Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid co-administered with low- or moderate-dose statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus: results of a pooled subgroup analysis from three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials

Level of Control of Dyslipidemia Among Patients Followed in Family Medicine Clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Background Dyslipidemia is a well-established primary risk factor leading to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Treatment with lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering agents has been shown to reduce ASCVD morbidity and mortality. Objectives To explore the level of dyslipidemia control among patients followed in family medicine (FM) clinics and describe the prescribing pattern of lipid-lowering agents. Materials and methods This is a chart review cross-sectional observational study conducted over 382 patients who were followed in FM clinics at King Abdulaziz Medical City for National Guard, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from January 2016 to January 2019. The data were extracted from the electronic medical record system (BESTCare) and analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) to look for the association. Result All patients had a reduction in their lipid parameters over the three years follow-up period. The mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for the total sample was (2.783 ± 0.850) mmol/L. 82.1% were using a statin alone, 6% were using statin plus fenofibrate, and 12.8% were switched from one statin to another. Those who had statin plus fenofibrate and those switched from one statin to another had the most reduction in their LDL, TC, and TG. Conclusion Most of the patients visiting the Ministry of National Guard - Health Affairs (MNG-HA), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, showed a continuous reduction in their lipid profile over the follow-up period; with better control for high-risk patients. Many factors may have contributed to the reduction, like the number of clinic visits, dietician, and health educator visits, along with the type of medication used.

Real-World Effectiveness of Therapy With Rosuvastatin Combined With Fenofibric Acid in a Sample of Colombian Patients With Mixed Dyslipidemia

Background

Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of death in the world and is associated with dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and other factors.

Objective

To determine the clinical effectiveness on the lipid profile of the rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid combination in Colombian patients with high cardiovascular risk and mixed dyslipidemia.

Methods

Longitudinal observational study in a random sample of patients with a diagnosis of mixed dyslipidemia and moderate, high, or very high cardiovascular risk who were treated with rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid. Anthropometric, clinical, laboratory, comorbidity, and pharmacological variables were identified. Effectiveness on the lipid profile was determined.

Results

A total of 386 patients were analyzed. They had a mean age of 60.8 ± 11.4 years, 53.1% were female, and 75.6% had high/very high cardiovascular risk. The initial evaluation showed a mean LDL cholesterol of 138.4 ± 67.1 mg/dL and triglycerides of 679.7 ± 573.6 mg/dL. At the end of follow-up, mean LDL cholesterol was 87.5 ± 41.2 mg/dL (reduced by 43.3%; P < .001), and triglycerides were 243.5 ± 170.5 mg/dL (reduced by 64.2%; P < .001). Only 35.4% (n = 73) of patients with very high risk reached the goal of metabolic control, compared to 61.6% (n = 53) with high risk and 55.4% (n = 46) with moderate risk. Belonging to the very high-risk group was associated with a lower probability of achieving the control goal (OR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.192-0.539).

Conclusion

The combination of rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid is an effective option in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and high cardiovascular risk, providing a therapeutic alternative for those conditions that require it.

Lipid-lowering treatment and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target achievement in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus characteristically display an atherogenic lipid profile with high triglyceride concentrations, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations not always elevated. It is unclear if patients with diabetes who present with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) receive different or more-potent lipid-lowering therapy (LLT).

AIMS

To investigate lipid abnormalities in patients with and without type 2 diabetes hospitalised for an ACS, and use of LLT before admission and 4 months after the event.

METHODS

Patients were included in the observational DYSIS II study if they were hospitalised for an ACS and had a full lipid profile.

RESULTS

Of 3803 patients, diabetes was documented in 1344 (54.7%). Compared to patients without diabetes, those with diabetes had a lower mean LDL-C (101.2 vs. 112.0mg/dL; 2.6 vs. 2.9mmol/L; P<0.0001), with a greater proportion attaining concentrations<70mg/dL (1.8mmol/L) (23.9% vs. 16.0%; P<0.0001) and<55mg/dL (1.4mmol/L) (11.3% vs. 7.3%; P<0.0001), a higher mean triglyceride concentration (139.0 vs. 121.0mg/dL; 1.6 vs. 1.4mmol/L; P<0.0001) and a lower HDL-C concentration. LLT was more commonly given to patients with diabetes (77.5% vs. 58.8%; P<0.0001); there were no differences in types of therapy prescribed. Four months after hospitalisation, most patients from both groups were being treated with LLT (predominantly statin monotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the different lipid profiles, the type of LLT prescribed did not vary depending on the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes. There was no difference in LLT in patients with and without diabetes at 4-month follow-up, except for fibrates, which were used in 2% of patients with and 1% of patients without diabetes. Statin monotherapy of intermediate potency was the predominant treatment in both groups.

Dyslipidaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: bad for the heart

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with increased coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality. These patients are also more prone to heart failure, arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Furthermore, coronary interventions performed in such high-risk patients have worse outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the role of diabetic dyslipidaemia on the risk of CHD in patients with T2DM. The effects of hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs on lipid and glucose metabolism in T2DM are also considered.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among CHD risk factors, diabetic dyslipidaemia characterized by moderately elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, increased triglycerides and small, dense LDL particles as well as decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels may contribute to the increased CHD risk associated with T2DM. Hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs can affect lipid and glucose parameters thus potentially influencing CHD risk. Such drugs may improve not only the quantity, but also the quality of LDL as well as postprandial lipaemia.

SUMMARY

Current data highlight the importance of treating diabetic dyslipidaemia in order to minimize CHD risk. Both fasting and postprandial lipids are influenced by drugs in patients with T2DM; physicians should take this into consideration in clinical decision making.

A new perspective on lipid research in age-related macular degeneration

There is an urgency to find new treatment strategies that could prevent or delay the onset or progression of AMD. Different classes of lipids and lipoproteins metabolism genes have been associated with AMD in a multiple ways, but despite the ever-increasing knowledge base, we still do not understand fully how circulating lipids or local lipid metabolism contribute to AMD. It is essential to clarify whether dietary lipids, systemic or local lipoprotein metabolismtrafficking of lipids in the retina should be targeted in the disease. In this article, we critically evaluate what has been reported in the literature and identify new directions needed to bring about a significant advance in our understanding of the role for lipids in AMD. This may help to develop potential new treatment strategies through targeting the lipid homeostasis.

Practical recommendations for the management of cardiovascular risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia, with special attention to residual risk. Spanish adaptation of a European Consensus of Experts

This document has discussed clinical approaches to managing cardiovascular risk in clinical practice, with special focus on residual cardiovascular risk associated with lipid abnormalities, especially atherogenic dyslipidaemia (AD). A simplified definition of AD was proposed to enhance understanding of this condition, its prevalence and its impact on cardiovascular risk. AD can be defined by high fasting triglyceride levels (≥2.3mmol/L / ≥200mg/dL) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) levels (≤1,0 / 40 and ≤1,3mmol/L / 50mg/dL in men and women, respectively) in statin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk. The use of a single marker for the diagnosis and treatment of AD, such as non-HDL-c, was advocated. Interventions including lifestyle optimization and low density lipoprotein (LDL) lowering therapy with statins (±ezetimibe) are recommended by experts. Treatment of residual AD can be performed with the addition of fenofibrate, since it can improve the complete lipoprotein profile and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with AD. Others clinical condictions in which fenofibrate may be prescribed include patients with very high TGs (≥5.6mmol/L / 500mg/dL), patients who are intolerant or resistant to statins, and patients with AD and at high cardiovascular risk. The fenofibrate-statin combination was considered by the experts to benefit from a favorable benefit-risk profile. In conclusion, cardiovascular experts adopt a multifaceted approach to the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with lifestyle optimization, LDL-lowering therapy and treatment of AD with fenofibrate routinely used to help reduce a patient's overall cardiovascular risk.

Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor α in Lipid Metabolism and Atherosclerosis

Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease with deposition of excessive cholesterol in the arterial intima. Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα) is a nuclear receptor that can activate or inhibit the expression of many target genes by forming a heterodimer complex with the retinoid X receptor. Activation of PPARα plays an important role in the metabolism of multiple lipids, including high-density lipoprotein, cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, triglyceride, phospholipid, bile acids, and fatty acids. Increased PPARα activity also mitigates atherosclerosis by blocking macrophage foam cell formation, vascular inflammation, vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration, plaque instability, and thrombogenicity. Clinical use of synthetic PPARα agonist fibrate improved dyslipidemia and attenuated atherosclerosis-related disease risk. This review summarizes PPARα in lipid and lipoprotein metabolism and atherosclerosis, and also highlights its potential therapeutic benefits.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Safety and efficacy of fibrate-statin combination therapy compared to fibrate monotherapy in patients with dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. Treatment with fibrate, statins, or other lipid-lowering drugs prevents primary or recurrent cardiovascular events. However, all lipid-lowering drugs have side effects, which may become more severe if combination therapy is prescribed.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of published data to compare the safety and efficacy of fibrates alone, compared to fibrate-statin combinations, in patients with dyslipidemia. Six articles were assessed in terms of the efficacy of therapy and nine from the viewpoint of therapeutic safety.

RESULTS

In terms of efficacy, fibrate-statin combinations afforded significantly greater reductions in the levels of total cholesterol (SE=-2.248; 95% CI 1.986-2.510), LDL cholesterol (SE=-2.274; 95% CI 2.015-2.533), and triglycerides (SE=-0.465; 95% CI 0.272-0.658) compared to fibrate alone. In terms of safety, treatment with fibrate alone was associated with a significant decrease in the number of kidney-related adverse events (RR=-0.547; 95% CI 0.368-0.812), compared to treatment with fibrate-statin combinations.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that treatment with a fibrate-statin combination affords clinical benefits that are superior to treatment with fibrate alone, but increases the risk of side effects (particularly renal). Therapy should thus be carefully monitored.

Safety and efficacy of statin treatment alone and in combination with fibrates in patients with dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is treated with many effective lipid-lowering agents. Statins are often used alone or in combination with fibrates. Combination therapy is more effective due to their comparative actions, but the increased incidence of side effects should be considered carefully.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A meta-analysis of published data was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of statins alone versus statins plus fibrates in patients with dyslipidemia. In total, nine articles were assessed for efficacy analysis and ten articles were assessed for safety analysis.

RESULTS

In the efficacy analysis, a combination of statins and fibrates provided significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol (SE = 0.430; 95% CI 0.315-0.545), LDL cholesterol (SE = 0.438; 95% CI 0.321-0.555) and triglycerides (SE = 0.747; 95% CI 0.618-0.876), and a significantly greater increase in HDL cholesterol (SE = 0.594; 95% CI 0.473-0.715) than treatment with statins alone. In the safety analysis, treatment with statins alone was associated with a significant reduction in the numbers of total adverse events (RR = 0.665; 95% CI 0.539-0.819), liver-related adverse events (RR = 0.396; 95% CI 0.206-0.760) and kidney-related adverse events (RR = 0.146; 95% CI 0.075-0.285).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that treatment with statins plus fibrates provides clinical benefits over treatment with statins alone but increased risks, especially of hepatic or renal side effects, should be monitored carefully.

Managing the residual cardiovascular disease risk associated with HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in statin-treated patients: a clinical update

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a significant cause of death in Europe. In addition to patients with proven CVD, those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at a particularly high-risk of CVD and associated mortality. Treatment for dyslipidaemia, a principal risk factor for CVD, remains a healthcare priority; evidence supports the reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary objective of dyslipidaemia management. While statins are the treatment of choice for lowering LDL-C in the majority of patients, including those with T2D, many patients retain a high CVD risk despite achieving the recommended LDL-C targets with statins. This 'residual risk' is mainly due to elevated triglyceride (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. Following statin therapy optimisation additional pharmacotherapy should be considered as part of a multifaceted approach to risk reduction. Fibrates (especially fenofibrate) are the principal agents recommended for add-on therapy to treat elevated TG or low HDL-C levels. Currently, the strongest evidence of benefit is for the addition of fenofibrate to statin treatment in high-risk patients with T2D and dyslipidaemia. An alternative approach is the addition of agents to reduce LDL-C beyond the levels attainable with statin monotherapy. Here, addition of fibrates and niacin to statin therapy is discussed, and novel approaches being developed for HDL-C and TG management, including cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, Apo A-1 analogues, mipomersen, lomitapide and monoclonal antibodies against PCSK9, are reviewed.

Does combination therapy with statins and fibrates prevent cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients with atherogenic mixed dyslipidemia?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins have an established efficacy in the management of dyslipidemia primarily by decreasing the levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and thus decreasing CVD risk. They also have a favorable safety profile. Despite the statin-mediated benefit of CVD risk reduction a residual CVD risk remains, especially in T2DM patients with high triglyceride (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values. Fibrates decrease TG levels, increase HDL-C concentrations, and improve many other atherosclerosis-related variables. Fibrate/statin co-administration improves the overall lipoprotein profile in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and may reduce the residual CVD risk during statin therapy. However, limited data exists regarding the effects of statin/fibrate combination on CVD outcomes in patients with T2DM. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study the statin/fibrate combination did not significantly reduce the rate of CVD events compared with simvastatin/placebo in patients with T2DM. However, it did show a possible benefit in a pre-specified analysis in the subgroup of patients with high TG and low HDL-C levels. Furthermore, in the ACCORD study the simvastatin/fenofibrate combination significantly reduced the rate of progression of retinopathy compared with statin/placebo administration in patients with T2DM. The present review presents the available data regarding the effects of statin/fibrate combination in patients with T2DM and atherogenic mixed dyslipidemia.

A review of time courses and predictors of lipid changes with fenofibric acid-statin combination

Fibrates activate peroxisome proliferator activated receptor α and exert beneficial effects on triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low density lipoprotein subspecies. Fenofibric acid (FA) has been studied in a large number of patients with mixed dyslipidemia, combined with a low- or moderate-dose statin. The combination of FA with simvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin resulted in greater improvement of the overall lipid profile compared with the corresponding statin dose. The long-term efficacy of FA combined with low- or moderate- dose statin has been demonstrated in a wide range of patients, including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, or elderly subjects. The FA and statin combination seems to be a reasonable option to further reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk populations, although trials examining cardiovascular disease events are missing.

HDL-C: does it matter? An update on novel HDL-directed pharmaco-therapeutic strategies

It has long been recognized that elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) increase the risk of cardiovascular disease (CHD) and that pharmacologic therapy to decrease LDL-C significantly reduces cardiovascular events. Despite the effectiveness of statins for CHD risk reduction, even optimal LDL-lowering therapy alone fails to avert 60% to 70% of CHD cases. A low plasma concentration of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) is also associated with increased risk of CHD. However, the convincing epidemiologic data linking HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) to CHD risk in an inverse correlation has not yet translated into clinical trial evidence supporting linearity between HDL-C increases and CHD risk reduction. It is becoming clear that a functional HDL is a more desirable target than simply increasing HDL-C levels. Discoveries in the past decade have shed light on the complex metabolic and antiatherosclerotic pathways of HDL. These insights, in turn, have fueled the development of new HDL-targeted drugs, which can be classified according to four different therapeutic approaches: directly augmenting the concentration of apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I), the major protein constituent of HDL; indirectly augmenting the concentration of apo A-I and HDL cholesterol; mimicking the functionality of apo A-I and enhancing reverse cholesterol transport. This review discusses the latest in novel HDL directed therapeutic strategies.

'Trig-onometry': non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a therapeutic target in dyslipidaemia

Targeting elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains the cornerstone of cardiovascular prevention. However, this fraction does not adequately capture elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs; e.g. intermediate-density lipoprotein, very low density lipoprotein) in certain patients with metabolic syndrome or diabetic dyslipidaemia. Many such individuals have residual cardiovascular risk that might be lipid/lipoprotein related despite therapy with first-line agents (statins). Epidemiological evidence encompassing > 100,000 persons supports the contention that non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) is a superior risk factor vs. LDL-C for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) in certain patient populations. In studies with clinical end-points evaluated in the current article, a 1:1 to 1:3 relationship was observed between reductions in non-HDL-C and in the relative risk of CHD after long-term treatment with statins, niacin (nicotinic acid) and fibric-acid derivatives (fibrates); this relationship increased to 1:5 to 1:10 in smaller subgroups of patients with elevated triglycerides and low HDL-C levels. Treatment with statin-, niacin-, fibrate-, ezetimibe-, and omega 3 fatty acid-containing regimens reduced non-HDL-C by approximately 9-65%. In a range of clinical trials, long-term treatment with these agents also significantly decreased the incidence of clinical/angiographic/imaging efficacy outcome variables. For patients with dyslipidaemia, consensus guidelines have established non-HDL-C treatment targets 30 mg/dl higher than LDL-C goals. Ongoing prospective randomised controlled trials should help to resolve controversies concerning (i) the clinical utility of targeting non-HDL-C in patients with dyslipidaemia; (ii) the most efficacious and well-tolerated therapies to reduce non-HDL-C (e.g. combination regimens); and (iii) associations between such reductions and clinical, angiographic, and/or imaging end-points.

The effects of fenofibric acid alone and with statins on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its diagnostic components in patients with mixed dyslipidemia

OBJECTIVE

To compare fenofibric acid (FA) + statin to respective monotherapies on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its diagnostic components in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Post hoc analysis of over 2,000 metabolic syndrome patients administered either FA + low- or moderate-dose statin; FA alone; or low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin alone.

RESULTS

FA + low- or moderate-dose statin combination therapy reduced the presence of metabolic syndrome (35.7 or 35.9%, respectively) more than low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (15.5, 16.6, or 13.8%, respectively), mostly due to improvements in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol levels. Mean glucose levels slightly decreased with FA monotherapy, slightly increased with statin monotherapy, and were essentially unchanged with FA + statin. FA with or without statin also reduced non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSIONS

FA + statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia reduces the prevalence of metabolic syndrome.

Management of dyslipidemias with fibrates, alone and in combination with statins: role of delayed-release fenofibric acid

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Lifestyle modifications, along with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, remain the highest priorities in CVD risk management. Among lipid-lowering agents, statins are most effective in LDL-C reduction and have demonstrated incremental benefits in CVD risk reduction. However, in light of the residual CVD risk, even after LDL-C targets are achieved, there is an unmet clinical need for additional measures. Fibrates are well known for their beneficial effects in triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and LDL-C subspecies modulation. Fenofibrate is the most commonly used fibric acid derivative, exerts beneficial effects in several lipid and nonlipid parameters, and is considered the most suitable fibrate to combine with a statin. However, in clinical practice this combination raises concerns about safety. ABT-335 (fenofibric acid, Trilipix^®) is the newest formulation designed to overcome the drawbacks of older fibrates, particularly in terms of pharmacokinetic properties. It has been extensively evaluated both as monotherapy and in combination with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin in a large number of patients with mixed dyslipidemia for up to 2 years and appears to be a safe and effective option in the management of dyslipidemia.