlled trials totaling 323,950 participants were included. Compared with placebo, usual care or less-intensive therapy, active or more potent lipid-lowering therapy reduced the risk of all-cause death [ARD -1.33 (-1.89 to -0.76); NNT 754 (529-1309); RR 0.92 (0.89-0.96)]. Intensive LDL-C percent lowering was not associated with further reductions in all-cause mortality [ARD -0.27 (-1.24 to 0.71); RR 1.00 (0.94-1.06)]. Intensive LDL-C percent lowering did not further reduce CV mortality [ARD -0.28 (-0.83 to 0.38); RR 1.02 (0.94-1.09)]. Our findings indicate that risk reduction varies across subgroups and that overall NNTs are high. Identifying patient subgroups who benefit the most from LDL-C levels reduction is clinically relevant and necessary.

Impacts of ezetimibe on risks of various types of cancers: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ezetimibe is a widely used medication to reduce the plasma cholesterol level, particularly low-density lipoprotein level. However, its impact on cancer remains controversial. Here, its impacts on risks of various types of cancers were meta-analyzed.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched and randomized controlled trials with followed up for at least 24 weeks were selected and included. The experimental group was defined as those patients treated with ezetimibe alone or with other medications, and the control group was defined as those who received a placebo or the matched medication. The number of new cancer cases or cancer-related deaths was extracted. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3).

RESULTS

Nine trials enrolling 35 222 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the control group, ezetimibe increased the number of new intestine cancer patients [relative risk (RR), 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.67; P  = 0.03] and had a trend to increase the number of new breast cancer patients (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.98-1.98; P  = 0.07). There was no significant difference in new hepatobiliary cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer or cancer of other sites. Ezetimibe did not significantly increase the risk of new cancer in total (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P  = 0.38), cancer-related death (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.98-1.26; P  = 0.10) or cancer events (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P  = 0.30). In terms of lipid-lowering effect, ezetimibe significantly reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe may increase the risk of intestine cancer and has a trend of increasing the risk of breast cancer. There is no evidence to support that it increases or decreases the risk of other types.

Lipid-Lowering Trials Are Not Representative of Patients Managed in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Exclusion Criteria

Background Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) might not be representative of the real-world population because of unreasonable exclusion criteria. We sought to determine which groups of patients are excluded from RCTs that included lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results We retrieved all trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration and systematically searched for large (≥1000 participants) lipid-lowering therapy RCTs, defined as statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors. We predefined groups: older adults (>70 or >75 years), women, non-Whites, chronic kidney failure, heart failure, immunosuppression, cancer, dementia, treated thyroid disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental illness, atrial fibrillation, multimorbidity (≥2 chronic diseases), and polypharmacy. We counted the number of RCTs excluding patients of the predefined groups and meta-analyzed the prevalence of included patients to obtain pooled estimates with a random-effects model. We included 42 RCTs (298 605 patients). Eighty-one percent of trials excluded patients with severe and 76% those with moderate kidney failure. Seventy-one percent of trials excluded groups of women, 64% excluded patients with moderate to severe heart failure, 64% those with immunosuppressant conditions, 48% those with cancer, 29% those with dementia, and 29% of trials excluded older adults. The pooled prevalence for patients >70 years of age was 25% (95% CI, 0%-49%), 11% (3%-18%) for >75 years of age, and 51% (38%-63%) for multimorbidity. Conclusions The majority of lipid-lowering therapy trials excluded patients with common diseases, such as moderate-to-severe kidney disease or heart failure or with immunosuppression. Underrepresenting certain populations, including women and older adults, might lead to limited transportability of study results and uncertainty on possible side-effects and efficacy in these groups. Future trials should promote diversity in the recruitment strategies and improve equity in cardiovascular research. Registration URL: ClinicalTrials.gov; Unique Identifier: CRD42021253909.

Antidyslipidemia Pharmacotherapy in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefits and safety of antidyslipidemia pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic kidney disease were not well defined so the latest evidence was summarized by this work.

METHODS

This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to 28 February 2022, for randomized controlled trials of any antilipidaemic medications administered to adults with chronic kidney disease [CKD: defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² not undergoing transplantation], using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

55 trials and 30 works of them were included in our systematic review and NMA, respectively. In comparisons with no antidyslipidemia therapy or placebo, proprotein convertase subtilisin/Kexin type 9 inhibitors plus statin (PS) was the most effective drug regimen for reducing all-cause mortality (OR 0.62, 95% CI [0.40, 0.93]; GRADE: moderate), followed by moderate-high intensity statin (HS, OR 0.76, 95% CI [0.60, 0.93]; I² = 66.9%; GRADE: moderate). PS, HS, low-moderate statin (LS), ezetimibe plus statin (ES), and fibrates (F) significantly decreased the composite cardiovascular events. The subgroup analysis revealed the null effect of statins on death (OR 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04]) and composite cardiovascular events (OR 0.94, 95% CI [0.82, 1.07]) in dialysis patients.

CONCLUSION

In nondialysis CKD patients, statin-based therapies could significantly and safely reduce all-cause death and major composite cardiovascular events despite the presence of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-c levels. Aggressive medication regimens, PS and HS, appeared to be more effective, especially in patients with established CAD.

The Egyptian Association of Vascular Biology and Atherosclerosis (EAVA) Perspectives on the Usage of Inclisiran

BACKGROUND

Elevation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) is still a hugely unmet need in the reduction of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In the published CardioRisk project in Egypt, up to 71% of female participants had dyslipidemia. Control of LDL-c levels and thus improvement of hyperlipidemia is quite often very difficult. With the introduction of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, the decrease of significant cardiac adverse events, the patient control rate, and the death rate have all been improved. Inhibition of the formation of PCSK9 through inclisiran, which is a novel method of reducing LDL-c and is only given twice per year, seems alluring. After revision of published data, we analyzed the potential advantages of the use of inclisiran.

CONCLUSION

The Egyptian Association for Vascular Biology and Atherosclerosis (EAVA) analyzed the data necessary for obtaining clear indications for the usage of inclisiran. We propose the addition of inclisiran to statins with or without ezetimibe for patients with documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or similar risk, familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) with another major risk factor, and very high and high risk diabetes mellitus, who did not reach LDL-c goals and/or with true statin intolerance. Inclisiran is also recommended as upfront therapy, with triple combination, in extreme risk subjects such as those with post acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

Personalized management of dyslipidemias in patients with diabetes-it is time for a new approach (2022)

Dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (DMT2) is one of the worst controlled worldwide, with only about 1/4 of patients being on the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target. There are many reasons of this, including physicians' inertia, including diabetologists and cardiologists, therapy nonadherence, but also underusage and underdosing of lipid lowering drugs due to unsuitable cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification. In the last several years there is a big debate on the risk stratification of DMT2 patients, with the strong indications that all patients with diabetes should be at least at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Moreover, we have finally lipid lowering drugs, that not only allow for the effective reduction of LDL-C and do not increase the risk of new onset diabetes (NOD), and/or glucose impairment; in the opposite, some of them might effectively improve glucose control. One of the most interesting is pitavastatin, which is now available in Europe, with the best metabolic profile within statins (no risk of NOD, improvement of fasting blood glucose, HOMA-IR, HbA1c), bempedoic acid (with the potential for the reduction of NOD risk), innovative therapies-PCSK9 inhibitors and inclisiran with no DMT2 risk increase, and new forthcoming therapies, including apabetalone and obicetrapib-for the latter one with the possibility of even decreasing the number of patients diagnosed with prediabetes and DMT2. Altogether, nowadays we have possibility to individualize lipid lowering therapy in DMT2 patients and increase the number of patients on LDL-C goal without any risk of new onset diabetes and/or diabetes control worsening, and in consequence to reduce the risk of CVD complications due to progression of atherosclerosis in this patients' group.

Long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RACING): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Drug combinations rather than increasing doses of one drug can achieve greater efficacy and lower risks. Thus, as an alternative to high-intensity statin monotherapy, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy can lower LDL cholesterol concentrations effectively while reducing adverse effects. However, evidence from randomised trials to compare long-term clinical outcomes is needed.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at 26 clinical centres in South Korea were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke, in the intention-to-treat population with a non-inferiority margin of 2·0%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03044665 and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 14, 2017, and Dec 18, 2018, 3780 patients were enrolled: 1894 patients to the combination therapy group and 1886 to the high-intensity statin monotherapy group. The primary endpoint occurred in 172 patients (9·1%) in the combination therapy group and 186 patients (9·9%) in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (absolute difference -0·78%; 90% CI -2·39 to 0·83). LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were observed in 73%, 75%, and 72% of patients in the combination therapy group, and 55%, 60%, and 58% of patients in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all p<0·0001). Discontinuation or dose reduction of the study drug by intolerance was observed in 88 patients (4·8%) and 150 patients (8·2%), respectively (p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with ASCVD, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy was non-inferior to high-intensity statin monotherapy for the 3-year composite outcomes with a higher proportion of patients with LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL and lower intolerance-related drug discontinuation or dose reduction.

FUNDING

Hanmi Pharmaceutical.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe with or without statin therapy for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke.

RESULTS

We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.

Increased left atrial volume index is associated with more cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: HIJ-PROPER study findings

AIM

To investigate the association between the left atrial volume index (LAVI) and the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who did not have atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

In this sub-analysis of the HIJ-PROPER study, 226 ACS patients who did not have a history of AF were enrolled. Participants were divided into two groups according to the LAVI cut-off level calculated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to predict the primary endpoint, and cardiovascular events were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

ROC curve analysis for the occurrence of composite of cardiovascular events indicated a LAVI cut-off point of 34 mL/m² . Based on this, 131 patients (58.0%) were in the LAVI < 34 mL/m² group and 95 (42.0%) were in the LAVI ≥ 34 mL/m² group. Over a median follow-up period of 4.0 years [interquartile range: 3.2, 5.1], cardiovascular events were noted in 7 and 15 patients in the LAVI < 34 mL/m² and LAVI ≥ 34 mL/m² groups, corresponding to an incidence rate of 5.3% and 15.8%, respectively. Patients with a LAVI value ≥ 34 mL/m² had a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular events than those with a LAVI value < 34 mL/m² (hazard ratio: 2.93; 95% confidence interval: 1.19-7.22; P = .014). The tendency was similar after adjusting for several confounders (P = .025).

CONCLUSION

In ACS patients without AF, elevated LAVI was associated with increased cardiovascular events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

International standard randomized controlled trial (URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp; UMIN000002742).

Hit or miss: the new cholesterol targets

Drug treatment to reduce cholesterol to new target levels is now recommended in four moderate- to high-risk patient populations: patients who have already sustained a cardiovascular event, adult diabetic patients, individuals with low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels ≥190 mg/dL and individuals with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk ≥7.5%. Achieving these cholesterol target levels did not confer any additional benefit in a systematic review of 35 randomised controlled trials. Recommending cholesterol lowering treatment based on estimated cardiovascular risk fails to identify many high-risk patients and may lead to unnecessary treatment of low-risk individuals. The negative results of numerous cholesterol lowering randomised controlled trials call into question the validity of using low density lipoprotein cholesterol as a surrogate target for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Lipid-Lowering Drugs of Different Intensity on Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

There have been many meta-analyses for statins, ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) to evaluate clinical outcomes, but the efficacy and safety of different intensity of these three drugs on clinical outcomes was absent. PCSK9i, ezetimibe, and statins were divided into seven interventions as follows: including PCSK9i + high-intensity statins (P9i+HT), PCSK9i + moderate-intensity statins (P9i+MT), ezetimibe + high-intensity statins (Eze+HT), ezetimibe + moderate-intensity statins (Eze+MT), high-intensity statins (HT), moderate-intensity statins (MT), and low-intensity statins (LT). The risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the clinical outcomes in all randomized controlled trials included. In traditional meta-analysis, the more intensive treatment had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86-0.92), myocardial infarction (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.81), coronary revascularization (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.84), and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.88) compared with the less intensive treatment. However, the more intensive treatment had a higher risk of new-onset diabetes (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12). The network meta-analysis demonstrated that P9i+HT, P9i+MT, HT, and MT were significantly associated with a risk reduction in coronary revascularization and cerebrovascular events compared with PLBO. LT could effectively reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.92), MI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.82), and coronary revascularization (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.91) compared with PLBO. P9i+HT was superior to HT in reducing the risk of MI (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), coronary revascularization (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96), and cerebrovascular events (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.95). However, compared with PLBO, P9i+HT, HT, and MT could increase the risk of new-onset diabetes (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11-1.37; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.33; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02-1.15, respectively). In conclusion, PCSK9i added to background statins may be recommended as preferred lipid-lowering therapy, and did not increase the additional risk of new-onset diabetes. The safety and efficacy of ezetimibe was not superior to that of statins. LT can be recommended as the initial therapy.

Lipid lowering in patients 75 years and older

More than twenty years ago, knowledge about the importance of cholesterol absorption and the potential therapeutic effect of its inhibition led to the discovery and clinical application of the first and only cholesterol absorption inhibitor to date – ezetimibe. Since then, ezetimibe has become a well-recognized player in lipid-lowering therapy. Recent findings of IMPROVE-IT and EWTOPIA 75 imply that elderly patients over the age of 75 years in particular benefit from ezetimibe. This review summarizes the evidence, discusses the possible underlying pathophysiological mechanisms and calls for a change in future dyslipidemia guidelines.

Estimation of pitavastatin and ezetimibe using UPLC by a combined approach of analytical quality by design with green analytical technique

The current study explores a design and development of the simple, fast, green and selective novel method of UPLC to quantify pitavastatin and ezetimibe simultaneously. The combined approach of Green Analytical Method with Quality by Design-based risk assessment was done using the Ishikawa fishbone diagram followed by a rotatable central composite design used for the optimization. The optimal chromatographic separation was attained through a mobile phase of 72: 28% v/v ethanol and 0.1% orthophosphoric acid (pH 3.5), with a 0.31 mL min−1 flow rate. The developed UPLC-PDA method was sensitive and specific for pitavastatin and ezetimibe, with linearity ranging from 2 to 30, 10–150 μg mL−1 with an R2 of 0.9999 and 0.9997, respectively. The forced degradation study of stability-indicating assay results shows the degradation in respective stress conditions. The developed UPLC method was validated and found to have sensible results with good linearity, accuracy and precision. Further, the greenness was evaluated using five states of art metrics like NEMI, GAPI, AES, AMGS, and AGREE metrics and found the greenest results. Based on the results we concluded that the developed UPLC method could be efficient for the simultaneous determination of pitavastatin and ezetimibe in bulk and tablet dosage.

Greater Change in the Eicosapentaenoic Acid to Arachidonic Acid Ratio Is Associated With Decreased Incidence of Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients With Elevated Triglyceride Levels

BACKGROUND

This study investigated whether the percentage change (%Δ) in the eicosapentaenoic acid to arachidonic acid (EPA/AA) ratio is associated with cardiovascular event rates among acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients receiving contemporary lipid-lowering therapy other than polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This post hoc subanalysis of the HIJ-PROPER study included PUFA-naïve patients for whom EPA/AA ratio data were available at baseline and after 3 months. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on the median %ΔEPA/AA ratio: Group 1, change less than the median; and Group 2, change greater than or equal to the median. The 3-year rates of the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and unstable angina pectoris, were compared between the 2 groups. The median %ΔEPA/AA ratio in Groups 1 and 2 was -26.2% (n=482 patients [49.9%]) and 42.2% (n=483 patients [50.1%]), respectively. At the 3-year follow-up, the occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in Group 2 than in Group 1 (29/483 [6.0%] vs. 53/482 [11.0%]; hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.82; P=0.005). The same trend was observed after adjusting for patient factors (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Among ACS patients receiving contemporary lipid-lowering therapy other than PUFAs, a greater change in the EPA/AA ratio was associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular events.

[Saturated fatty acids and cardiovascular risk : Is a revision of the recommendations on nutrition indicated?]

Die „Fetthypothese der koronaren Herzkrankheit“, derzufolge „gesättigte Fettsäuren“ („saturated fatty acids“, SFA) die LDL(„low-density lipoprotein“)-Cholesterin-Konzentration (LDL-C) steigern und folglich das Risiko für kardiovaskuläre Erkrankungen erhöhen, prägte die Ernährungsempfehlungen der letzten 60 Jahre, zunächst in den USA und später auch in Europa. Über die Jahre mehrte sich Evidenz aus Epidemiologie und kontrollierten klinischen Studien, dass der Konsum von SFA per se nicht mit einem erhöhten kardiovaskulären Risiko einhergeht bzw. die Einschränkung des Konsums von SFA keine präventive Wirkung zeigt. Die Fokussierung auf den SFA-Gehalt negiert die biologisch heterogenen und zum Teil biologisch günstigen Wirkungen unterschiedlicher SFA. Zudem wird hierbei außer Acht gelassen, dass SFA in intakten Lebensmitteln in unterschiedliche komplexe Matrizes eingebunden sind, die aus Dutzenden Nährstoffen mit unterschiedlicher Struktur und Begleitstoffen bestehen und damit jeweils unterschiedliche biologische Antworten und metabolische Effekte auslösen. Entsprechend sind solche nährstoffbasierten Empfehlungen prinzipiell wenig zielführend und zudem schlecht umsetzbar. Hinzu kommt, dass LDL‑C kein geeigneter Marker ist, um den Effekt von Lebensstilintervention wie der Ernährung oder aber der körperlichen Aktivität auf das globale kardiovaskuläre Risiko zu beurteilen.

Association between elevated left ventricular mass index and increased cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: A sub-analysis of the HIJ-PROPER study

AIM

This study aimed to assess the association between left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) under standard ACS management.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study is the sub-analysis of the HIJ-PROPER study. A total of 299 patients who had echocardiographic LVMI data were included in the current analysis. The participants were divided into four groups according to the LVMI quartile [quartile 1 (Q1), 77 (25.8%); quartile 2 (Q2), 73 (24.4%); quartile 3 (Q3), 74 (24.7%); and quartile 4 (Q4), 75 (25.1%)]. The incidence of cardiovascular events was compared among the four groups. The primary endpoint was defined as the composite endpoint of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure. Mean LVMI in the four groups was 68.1±8.6, 86.2±3.8, 101.1±4.9, and 126.0±18.5 g/m² , respectively. The primary endpoint was noted in 4, 4, 7, and 14 patients in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4, corresponding to an incidence of 5.2%, 5.5%, 9.5%, and 18.7%, respectively (p = 0.03 for difference among four groups). The cumulative incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in patients in Q4 than in those in Q1 and Q2 [hazard ratio (HR) 3.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23-11.4; p = 0.02 for Q4 vs Q1; HR 3.43; 95% CI, 1.13-10.4; p = 0.03 for Q4 vs Q2]. This tendency was noted even after adjusting for patient characteristics and echocardiography parameters (p = 0.039 for Q4 vs Q1).

CONCLUSION

Elevated LVMI was associated with increased cardiovascular events in patients with ACS under standard management. Adequately powered studies are warranted to validate these findings.

Targeting the Cholesterol Paradigm in the Risk Reduction for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Does the Mechanism of Action of Pharmacotherapy Matter for Clinical Outcomes?

Hypercholesterolemia is a well-established risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been labeled as "bad" cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) as "good" cholesterol. The prevailing hypothesis is that lowering blood cholesterol levels, especially LDL-C, reduces vascular deposition and retention of cholesterol or apolipoprotein B (apoB)-containing lipoproteins which are atherogenic. We review herein the clinical trial data on different pharmacological approaches to lowering blood cholesterol and propose that the mechanism of action of cholesterol lowering, as well as the amplitude of cholesterol reduction, are critically important in leading to improved clinical outcomes in ASCVD. The effects of bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, niacin, cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors, apolipoprotein A-I and HDL mimetics, apoB regulators, acyl coenzyme A: cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT) inhibitors, cholesterol absorption inhibitors, statins, and proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, among other strategies are reviewed. Clinical evidence supports that different classes of cholesterol lowering or lipoprotein regulating approaches yielded variable effects on ASCVD outcomes, especially in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Statins are the most widely used cholesterol lowering agents and have the best proven cardiovascular event and survival benefits. Manipulating cholesterol levels by specific targeting of apoproteins or lipoproteins has not yielded clinical benefit. Understanding why lowering LDL-C by different approaches varies in clinical outcomes of ASCVD, especially in survival benefit, may shed further light on our evolving understanding of how cholesterol and its carrier lipoproteins are involved in ASCVD and aid in developing effective pharmacological strategies to improve the clinical outcomes of ASCVD.

Effect of More Intensive LDL-C-Lowering Therapy on Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes in Early-Phase Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The effect of more intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy (ILLT) on long-term cardiovascular outcomes during the early phase of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) remains uncertain. We aimed to explore the influence of more intensive LDL-C-lowering therapyduring the early disease phase on long-term cardiovascular events among patients with ACSs.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials that focused on the effect of more ILLT during early-phase ACSs on long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were searched in electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases) from database inception until November 23, 2019. The end points included the incidence of MACEs, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, heart failure, and death events. Study risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tools. Fixed- or random-effects models and meta-regression were performed to evaluate the association between baseline/proportional reduction of LDL-C levels during early-phase disease and the risk of end points using risk ratios with 95% CIs.

FINDINGS

A total of 53,199 participants were involved from 19 studies. The risk of MACEs decreased by 17% (95% CI, 0.76-0.90; P = 0.0012) for more intensive versus control therapy but varied by baseline and proportional reduction of LDL-C levels during early disease phase. The risk reduction of MACEs for more intensive versus control therapy among different subgroups was 26% (95% CI, 0.57-0.95; P = 0.06) with a baseline level >130 mg/dL, 23% (95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = 0.02) with a baseline level of 100 to 130 mg/dL, and 10% (95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = 0.07) with a baseline level <100 mg/dL. A significant difference of risk reduction for MACEs existed between patients treated with statin plus ezetimibe versus statin alone in the subgroup with a baseline level >130 mg/dL and proportional reduction >50%. Patients treated with more intensive therapy benefited from reduced risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and heart failure compared with control therapy.

IMPLICATIONS

More ILLT during early disease phase could significantly reduce the risk of long-term cardiovascular outcome in patients with ACSs. This benefit was most pronounced in patients with higher baseline and larger reduction of LDL-C levels in MACEs.

Effects of Combined Lipid-Lowering Therapy on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Variability and Cardiovascular Adverse Events in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the effect of combined lipid-lowering therapy on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) variability and cardiovascular adverse events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

A total of 200 patients with acute coronary syndrome, admitted to the first Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2018 to June 2019, were randomly divided into the observation group (100 cases were treated with combined lipid-lowering drugs, including 10 mg/day atorvastatin and 10 mg/day ezetimibe) and the control group (100 cases were given an intensive statin regimen, including 40 mg/day atorvastatin). The levels of blood lipids, creatine kinase (CK), alanine transaminase (ALT), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were observed and compared between the two groups. Focus was laid on the concentration of the above-mentioned parameters and follow-up results including the drug safety and incidence of cardiovascular adverse events.

RESULTS

Before treatment, there was no significant difference in total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), CK, ALT, MMP-9, hsCRP and LDL-C between the two groups (P > 0.05). After 6 months, 12 months and 24 months of treatment, TC, HDL-C, CK, ALT, MMP-9, hsCRP and LDL-C were improved in both groups, and TC, HDL-C, CK, ALT, MMP-9, hsCRP and LDL-C in the observation group elicited greater results than those in the control group with significant difference (P < 0.05). In the course of treatment, the drug safety of the two groups was compared (P > 0.05), and the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (6.59% vs. 11.96%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with atorvastatin and ezetimibe potentially provides remarkable effects in terms of treating acute coronary syndrome, controlling the variation of LDL-C, alleviating the inflammatory state and reducing the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events with a safe profile. Combined lipid-lowering drugs are considered valid and alternative approaches for wide clinical practice.