Current Perspectives on the Attainment of Lipid Modification Goals Relating to the Use of Statins and Ezetimibe for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the United Kingdom

Despite widespread evidence of the effectiveness of lipid modification for the reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, lipid modification goals are commonly underachieved in the United Kingdom (UK). In order to understand current UK lipid management guidance and the corresponding attainment of recommended lipid lowering goals relating to treatment with statins and ezetimibe, a literature review was conducted using PubMed focusing on publications between January 2017 and February 2020 in order to capture the most up-to-date literature. Identified publications were reviewed against key clinical guidelines for lipid management in relation to CVD risk from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, CG181), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN, 149) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Cholesterol lowering goals are central to current lipid lowering therapy guidance, although specific goals vary depending on the guideline and patients’ individual risk profile. Current guidance by NICE and SIGN specifies that treatment should achieve a greater than 40% reduction in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) at 3 months of treatment, while the ESC/EAS place emphasis on the lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) and total cholesterol. Yet, despite widespread availability of guidance and consistent messaging that lipid lowering goals should be ambitious, current evidence suggests a significant proportion of UK patients have sub-optimal reductions in cholesterol/non-HDL-C/LDL-C. The reasons for this are reported to be multifactorial, including a lack of compliance with guidelines, particularly regarding high-intensity statin prescribing, patient adherence, statin intolerance and statin reluctance as well as wider genetic factors. A number of possible strategies to improve current lipid management and attainment of lipid-lowering goals were identified, including improving the patient-healthcare professional partnership, conducting audits of local prescribing versus guidance, implementing plans for the refinement of current services and considering alternative options such as cost-effective single pill combinations for improving adherence.

Update on the laboratory investigation of dyslipidemias

The role of the clinical laboratory is evolving to provide more information to clinicians to assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and target therapy more effectively. Current routine methods to measure LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), the Friedewald calculation, ultracentrifugation, electrophoresis and homogeneous direct methods have established limitations. Studies suggest that LDL and HDL size or particle concentration are alternative methods to predict future CVD risk. At this time there is no consensus role for lipoprotein particle or subclasses in CVD risk assessment. LDL and HDL particle concentration are measured by several methods, namely gradient gel electrophoresis, ultracentrifugation-vertical auto profile, nuclear magnetic resonance and ion mobility. It has been suggested that HDL functional assays may be better predictors of CVD risk. To assess the issue of lipoprotein subclasses/particles and HDL function as potential CVD risk markers robust, simple, validated analytical methods are required. In patients with small dense LDL particles, even a perfect measure of LDL-C will not reflect LDL particle concentration. Non-HDL-C is an alternative measurement and includes VLDL and CM remnant cholesterol and LDL-C. However, apolipoprotein B measurement may more accurately reflect LDL particle numbers. Non-fasting lipid measurements have many practical advantages. Defining thresholds for treatment with new measurements of CVD risk remain a challenge. In families with genetic variants, ApoCIII and lipoprotein (a) may be additional risk factors. Recognition of familial causes of dyslipidemias and diagnosis in childhood will result in early treatment. This review discusses the limitations in current laboratory technologies to predict CVD risk and reviews the evidence for emergent approaches using newer biomarkers in clinical practice.