Three Reasons to Abandon Low-Density Lipoprotein Targets

The lack of association between different LDL-C levels and oxidized LDL in patients with type 2 diabetes

Background

High concentrations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) have been a known risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Also, the role of oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) in forming atherosclerosis plaque has been proven. However, it has not yet been proven that atherogenic LDL-C by-products like ox-LDL will decrease by keeping the LDL levels at the desired level. This study aimed to examine the relationship between LDL-C and ox-LDL in different LDL-C values in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 347 patients with T2D who received statins were enrolled. LDL-C values were defined into four groups as LDL-C < 55 mg/dL, 55 mg/dL ≤ to <70 mg/dL, 70 mg/dL ≤ to <100 mg/dL and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL. Total cholesterol, triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and ox-LDL were studied in the four defined groups.

Results

Ox-LDL levels were not different among the four groups (p = 0.30). In addition, LDL-C and ox-LDL levels had no significant correlation (r = 0.480, p = 0.376). Additionally, based on this study analysis, ox-LDL levels were significantly correlated with TG levels (r = 0.119, p < 0.05) and TG/HDL ratio (r = 0.390, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

It is concluded that ox-LDL levels were not associated with different LDL-C level categories from <55 mg/dL to >100 mg/dL in patients with T2D. However, the revealed association of ox-LDL with TG level and TG/HDL ratio may be considered in the clinic.

Racial, ethnic, and language differences in screening measures for statin therapy following a major guideline change

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) disproportionally affects racial and ethnic minority populations. Statin prescribing guidelines changed in 2013 to improve ASCVD prevention. It is unknown whether risk screening for statin eligibility differed across race and ethnicity over this guideline change. We examine racial/ethnic/language differences in screening measure prevalence for period-specific statin consideration using a retrospective cohort design and linked electronic health records from 635 community health centers in 24 U.S. states. Adults 50+ years, without known ASCVD, and ≥ 1 visit in 2009-2013 and/or 2014-2018 were included, grouped as: Asian, Latino, Black, or White further distinguished by language preference. Outcomes included screening measure prevalence for statin consideration, 2009-2013: low-density lipoprotein (LDL), 2014-2018: pooled cohort equation (PCE) components age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, smoking status. Among patients seen both periods, change in period-specific measure prevalence was assessed. Adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, compared to English-preferring White patients, all other groups were more likely to have LDL documented (2009-2013, n = 195,061) and all PCE components documented (2014-2018, n = 344,504). Among patients seen in both periods (n = 128,621), all groups had lower odds of PCE components versus LDL documented in the measures' respective period; English-preferring Black adults experienced a greater decline compared to English-preferring White adults (OR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.91). Racial/ethnic/language disparities in documented screening measures that guide statin therapy for ASCVD prevention were unaffected by a major guideline change advising this practice. It is important to understand whether the newer guidelines have altered disparate prescribing and morbidity/mortality for this disease.

Lipid Testing Trends in the US Before and After the Release of the 2013 Cholesterol Treatment Guidelines

Background

The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines removed the recommendation to treat adults at risk of cardiovascular disease to goal levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We anticipated that the frequency of LDL-C testing in clinical practice would decline as a result. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated the frequency of LDL-C testing before and after the guideline release.

Methods

We used the MarketScan^® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims data (1/1/2007–12/31/2016) to identify four cohorts: 1) statin initiators (any intensity), 2) high-intensity statin initiators, 3) ezetimibe initiators, and 4) patients at very high cardiovascular risk (≥2 hospitalizations for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke, with prevalent statin use). Rates of LDL-C testing by calendar year quarter were estimated for each cohort. To estimate rates in the absence of a guideline change, we fit a time-series model to the pre-guideline rates and extrapolated to the post-guideline period, adjusting for covariates, seasonality, and time trend.

Results

Pre- and post-guideline rates (LDL-C tests per 1,000 persons per quarter) were 248 and 235, respectively, for 3.9 million statin initiators; 263 and 246 for 1.3 million high-intensity statin initiators; 277 and 261 for 323,544 ezetimibe initiators; and 180 and 158 for 42,108 very high-risk patients. For all cohorts, observed post-guideline rates were similar to model-predicted rates. On average, the difference between observed and predicted rates was 8.5 for patients initiating any statin; 2.6 for patients initiating a high-intensity statin; 11.4 for patients initiating ezetimibe, and −0.5 for high-risk patients.

Conclusion

We observed no discernible impact of the release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines on LDL-C testing rates. Rather, there was a gradual decline in testing rates starting prior to the guideline change and continuing throughout the study period. Our findings suggest that the guidelines had little to no impact on use of LDL-C testing.

Effect of different types of statins on kidney function decline and proteinuria: a network meta-analysis

Previous studies showed that statins reduce the progression of kidney function decline and proteinuria, but whether specific types of statins are more beneficial than others remains unclear. We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate which statin most effectively reduces kidney function decline and proteinuria. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database until July 13, 2018, and included 43 RCTs (>110,000 patients). We performed a pairwise random-effects meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis according to a frequentist approach. We assessed network inconsistency, publication bias, and estimated for each statin the probability of being the best treatment. Considerable heterogeneity was present among the included studies. In pairwise meta-analyses, 1-year use of statins versus control reduced kidney function decline by 0.61 (95%-CI: 0.27; 0.95) mL/min/1.73 m² and proteinuria with a standardized mean difference of -0.58 (95%-CI:-0.88; -0.29). The network meta-analysis for the separate endpoints showed broad confidence intervals due to the small number available RCTs for each individual comparison. In conclusion, 1-year statin use versus control attenuated the progression of kidney function decline and proteinuria. Due to the imprecision of individual comparisons, results were inconclusive as to which statin performs best with regard to renal outcome.

Lipid management in patients with chronic kidney disease

An increased risk of cardiovascular disease, independent of conventional risk factors, is present even at minor levels of renal impairment and is highest in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis. Renal dysfunction changes the level, composition and quality of blood lipids in favour of a more atherogenic profile. Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) or ESRD have a characteristic lipid pattern of hypertriglyceridaemia and low HDL cholesterol levels but normal LDL cholesterol levels. In the general population, a clear relationship exists between LDL cholesterol and major atherosclerotic events. However, in patients with ESRD, LDL cholesterol shows a negative association with these outcomes at below average LDL cholesterol levels and a flat or weakly positive association with mortality at higher LDL cholesterol levels. Overall, the available data suggest that lowering of LDL cholesterol is beneficial for prevention of major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD and in kidney transplant recipients but is not beneficial in patients requiring dialysis. The 2013 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for Lipid Management in CKD provides simple recommendations for the management of dyslipidaemia in patients with CKD and ESRD. However, emerging data and novel lipid-lowering therapies warrant some reappraisal of these recommendations.

Lipid levels achieved after a first myocardial infarction and the prediction of recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals post-myocardial infarction (MI) are debated, and the significance of achieved blood lipid levels for predicting a first recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (rASCVD) event post-MI is unclear.

METHODS

This was a cohort study on first-ever MI survivors aged ≤76 years attending 4-14 week revisits throughout Sweden 2005-2013. Personal-level data was collected from SWEDEHEART and linked national registries. Exposures were quintiles of LDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs) at the revisit. Group level associations with rASCVD (nonfatal MI or coronary heart disease death or fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke) were estimated in Cox regression models. Predictive capacity was estimated by differences in C-statistic, integrated discriminatory improvement, and net reclassification improvement when adding each blood lipid to a validated risk prediction model.

RESULTS

25,643 patients, 96.9% on statin therapy, were followed during a mean of 4.1 years. rASCVD occurred in 2173 patients (8.5%). For LDL-C and TC, moderate associations with rASCVD were observed only in the 5th vs. the lowest (referent) quintiles. For TGs and HDL-C increased risks were observed in quintiles 3-5 vs. the lowest. Minor predictive improvements were observed when lipid fractions were added to the risk model but the discrimination overall was poor (C-statistics <0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data question the importance of LDL-C levels achieved at first revisit post-MI for decisions on continued treatment intensity considering the weak association with rASCVD observed in this post-MI cohort.

The systematic review of randomized controlled trials of PCSK9 antibodies challenges their "efficacy breakthrough" and the "lower, the better" theory

BACKGROUND

A Cochrane review with meta-analysis showed controversial results about the efficacy of PCSK9 antibodies in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. This review gives the opportunity to test the relationship between LDL-C levels and cardiovascular events.

METHODS

The authors analyzed the relationship between the calculated LDL-C lowering and the risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, any adverse event, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular disease mortality.

RESULTS

No beneficial relationship was found between LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular events explored by meta-regression; instead, there was a trend toward harm. For any of the other outcomes there was no significant association between LDL-C lowering and risk. Furthermore, the authors calculated the efficacy that would be expected through the LDL-C lowering showed in the meta-analysis, considering widely accepted predictions. These were respected only for stroke, while the observed efficacy on other cardiovascular events was significantly lower than the expected, and no significant result was observed at all for fatal outcomes. A separate meta-analysis of trials recruiting familial hypercholesterolemia patients have showed a tendency to harm for almost all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular events has not showed any significant association (and even a tendency toward harm), challenging the "lower the better" theory. A separate meta-analysis of trials recruiting familial hypercholesterolemia patients has showed a tendency to harm for all outcomes with PCSK9 antibodies. Therefore, at the moment, the data available from randomized trials does not clearly support the use of these antibodies.

Cardiovascular Risk Factors Accelerate Kidney Function Decline in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: The Alpha Omega Cohort Study

Introduction

Impaired kidney function is a robust risk factor for cardiovascular mortality. Age-related annual kidney function decline of 1.0 ml/min per 1.73 m² after age 40 years is doubled in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients.

Methods

We investigated the impact of the number of cardiovascular risk factors (including unhealthy lifestyle) on annual kidney function decline, in 2426 post-MI patients (60-80 years) of the prospective Alpha Omega Cohort study. Glomerular filtration rate was estimated by serum cystatin C (eGFR_cysC) and combined creatinine-cystatin C (eGFR_cr-cysC), using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations from 2012. Data were analyzed by multivariable linear and logistic regression.

Results

At baseline, mean (SD) eGFR_cysC and eGFR_cr-cysC were 81.5 (19.6) and 78.5 (18.7) ml/min per 1.73 m², respectively. Of all patients, 79% were men, 19% had diabetes, 56% had high blood pressure (≥140/90 mm Hg), 16% were current smokers, 56% had high serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL of ≥2.5 mmol/l), and 23% were obese (body mass index of ≥30.0 kg/m²). After multivariable adjustment, the additional annual eGFR_cysC decline (95% confidence interval) was as follows: in patients with versus without diabetes, -0.90 (-1.23 to -0.57) ml/min per 1.73 m²; in patients with high versus normal blood pressure, -0.50 (-0.76 to -0.24) ml/min per 1.73 m²; in obese versus nonobese patients, -0.31 (-0.61 to 0.01) ml/min per 1.73 m²; and in current smokers versus nonsmokers, -0.19 (-0.54 to 0.16) ml/min per 1.73 m². High LDL was not associated with accelerated eGFR_cysC decline. Similar results were obtained with eGFR_cr-cysC.

Conclusion

In older, stable post-MI patients without cardiovascular risk factors, the annual kidney function decline was -0.90 (-1.16 to -0.65) ml/min per 1.73 m². In contrast, in post-MI patients with ≥3 cardiovascular risk factors, the annual kidney function decline was 2.5-fold faster, at -2.37 (-2.85 to -1.89) ml/min per 1.73 m².

Dyslipidemia and risk of renal replacement therapy or death in incident pre-dialysis patients

Globally the number of patients on renal replacement therapy (RRT) is rising. Dyslipidemia is a potential modifiable cardiovascular risk factor, but its effect on risk of RRT or death in pre-dialysis patients is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the association between dyslipidemia and risk of RRT or death among patients with CKD stage 4–5 receiving specialized pre-dialysis care, an often under represented group in clinical trials. Of the 502 incident pre-dialysis patients (>18 y) in the Dutch PREPARE-2 study, lipid levels were available in 284 patients and imputed for the other patients. During follow up 376 (75%) patients started RRT and 47 (9%) patients died. Dyslipidemia was defined as total cholesterol ≥5.00 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥2.50 mmol/L, HDL cholesterol <1.00 mmol/L, HDL/LDL ratio <0.4, or triglycerides (TG) ≥2.25 mmol/L, and was present in 181 patients and absent in 93 patients. After multivariable adjustment Cox regression analyses showed a HR (95% CI) for the combined endpoint for dyslipidemia of 1.12 (0.85–1.47), and for high LDL of 1.20 (0.89–1.61). All other HRs were smaller. In conclusion, we did not find an association between dyslipidemia or the separate lipid levels and RRT or death in CKD patients on specialized pre-dialysis care.

Targeting LDL Cholesterol: Beyond Absolute Goals Toward Personalized Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to review and assess the evidence for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals as presented in current guidelines for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Different sets of guidelines and clinical studies for secondary prevention have centered on lower absolute LDL-C targets [<70 mg/dL (<1.8 mmol/L)], greater percent reductions of LDL-C (≥50%), or more intense treatment to achieve greater reductions in cardiovascular risk. Population-based risk models serve as the basis for statin initiation in primary prevention. Reviews of current population risk models for primary prevention show moderate ability to discriminate [with c-statistics ranging from 0.67 to 0.77 (95% CIs from 0.62 to 0.83) for men and women] with poor calibration and overestimation of risk. Individual clinical trial data are not compelling to support specific LDL-C targets and percent reductions in secondary prevention. Increasing utilization of electronic health records and data analytics will enable the development of individualized treatment goals in both primary and secondary prevention.

On P values and effect modification

AIM

A crucial element of evidence-based healthcare is the sound understanding and use of statistics. As part of instilling sound statistical knowledge and practice, it seems useful to highlight instances of unsound statistical reasoning or practice, not merely in captious or vitriolic spirit, but rather, to use such error as a springboard for edification by giving tangibility to the concepts at hand and highlighting the importance of avoiding such error. This article aims to provide an instructive overview of two key statistical concepts: effect modification and P values.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A recent article published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology on side effects related to statin therapy offers a notable example of errors in understanding effect modification and P values, and although not so critical as to entirely invalidate the article, the errors still demand considerable scrutiny and correction. In doing so, this article serves as an instructive overview of the statistical concepts of effect modification and P values.

CONCLUSION

Judicious handling of statistics is imperative to avoid muddying their utility. This article contributes to the body of literature aiming to improve the use of statistics, which in turn will help facilitate evidence appraisal, synthesis, translation, and application.

Black-White Cardiovascular Disease Disparities After Target-Based Versus Personalized Benefit-Based Lipid and Blood Pressure Treatment

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of black-white morbidity and mortality disparities in the United States. Objectives: We sought to compare black-white CVD morbidity and mortality if lipid and blood pressure treatments were prescribed to achieve targeted lipid and blood pressure levels (treat-to-target [TTT]) or personalized CVD risk and treatment benefit estimates (benefit-based tailored treatment [BTT]). Methods: We utilized a microsimulation model of statin and blood pressure treatment based on a TTT approach (Joint National Commission 7; Adult Treatment Panel III) or a BTT approach (treating those with 10-year CVD risk ≥10%, a modification and extension of recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines). We input data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, isolating adults 40 to 75 years of age without prior CVD events. Results: We observed that TTT would prevent fewer CVD events (17.0 events prevented per 1,000 whites, 22.2 per 1,000 blacks) than the BTT approach (25.9 events prevented per 1,000 whites, 45.4 per 1,000 blacks). TTT could lower the national black-white CVD event rate disparity from 23.1 excess events per 1,000 blacks to 17.9 excess events (-23%), while BTT could lower the disparity to 3.6 excess events (-84% overall). The inferiority of TTT to BTT remained consistent in sensitivity analyses testing alternative treatment targets and either over- or underestimation of risk by commonly used equations. Conclusions: A BTT approach to lipid and blood pressure treatment would be expected to prevent more CVD events in the overall population and more effectively reduce national black-white CVD disparities than a traditional TTT approach.

PCSK9 inhibitors in the current management of atherosclerosis

The history of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) in medical science is fascinating and the evolution of knowledge of its function has resulted in new medications of major importance for the cardiovascular (CV) patient. PCSK9 functions as a negative control or feedback for the cell surface receptors for low-density lipoprotein including its component of cholesterol (LDL-C). The initial and key findings were that different abnormalities of PCSK9 can result in an increase or a decrease of LDL-C because of more or less suppression of cell surface receptors. These observations gave hints and awoke interest that it might be possible to prepare monoclonal antibodies to PCSK9 and decrease its activity, after which there should be more active LDL-C cell receptors. The rest is a fascinating story that currently has resulted in two PCSK9 inhibitors, alirocumab and evolocumab, which, on average, decrease LDL-C approximately 50%. Nevertheless, if there are no contraindications, statins remain the standard of prevention for the high-risk CV patient and this includes both secondary and primary prevention. The new inhibitors are for the patient that does not attain the desired target for LDL-C reduction while taking a maximum statin dose or who does not tolerate any statin dose whatsoever. Atherosclerosis can be considered a metabolic disease and the clinician needs to realize this and think more and more of CV prevention. These inhibitors can contribute to both the stabilization and regression of atherosclerotic plaques and thereby avoid or delay major adverse cardiac events. (United States).

Is There an Ideal Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level? Confusion regarding Lipid Guidelines, Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Targets, and Medical Management

There are multiple guidelines for managing patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease, and unfortunately for the practicing clinician, these guidelines are quite variable. Some are fairly specific whereas others are not, resulting in a great deal of confusion regarding whether management of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) should be tailored only, targeted only, or managed by a combination of both. In the management of cardiovascular disease, favorable cardiovascular outcomes can be obtained by simply lowering the LDL-C in the absence of any other medications. The advent of statins, the most potent LDL-C-lowering medication yet when developed, provided benefits augmented by the presence of multiple pleiotropic effects. Tailoring and/or targeting the decrease in LDL-C is also an issue of concern. Then, in 2016, the new proprotein convertase sutilisin-like/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors appeared, providing a solution to patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease with statin intolerance and those who did not attain a desired LDL-C level while on a high-dose statin. These new PCSK9 inhibitors necessitate a determination of how low the LDL-C can and should go, most likely safely down to a beneficial level of 25 mg/dL for the highest-risk patient. These issues are documented and discussed with an attempt to help the reader make an informed risk management decision.

Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives

Modern medicine is characterized by a continuous genesis of evidence making it very difficult to translate the latest findings into a better clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) emerge to provide clinicians evidence-based recommendations for their daily clinical practice. However, the high number of existing CPG as well as the usual differences in the given recommendations usually increases the clinician’s confusion and doubts. It has apparently been the case for the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol. These CPG proposed new and controversial concepts that have usually been considered an antagonist shift respective to European CPG. The most controversial published proposals are: 1) to consider evidence just from randomized clinical trials, 2) creation of a new cardiovascular (CV) risk calculator, 3) to consider reducing CV risk instead of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) as the target of the treatment, and 4) consideration of statins as the only drugs for treatment. A deep analysis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association CPG and comparison with the European ones show that from a practical and clinical point of view, there are more similarities than differences. To further help clinicians in their daily work, in the present globalized world, it is time to discuss and adopt a mutually agreed upon document created by both sides of the Atlantic. Probably it is not a short-term solution. Meanwhile, taking advantage of the similarities, the recommended practical attitude for the daily clinical practice should be based on 1) early detection of people with increased CV risk promoting the use of validated local scales, 2) reinforce the mainstream importance of nonpharmacological treatment, and 3) need for periodically monitoring response with analytical parameters (LDL or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and global CV risk estimation. Technological solutions such as the big data technology could help to obtain high-quality evidence in an intermediate term.

The 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Treatment Guidelines: Applicability to Patients with Diabetes

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and the management of blood cholesterol is a cornerstone of medical therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Patients with diabetes represent an important high-risk group in whom clinicians should advocate the use of statins and lifestyle modification for the reduction of ASCVD. The recent 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines on managing blood cholesterol provide an important framework for the effective implementation of this important risk reduction strategy. The guidelines identify four groups of individuals who have been shown to benefit from statin therapy and update the dosing and monitoring recommendations based on evidence from published, large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical hard endpoints. Primary care physicians and specialists play key roles in identifying populations at elevated ASCVD risk and providing effective care for patients, especially those with diabetes. This article will summarize the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines on managing blood cholesterol and provide a practical management overview in order to facilitate implementation of these guidelines for patients with diabetes.

Lifestyle modification for resistant hypertension: The TRIUMPH randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Resistant hypertension (RH) is a growing health burden in this country affecting as many as 1 in 5 adults being treated for hypertension. Resistant hypertension is associated with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality. Strategies to reduce blood pressure (BP) in this high-risk population are a national priority.

METHODS

TRIUMPH is a single-site, prospective, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of a center-based lifestyle intervention consisting of exercise training, reduced sodium and calorie Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension eating plan, and weight management compared to standardized education and physician advice in treating patients with RH. Patients (n = 150) will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either a 4-month supervised lifestyle intervention delivered in the setting of a cardiac rehabilitation center or to a standardized behavioral counseling session to simulate real-world medical practice. The primary end point is clinic BP; secondary end points include ambulatory BP and an array of CVD biomarkers including left ventricular hypertrophy, arterial stiffness, baroreceptor reflex sensitivity, insulin resistance, lipids, sympathetic nervous system activity, and inflammatory markers. Lifestyle habits, BP, and CVD risk factors also will be measured at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The TRIUMPH randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02342808) is designed to test the efficacy of an intensive, center-based lifestyle intervention compared to a standardized education and physician advice counseling session on BP and CVD biomarkers in patients with RH after 4 months of treatment and will determine whether lifestyle changes can be maintained for a year.

Implementation of the KDIGO guideline on lipid management requires a substantial increase in statin prescription rates

The KDIGO guideline on lipid management in adult patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) reflects a paradigm shift as proposals for statin use are based on cardiovascular risk rather than cholesterol levels. Statin use is now universally recommended in CKD patients 50 years and older, assuming a 10-year risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) of over 10%. Specific comorbidities or formal risk calculation are required for younger patients. It is unknown to which extent these new guidelines differ from previous practice. Here we analyzed statin use in the German Chronic Kidney Disease study of 5217 adult patients with moderately severe CKD under nephrological care enrolled shortly before publication of the new guideline. Accordingly, 407 patients younger than 50 years would be eligible for statins compared with the 277 patients treated so far, and all 4224 patients 50 years and older would be eligible compared with the 2196 already treated. Overall, guideline implementation would almost double statin prescription from 47 to 88%. Among patients 50 years and older currently not on a statin, an estimated 10-year CHD and atherosclerotic event risks over 10% were present in 68% and 82%, respectively. Thus, implementation of the new lipid guideline requires a substantial change in prescription practice, even in CKD patients under nephrological care. Based on comorbidities and risk estimates, the universal recommendation for statin use in CKD patients 50 years and older appears justified.

Management of dyslipidemia for cardiovascular disease risk reduction: synopsis of the 2014 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense clinical practice guideline

DESCRIPTION

In December 2014, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the management of dyslipidemia for cardiovascular disease risk reduction in adults. This synopsis summarizes the major recommendations.

METHODS

On 30 September 2013, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a joint VA/DoD guideline development effort that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the Institute of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, developed a simple 1-page algorithm, and rated each of 26 recommendations by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This synopsis summarizes key features of the guideline in 5 areas: elimination of treatment targets, additional tests for risk prediction, primary and secondary prevention, and laboratory testing.

Cardiovascular risk factors and disease in women

Coronary artery disease and stroke predominantly affect older women as opposed to younger women, but the risk factors that contribute to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk often start in young women. Young women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), with migraine, and who use oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) have short-term increases in thrombotic complications that can result in coronary events or stroke. Attention should be focused on risk reduction in women of all ages. Screening for and discussing diabetes, hypertension, obesity, smoking, migraine, PCOS, and pregnancy complication history and discussing the pros and cons of hormone and statin medications are part of reducing cardiovascular risk for women.

Statins and Nonadherence

Statin nonadherence is a major challenge to optimal management. Patients nonadherent to statin therapy do not receive the expected benefit relative to the degree of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering obtained. This is important because new evidence guidelines recommend statins as the first-line therapy for those in high-risk groups (secondary prevention, patients with diabetes 40-75 years of age, and LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL) and in selected primary prevention patients. Statin assignment in the latter group occurs only in those with an estimated ≥7.5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk after shared decision making in a clinician–patient risk discussion. However, in numerous studies, statin nonadherence shows little or no benefit in reducing cardiovascular events or mortality compared to placebo, effectively negating the risk reduction expected from statin use and concomitantly increasing the total cost of health care. The causes and solutions for nonadherence are multifactorial and include patient, clinician, and health system factors. We believe that a clinician–patient partnership that facilitates patients’ understanding of the potential for optimal benefit with the least adverse effects is an important first step toward improving adherence. A transtheoretical model of stages of behavior change helps clinicians address many of the common factors limiting adherence to statins. We conclude with a teaching tool emphasizing a structured approach to statin therapy with patient-centered risk discussions.

Sigmoidal maximal effect modeling of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration and annual incidence of coronary heart disease events in secondary prevention trials

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration and the annual incidence of combined coronary heart disease (CHD) events—death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (NFMI)—by using sigmoidal maximal effect (sEmax) modeling of published data in various populations at risk for CHD events, and to use the best performing sEmax model generated to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent a single CHD death or NFMI event across a range of LDL-C concentrations.

DESIGN

Literature-based modeling analysis.

PATIENTS

A total of 95,955 patients from 22 published cardiovascular secondary prevention trials.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four distinct sEmax models were created based on intervention approach and CHD event risk for each trial population. Model outputs included the following: Emax (maximum CHD death/NFMI rate), E0 (minimum CHD death/NFMI rate), and fit parameters. The best-fitting sEmax model was compared with linear, log-linear, and logit models, and it was used for calculation of annualized NNT to prevent one CHD death or NFMI event with statins. The best fitting sEmax model was constructed from nine statin intervention trials in 60,483 clinically stable patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalents (Emax = 4.84%/year [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.11–5.41%/year], E0 = 1.24%/year [95% CI 0.64–1.83%/year]) and was superior to linear, log-linear, and logit models. Reduction of CHD death/NFMI incidence diminished at an LDL-C level near 90 mg/dl and became near static at an LDL-C level of 60–70 mg/dl. Annual NNT for LDL-C reduction from a baseline of 130–100 mg/dl, 90, and 70 mg/dl was 129, 104, and 83, respectively, and from a baseline of 100–70 mg/dl was 232.

CONCLUSION

An sEmax model fully characterized the relationship between LDL-C concentration and incidence of CHD death or NFMI in a high-risk population receiving statins, with diminishing event reduction at an LDL-C level less than 90 mg/dl, and limited projected event reduction beyond an LDL-C level of ~60–70 mg/dl. As baseline LDL-C level declines, the NNT sharply increases.

Goal-directed treatment of osteoporosis in Europe

Despite the proven predictive ability of bone mineral density, Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®), bone turnover markers, and fracture for osteoporotic fracture, their use as targets for treatment of osteoporosis is limited.

INTRODUCTION

Treat-to-target is a strategy applied in several fields of medicine and has recently become an area of interest in the management of osteoporosis. Its role in this setting remains controversial. This article was prepared following a European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) working group meeting convened under the auspices of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) to discuss the feasibility of applying such a strategy in osteoporosis in Europe.

METHODS

Potential targets range from the absence of an incident fracture to fixed levels of bone mineral density (BMD), a desired FRAX® score, a specified level of bone turnover markers or indeed changes in any one or a combination of these parameters.

RESULTS

Despite the proven predictive ability of all of these variables for fracture (particularly BMD and FRAX), their use as targets remains limited due to low sensitivity, the influence of confounders and current lack of evidence that targets can be consistently reached.

CONCLUSION

ESCEO considers that it is not currently feasible to apply a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis, though it did identify a need to continue to improve the targeting of treatment to those at higher risk (target-to-treat strategy) and a number of issues for the research agenda. These include international consensus on intervention thresholds and definition of treatment failure, further exploration of the relationship between fracture and BMD, and FRAX and treatment efficacy and investigation of the potential of short-term targets to improve adherence.

LDL cholesterol: controversies and future therapeutic directions

Lifelong exposure to raised concentrations of LDL cholesterol increases cardiovascular event rates, and the use of statin therapy as an adjunct to diet, exercise, and smoking cessation has proven highly effective in reducing the population burden associated with hyperlipidaemia. Yet, despite consistent biological, genetic, and epidemiological data, and evidence from randomised trials, there is controversy among national guidelines and clinical practice with regard to LDL cholesterol, its measurement, the usefulness of population-based screening, the net benefit-to-risk ratio for different LDL-lowering drugs, the benefit of treatment targets, and whether aggressive lowering of LDL is safe. Several novel therapies have been introduced for the treatment of people with genetic defects that result in loss of function within the LDL receptor, a major determinant of inherited hyperlipidaemias. Moreover, the usefulness of monoclonal antibodies that extend the LDL-receptor lifecycle (and thus result in substantial lowering of LDL cholesterol below the levels achieved with statins alone) is being assessed in phase 3 trials that will enrol more than 60,000 at-risk patients worldwide. These trials represent an exceptionally rapid translation of genetic observations into clinical practice and will address core questions of how low LDL cholesterol can be safely reduced, whether the mechanism of LDL-cholesterol lowering matters, and whether ever more aggressive lipid-lowering provides a safe, long-term mechanism to prevent atherothrombotic complications.

2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guideline: what was done well and what could be done better

Five years after convening the expert panel, the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults was released. The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association issued the guideline on the basis of a systematic review of cholesterol treatment trials performed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. This report critically appraises the guideline and provides our view of what was done well and what could be done better. In particular, we propose that the guideline succeeds in prioritizing statin therapy, expanding the focus to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (including stroke), and emphasizing absolute cardiovascular risk to determine eligibility for statin therapy. We contend that the guideline could be enhanced by refining the use of lipid goals rather than removing them, enhancing guidance on evaluation of cholesterol, and broadening the concept of age underpinning risk-based decision making to include vascular and physiological age. We further suggest that the next guideline panel could comprehensively review current best evidence, build on existing guidelines, and cultivate broader national and international consensus. Overall, we aim to continue discussions about the important contributions and shortfalls of the guideline and create momentum for effective implementation and timely updates.

Recent Progress in the Genetics of Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats

The spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) is the most widely used animal model of essential hypertension and accompanying metabolic disturbances. Recent advances in sequencing of genomes of BN-Lx and SHR progenitors of the BXH/HXB recombinant inbred (RI) strains as well as accumulation of multiple data sets of intermediary phenotypes in the RI strains, including mRNA and microRNA abundance, quantitative metabolomics, proteomics, methylomics or histone modifications, will make it possible to systematically search for genetic variants involved in regulation of gene expression and in the etiology of complex pathophysiological traits. New advances in manipulation of the rat genome, including efficient transgenesis and gene targeting, will enable in vivo functional analyses of selected candidate genes to identify QTL at the molecular level or to provide insight into mechanisms whereby targeted genes affect pathophysiological traits in the SHR.

LDL cholesterol: should guidelines include targets?

Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The strategy of target-based LDL-C lowering to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and secondary event rates is now well established. However, the strategy for treating to a target LDL-C, and whether there is a lower threshold level for LDL-C continues to be debated. We present, and critically analyze the evidence for a target-based LDL-C lowering strategy, and the safety and efficacy of intensive plasma LDL-C-lowering with traditional, and novel LDL-lowering therapies below current guideline targets.

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.

An International Atherosclerosis Society Position Paper: global recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia--full report

An international panel of the International Atherosclerosis Society has developed a new set of recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. The panel identifies non--high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as the major atherogenic lipoprotein. Primary and secondary prevention are considered separately. Optimal levels for atherogenic lipoproteins are derived for the two forms of prevention. For primary prevention, the recommendations emphasize lifestyle therapies to reduce atherogenic lipoproteins; drug therapy is reserved for subjects at greater risk. Risk assessment is based on estimation of lifetime risk according to differences in baseline population risk in different nations or regions. Secondary prevention emphasizes use of cholesterol-lowering drugs to attain optimal levels of atherogenic lipoproteins.

Using benefit-based tailored treatment to improve the use of antihypertensive medications

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for prescribing antihypertensive medications focus on reaching specific blood pressure targets. We sought to determine whether antihypertensive medications could be used more effectively by a treatment strategy based on tailored estimates of cardiovascular disease events prevented.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed a nationally representative sample of American adults aged 30 to 85 years with no history of myocardial infarction, stroke, or severe congestive heart failure using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. We then created a simulation model to estimate the effects of 5 years of treatment with treat-to-target (treatment to specific blood pressure goals) and benefit-based tailored treatment (treatment based on estimated cardiovascular disease event reduction) approaches to antihypertensive medication management. All effect size estimates were derived directly from meta-analyses of randomized trials. We found that 55% of the overall population of 176 million Americans would be treated identically under the 2 treatment approaches. Benefit-based tailored treatment would prevent 900 000 more cardiovascular disease events and save 2.8 million more quality-adjusted life-years, despite using 6% fewer medications over 5 years. In the 45% of the population treated differently by the strategies, benefit-based tailored treatment would save 159 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 treated versus 74 quality-adjusted life-years per 1000 treated by the treat-to-target approach. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that benefit-based tailored treatment was both more effective and required less antihypertensive medication than current guidelines based on treating to specific blood pressure goals.