Presentation on theme: "New Concepts in the Evaluation and Treatment of Dyslipidemia"— Presentation transcript:
1New Concepts in the Evaluation and Treatment of Dyslipidemia Nathan D. Wong, PhD, FACCProfessor and DirectorHeart Disease Prevention ProgramDivision of CardiologyUniversity of California, IrvinePast President, American Society for Preventive Cardiology
2Lipoprotein Particles VLDLChylomicron0.95Only these lipoprotein particlesfound in plaque at biopsy.ChylomicronRemnantsVLDLRemnants1.006IDLDensity (g/ml)1.019LDL-R1.050By reporting single values for lipoprotein cholesterol levels, the traditional lipid panel implies that lipoproteins such as HDL, LDL,… are single entities. This slide illustrates that all lipid sub-fractions are present in a continuum of size and density, with an especially large gradient for the triglyceride-rich lipoproteins IDL, VLDL, and chylomicrons. Technologies that sort by particle size (NMR and GGE) cannot separate IDL and Lp(a) from LDL-R, as these particles have overlapping size. They do differ by density so ultracentrifugation is the best way to separate total LDL into its 3 components.Total LDL is made up of Lp(a), IDL and real LDL or R-LDL-R. We define R-LDL as total LDL-C minus Lp(a)-C minus IDL-C. Each requires different therapies, confers different risk and has different inheritance. Both Lp(a) and IDL are more atherogenic than LDL itself. They do not respond to statins and both are highly inherited and implicated in premature CAD. Lp(a), “the widowmaker” doubles risk but when another lipid risk factor, such as dense LDL, is also present the risk leaps to 25x. It may be useful to point out that Lp(a) cannot be accurately measured in most commercial laboratories because the immunoassay kits are sensitive to the size heterogeneity of the apoprotein(a) due to variation in the # of kringle repeats. Lp(a) rises in renal failure and is probably partly responsible for the terrible CAD in ESRD patients.High IDL requires combination therapy with a statin plus niacin. Density g/ml. Lp(a) and R-LDL are density range g/ml. Lp(a) and small/dense LDL overlap in the density range g/ml. Note that Lp(a) has overlaps with IDL and large R-LDL when GGE is used because of its different electrophoretic mobility – while the actual Lp(a) size is 21nm-25nm.Dense, small LDL is called Pattern B and increases risk 4x. Intermediately dense LDL is called Pattern A/B and doubles risk.HDL2 is the most protective HDL sub-fraction. HDL3 may be mildly protective to inert. You may have normal HDL but still have low HDL2 and not know it. Exercise and wine raise HDL2, as does niacin, fenofibrate and simvastatin.Atherogenic remnant lipoproteins include IDL and VLDL3 (small/dense). These are elevated in Metabolic Syndrome and NIDDM, and respond to low carbohydrate diets.If Lp(a), IDL or small/dense LDL pattern B are found, then first degree relatives should be tested. Note that large LDL may be confused with Lp(a) and IDL with size-based (vs. density based) separation methods as Lp(a) and IDL overlap with large R-LDL in size.1.063HDL2Lp(a)1.100HDL3DL31.20100051020406080Particle Size (nm)
3The Apo B-containing (non-HDL) Lipoprotein Family: All Atherogenic LDLKey Point:Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) and ApoAI are the major apolipoproteins of LDL and HDL, respectively.1The Apo B-containing lipoproteins are present on several lipoproteins, as I mentioned before: LDL, VLDL, IDL, and lipoprotein(a). The cholesterol cargo in these Apo B lipoproteins can be calculated by the non-HDL cholesterol fraction, so non-HDL cholesterol is a surrogate for the Apo B-containing lipoproteins.In prospective population studies, Apolipoprotein B is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than non-HDL cholesterol, but non-HDL cholesterol is a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than is LDL cholesterol.Additional Information:ApoB mediates the interaction between LDL and the arterial wall1 and is a component of all lipoprotein particles currently considered atherogenic.2ApoB can be used to assess the number of LDL and very low-density (VLDL) particles present in plasma, as there is one molecule of ApoB on each particle. The amount of cholesterol on each particle is variable. Thus, ApoB is superior to LDL-C or non–HDL-C for estimating the plasma concentration of LDL and VLDL particles.1ApoB-containing lipoproteins1LDL—most common/most importantIDLVLDL /VLDL remnantsChylomicron remnantsLp(a)*ApoB is a component of all lipoprotein particles currently considered atherogenic2Apo = apolipoprotein; IDL = intermediate-density lipoprotein; VLDL = very low-density lipoprotein; Lp(a) = lipoprotein (a)1. Olofsson SO et al. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3:2. Grundy SM. Circulation. 2002;106:3. Kunitake ST et al. J Lipid Res. 1992;33:Images available at: Accessed January Adapted with permission.1. Olofsson SO et al. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2007;3:491–502.2. Grundy SM. Circulation. 2002;106:2526–2529.3. Kunitake ST et al. J Lipid Res. 1992;33:1807–1816.
4High Plasma Apo B Lipoprotein Levels Promote Atherogenesis Rationale for therapeutic lowering of Apo B lipoproteins: decrease the probability of inflammatory response to retentionBloodApo B lipoprotein particlesModificationMacrophageMonocytes bind to adhesion moleculesSmooth muscleFoam cellInflammatory responseKey point: Lower levels of circulating Apo B lipoproteins lower probability of inflammatory response to retention.Background:Apo B lipoproteins are the mediators of the inflammatory process that lead to atherosclerosis.LDL, VLDL remnants, and chylomicron remnants (CM-r) in the circulation migrate through the arterial endothelium and into the intima of the arterial wall.LDL undergoes oxidative modification within the intima. Oxidized LDL promotes subsequent inflammatory inactivity in the intima by inducing endothelial cells to upregulate the vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) and intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).Adhesion molecules promote the adherence of blood monocytes to endothelial cells and their migration into the subendothelial space.Monocytes differentiate into tissue macrophages and take up lipoprotein particles through scavenger receptors.Macrophages become lipid-laden foam cells, triggering the maladaptive inflammatory response.We know that high-plasma Apolipoprotein B levels are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Apolipoprotein B is found on several atherogenic lipoproteins – LDL, VLDL, IDL, and lipoprotein(a). When these particles are elevated in the circulation, they may not be cleared by the LDL receptor. These particles, therefore, may transit through the endothelium. In the endothelium, these Apo B-containing lipoproteins may undergo chemical modification. Chemical modification includes: oxidation, glycation, and phospholipid modification by secretory PLA2 or phospholipase A2 and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2.These modified LDL particles can be taken up by the macrophage via several different receptors – oxidized LDL is incorporated by the scavenger receptor; the phospholipase A2-modified LDL particles are taken up by the putative M-type receptor; and the glycated particles could be oxidized, and they can also be taken up by the scavenger receptor. The loading of cholesterol into the macrophage can convert that macrophage into a pro-inflammatory type of macrophage that secretes inflammatory cytokines that can be released into the circulation, and generate a systemic inflammatory response that does identify individuals at increased risk for a cardiovascular event.Tabas I et al. Circulation. 2007;116:Merrilees MJ et al. J Vasc Res. 1993;30:Williams KJ et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1995;15:Nakata A et al. Circulation.1996;94:Hoshiga M et al. Circ Res. 1995;77:Steinberg D et al. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:Williams KJ et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2005;25:References:1. Tabas I, Williams KJ, Borén J. Subendothelial lipoprotein retention as the initiating process in atherosclerosis: update and therapeutic implications. Circulation. 2007;116(16):1832–1844.2. Ross R. Atherosclerosis—an inflammatory disease. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(2):115–126.
5Lipid Atherogenesis Endothelial injury High plasma LDL HDL LDL + VLDL Adherence of plateletsLDL infiltration into intimaLCAT APO-A1Release of PDGFOxidative modification of LDLLiverOther growth factors+ MacrophagesFoam cellsFatty streakCholesterol excretedAdvanced fibrocalcific lesion
6Anti-atherosclerotic therapy Unstablelesionlipid coreadventitiaAnti-atherosclerotic therapyStablelesionlipid coreadventitiaFrom Davies et al (1998)
7Proportion of U.S. Adults at Recommended Lipid Levels in NHANES 2003-2004 Ghandehari and Wong et al, Am Heart J 2008
8Genetic Causes of Dyslipidemia Type I – Familial HyperchylomicronemiaFasting triglycerides > 1000 mg/dlDefect in lipoprotein lipase or apo CIINot necessarily at increased risk of CADType II - Familial Hypercholesterolemia (type II)LDL-C > 95th percentile for age and genderCAD in men by 3rd or 4th decadeDefect in LDL receptorAutosomal dominant inheritancePrevalence 1:500Familial Defective apo B 100Defective apo B alters LDLr handlingPreviously undetecable from FH
9Genetic Causes of Dyslipidemia Type III – HyperlipoproteinemiaIncreased TC, VLDL, decreased HDL; Increased VLDL:TGDefect in apo E results in increased concentration of remnant particlesRareType IV – Familial HypertriglyceridemiaIncreased TC (due to VLDL), TG, decreased LDL, HDLResults from hepatic overproduction of VLDLPrevalence 1:100 – 1:50; Association with CAD not as strong as FHHeterogeneous inheritanceVery sensitive to diet and EtOHType VIncrease in chylomicrons and VLDL
10Genetic Causes of Dyslipidemia Familial Combined HyperlipidemiaIncreased TC, LDL and/or triglycerides; decreased HDLMost common genetic dyslipidemia: prevalence 1:50Heterogenous inheritanceAccounts for 10-20% of patients with premature CADDefects in HDL MetabolismMost often low HDL is secondary to other dyslipidemiaNot all associated with increased CAD risk (e.g. apo AIMilano)Tangier’s DiseaseCETP defects result in increased HDL
11Data from the Framingham Heart Study show the continuous relationship between risk of developing CVD over 8 years and levels of cholesterol.9 Other assumptions for this model are that the patient was a 40-year-old man, who was ECG left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) negative, and with no glucose intolerance, and who was not a current smoker. As illustrated on this slide, the relationship between level of total cholesterol (TC) and CVD risk is graded and continuous. Risk is not confined to the upper centiles.99. Kannel WB. Importance of hypertension as a major risk factor in cardiovascular disease. In: Genest J, Koiw E, Kuchel O, eds. Hypertension. Physiopathology and Treatment. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1977:
12Total Cholesterol Distribution: CHD vs Non-CHD Population Framingham Heart Study—26-Year Follow-upNo CHD35% of CHD Occurs in People with TC<200 mg/dLCHDSlide 3. Total cholesterol distribution: CHD vs non-CHD populationIn the Framingham Heart Study, as many as one third of all coronary heart disease (CHD) events occurred in individuals with total cholesterol <200 mg/dL. Considering that the average U.S. cholesterol level is approximately 210 to 220 mg/dL, almost half of all heart attack events and all stroke events that will occur in the United States next year will in fact occur among individuals with below-average lipid levels. For this reason, our research group has sought in our large-scale prospective epidemiologic studies to understand better other markers associated with cardiovascular risk.Reference:Castelli WP. Lipids, risk factors and ischaemic heart disease. Atherosclerosis 1996;124(Suppl):S1-9.Keywords: cholesterol distribution, Framingham Heart StudySlide type: graph150200250300Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)Castelli WP. Atherosclerosis. 1996;124(suppl):S1-S9.1996 Reprinted with permission from Elsevier Science.
13Low HDL-C Levels Increase CHD Risk Even When Total-C Is Normal 12.5011.9111.91149.0510.71211.24106.65.5314-y incidence rates (%) for CHD86.563.834.8564.672.06 2604.1543.772.78230–2592200–229Speaker’s Notes/Talking Points:Low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels (< 40 mg/dL) are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) even if the total cholesterol (Total-C) level is < 200 mg/dL. This slide shows the CHD incidence over 14 years among Framingham Study subjects who were aged 48–83 years at baseline.1 Among those with HDL-C levels < 40 mg/dL and Total-C < 200 mg/dL, 11.24% experienced a CHD event. This incidence was virtually the same as that (11.91%) for subjects with HDL-C levels between 40–49 mg/dL and Total-C 260 mg/dL.References1. Castelli WP, Garrison RJ, Wilson PW, et al. Incidence of coronary heart disease and lipoprotein cholesterol levels: the Framingham Study. JAMA. 1986;256:2835–2838.Total-C (mg/dL)< 200< 4040–4950–59 60HDL-C (mg/dL)Risk of CHD by HDL-C and Total-C levels; aged 48–83 yCastelli WP et al. JAMA 1986;256:2835–2838
14Triglyceride Level Is Significant CHD Risk Factor: Recent Meta-Analysis of 29 Studies (n=262,525) (Sarwar et al., Circulation 2007)Groups CHD CasesCHD Risk Ratio* (95% CI)Duration of follow-up≥10 years<10 yearsSexN=262,525MaleFemaleFasting statusFastingNonfastingAdjusted for HDLYesTriglyceride Level Is Significant CVD Risk Factor: Recent Meta-Analysis of 29 StudiesA recent meta-analysis by Sarwar and colleagues included 29 prospective studies, and was the largest and most comprehensive epidemiological assessment of the association between triglyceride values and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk in Western populations (262,525 participants; 10,158 CHD cases). A combined analysis of the 29 studies yielded an adjusted odds ratio of 1.72 (95% CI, 1.56–1.90) in a comparison of extreme thirds of usual triglyceride values (ie, individuals with usual log-triglyceride values in the top third of the population compared with those in the bottom third). This odds ratio was adjusted in all but one study for at least age, sex, smoking status, lipid concentrations, and most studies also adjusted for blood pressure. The above figure shows the CHD risk-ratio adjusted for several established risk-factors and grouped according to several study characteristics (ie, duration of follow-up, sex, fasting status, and adjusted for high-density lipoprotein [HDL]-cholesterol). The data indicate that the impact of triglycerides on CHD risk is similar in women and men regardless of duration of follow-up. The data suggest no important differences in the strength of associations between triglycerides and CHD in studies of fasting participants compared with studies of nonfasting participants. Finally, adjustment for HDL-cholesterol attenuated the magnitude of the association between triglyceride level and CHD risk. The conclusion of the study is that there is a strong and highly significant association between triglyceride value and CHD risk.ReferenceSarwar N, Danesh J, Eiriksdottir G, et al. Triglycerides and the risk of coronary heart disease: 10,158 incident cases among 262,525 participants in 29 Western prospective studies. Circulation. 2007;115:NoOverall CHD Risk Ratioa1.72 (1.56–1.90)12Decreased RiskIncreased RiskaIndividuals in top versus bottom third of usual log-triglyceride values, adjusted for at least age, sex, smoking status, lipid concentrations, and blood pressure (most)CHD=coronary heart diseaseHDL=high-density lipoproteinSarwar N, et al. Circulation. 2007;115:14
15How Can Hypertriglyceridemia be Atherogenic? Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins carry cholesterol and promote atherosclerosis*Very–low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) is precursor to low-density lipoprotein (LDL)Hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) drivesCholesterol esters enrichment of VLDL (more atherogenic)↓ LDL size (small, dense LDL are more atherogenic)*↓ LDL-C (small, dense LDL carry less cholesterol)*↓ High-density lipoprotein (HDL) size (small, dense HDL are unstable)HTG is linked to other proatherogenic states*Insulin resistanceProinflammatory stateProthrombotic stateProoxidative stateEndothelial dysfunctionHow Can Hypertriglyceridemia be Atherogenic?One question sometimes posed by physicians is “Since it’s cholesterol (not triglycerides) that is deposited in the artery wall, why is hypertriglyceridemia atherogenic?”We can remind physicians that triglycerides are carried in atherogenic particles; the triglyceride-rich lipoproteins are VLDL, VLDL remnants, and IDL, which can be atherogenic. In addition, VLDL is a precursor of LDL (via intravascular remodeling) and in the presence of high triglyceride levels a smaller, denser LDL is produced; this is probably why non-HDL cholesterol is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular disease (especially when triglycerides levels are high) than is LDL cholesterol. Hypertriglyceridemia also tends to remodel HDL, resulting in a smaller HDL particle that tends to have a higher rate of apo A1 dissociation.High triglycerides are also linked to other pro-atherogenic states, such as insulin resistance. Triglyceride rich lipoproteins have also been shown to be proinflammatory, to increase reactive oxygen species, and to promote endothelial dysfunction.The take home concept is that hypertriglyceridemia predicts the presence of triglyceride-rich atherogenic particles that are important to the atherosclerotic process, and that hypertriglyceridemia alters the intravascular processing of LDL and HDL to smaller, denser particles.*Reasons why non–HDL-C is stronger than LDL-C as predictor of cardiovascular disease15
16Elevated Triglycerides Are Associated With Increased Small, Dense LDL Particles Fewer ParticlesMore ParticlesLDL=130 mg/dLApolipoprotein BMore apolipoprotein BCholesterolesterElevated Triglycerides Are Associated With Increased Small, Dense LDL ParticlesCholesterol is packaged into lipoproteins primarily in the form of cholesterol esters. Lipoproteins differ in size and cholesterol ester content. Small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles are relatively poor in cholesterol esters, but there are more small LDL particles required to give any specific value for the total cholesterol in the LDL fraction. The number of particles is a predictor of risk and therefore the LDL-C measure can be misleading with regard to the risk contributed by these lipoproteins when small LDL are present.The LDL-C value measured in a standard lipid profile does not provide information about the size and atherogenicity of the LDL particle population. For example, a patient may have a normal LDL-C value, but the majority of cholesterol may be contained in small, dense LDL particles, thus placing this patient at higher risk for coronary heart disease. Triglyceride concentrations over 200 mg/dL almost always predict the presence of small, dense LDL particles.ReferenceOtvos JD, Jeyarajah ED, Cromwell WC. Measurement issues related to lipoprotein heterogeneity. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:22i-29i.Correlates with:TC 198 mg/dLLDL-C 130 mg/dLTG 90 mg/dLHDL-C 50 mg/dLNon–HDL-C 148 mg/dLCorrelates with:TC mg/dLLDL-C mg/dLTG mg/dLHDL-C mg/dLNon–HDL-C 180 mg/dLOtvos JD, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:22i-29i.TC=total cholesterol, LDL-C=low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG=triglycerides, HDL-C=high-density lipoprotein cholesterol16
17Why Is Small, Dense LDL More Atherogenic? Cholesterol per particle, BUT Subendothelial penetration Subendothelial binding Oxidized/modified LDL-receptor clearanceWhy Is Small, Dense LDL More Atherogenic?Small dense LDL particles don’t necessarily carry a lot of cholesterol, but because of their smaller size, they may have greater subendothelial penetration and probably bind to the matrix and arterial wall better. In addition, they may be modified and oxidized to a greater degree, which increases their uptake through non-traditional LDL receptor mechanisms, and they may actually have a decreased LDL receptor clearance rate compared to normal-sized LDL particles. In addition to the increased particle number seen with small, dense LDL, these characteristics combine to make this lipoprotein species more atherogenic.LDL=low-density lipoprotein17
18Non-HDL-Cholesterol and CVD Risk Significance of Non-HDL-CLDL-C levels incompletely measure the total atherogenic burdenWhen serum TG are >200 mg/dL, increased remnant atherogenic lipoproteins heighten risk beyond predicted by LDL-CAssociated with substantially elevated VLDL-CVLDL-C and IDL-C are not accounted for by the calculation of LDL-CNon-HDL-C = cholesterol concentration of all atherogenic lipoproteinsMiller M, et al. Am J Cardiol 2009;101:
19Non-HDL Includes All Atherogenic Lipoprotein Classes Non-HDL; Apo B-100—containingAtherogenic LipoproteinsVery–low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)Made in the liverTriglycerides (TG) >> cholesterol esters (CE)Carries lipids from the liver to peripheral tissuesVLDLIntermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL)Formed from VLDL due to lipase removal of TGAlso known as a VLDL remnantIDLLow-density lipoprotein (LDL)Formed from IDL due to lipase removal of TGCE >> TGNon-HDL Includes All Atherogenic Lipoprotein ClassesThere are 4 major classifications of lipoproteins present in plasma, shown here in order of their size.Very–low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) is released from the liver into the plasmaIntermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) and low-density lipoproteins (LDL) are products of lipolysis (removal of trigycerides [TG]) of VLDL. That is, as VLDL moves through the bloodstream, tissues selectively pull off the TGs (because fatty acids are energy and tissues need them). As TGs are pulled off, the VLDL particle shrinks, becoming IDL, and then TG removal from IDL converts it into LDLHigh-density lipoprotein (HDL) is the smallest lipoprotein. Instead of taking cholesterol from the liver to other tissues, it picks up cholesterol from these tissues and brings it to steriodogenic tissues, the liver, or the kidneys. That is why it is considered the “good” cholesterolVLDL, IDL, and LDL all contain apolipoprotein B, and together are considered non-HDL cholesterolLDLLipoprotein (a)Formed from LDL w/addition of apolipoprotein AAtherogenic and prothromboticLp(a)High-density lipoprotein (HDL)Removes cholesterol from peripheral tissuesHDL19
20Lp(a) in Atherogenesis: Another Culprit? Identical to LDL particle except for addition of apo(a)Plasma concentration predictive of atherosclerotic disease in many epidemiologic studies, although not allAccumulates in atherosclerotic plaqueBinds apo B-containing lipoproteins and proteoglycansTaken up by foam cell precursorsMay interfere with thrombolysisMaher VMG et al. JAMA. 1995;274:Stein JH, Rosenson RS. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:
21Lp(a): An Independent CHD Risk Factor in Men of the Framingham Offspring Cohort 1053.62.7220.127.116.11.21RR0.5Lp(a) TC HDL-C HT GI Smoking0.20.1RR=relative risk; HT=hypertension; GI=glucose intolerance.Bostom AG et al. JAMA. 1996;276:
22Placebo - Statin outcome trials Continuum of riskCORONAGISSI-HF(rosuvastatin)Heart failure53.7End stageHigh-risk CHD patients (high cholesterol)4S(simvastatin)HPSSecondary prevention22.6Majority of CHD patients (broad range of cholesterol levels)12.9CARE (pravastatin)LIPID (pravastatin)Placebo MI rate per 100 subjects per 5 years8.44Relevance to Clinical PracticeTo date, we have accumulated data on the effectiveness of statin therapy on many patient populations. Future research will begin to focus on specific unanswered questions and effectiveness of individual statins in comparison to each other.PROSPER(pravastatin)Patients at high riskof CHD (highcholesterol)7.9Primary preventionWOSCOPS(pravastatin)2.8AFCAPS/TexCAPS(lovastatin)Patients at lowrisk of CHD(low HDL-C)JUPITER(rosuvastatin)22
23LDL cholesterol and benefit in clinical trials Is lower better ? LDL-C achieved mg/dL (mmol/L)WOSCOPS – PlaceboAFCAPS - PlaceboASCOT - PlaceboAFCAPS - RxWOSCOPS - RxASCOT - Rx4S - RxHPS - PlaceboLIPID - Rx4S - PlaceboCARE - RxLIPID - PlaceboCARE - PlaceboHPS - Rx5101520253040(1.0)60(1.6)80(2.1)100(2.6)120(3.1)140(3.6)160(4.1)180(4.7)Event rate (%)6Secondary PreventionPrimary PreventionRx - Statin therapyPRA – pravastatinATV - atorvastatin200(5.2)PROVE-IT - PRAPROVE-IT – ATVAdapted from Rosensen RS. Exp Opin Emerg Drugs 2004;9(2):LaRosa JC et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:e-versionTNT – ATV10TNT – ATV80TNTA number of landmark studies have shown that the reduction of LDL-C with statin therapy improves cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with and without established cardiovascular disease. In both primary and secondary prevention studies a greater reduction in LDL-C resulted in greater reductions in cardiovascular (CV) events. Achieving lower LDL-C levels is now increasingly accepted.The data clearly show that whether you have CV or not and whatever your baseline LDL-C is, however much you lower LDL-C you reduce CV risk and the lower you can get your LDL-C the better. The international guidelines for screening and intervention are based on evidence such as that presented together with epidemiological data. It is therefore reasonable that the achievement of evidence-based treatment guideline goals can be used as a good surrogate for outcomes data until that becomes available.ReferencesBallantyne C. Low-density lipoproteins and risk for coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:3Q-12QHeart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:7–22.Sever, PS et al. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial – Lipid Lowering Arm: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:Rosensen RS. Exp Opin Emerg Drugs 2004;9(2):LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:e-version.Adapted from Am J Cardiol 1998;82:3Q-12Q with permission from Excerpta Medica Inc.JUPITER23
24Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CCT) Collaboration: Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis fo data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomized trials of statins (The Lancet 9/27/05)Over average 5 year treatment period (per mmol/L reduction—approx 40 mg/dl in LDL-C):12% reduction in all-cause mortality19% reduction in coronary mortality23% reduction in MI or CHD death17% reduction in stroke21% reduction in major vascular eventsNo difference in cancer incidence (RR=1.00).Statin therapy can safely reduce 5-year incidence of major coronary events, revascularization, and stroke by about 20% per mmol/L (about 38 mg/dl) reduction in LDL-C
25HPS: First Major Coronary Event Statin-Allocated(n = 10269)Placebo-Allocated(n = 10267)Type of MajorVascular EventStatin BetterPlacebo BetterCoronary eventsNonfatal MI357 (3.5%)574 (5.6%)Coronary death587 (5.7%)707 (6.9%)Subtotal: MCE898 (8.7%)1212 (11.8%)0.73 (0.670.79)P <RevascularizationsCoronary513 (5.0%)725 (7.1%)Noncoronary450 (4.4%)532 (5.2%)0.76 (0.700.83)P <Subtotal: any RV939 (9.1%)1205 (11.7%)Allocation to simvastatin also produced an extreme 38% proportional reduction in incidence of first nonfatal myocardial infarction following randomization (357 [3.5%] simvastatin vs 574 [5.6%] placebo; p<0.0001). Combining this with the effect on coronary death rate, there was a 27% proportional reduction in the incidence rate of ‘major coronary events’ (MCE): (898 [8.7%] vs 1212 [11.8%]; p<0.0001).Simvastatin treatment also resulted in a highly significant 24% proportional reduction in the incidence rate of first revascularization procedure following randomization (939 [9.1%] simvastatin vs 1205 [11.7%] placebo; p<0.0001). A 30% proportional reduction in the incidence rate of coronary revascularization occurred (513 [5.0%] vs 725 [7.1%]; p<0.0001), and there was also a significant 16% proportional reduction in the incidence rate of noncoronary revascularization (450 [4.4%] vs 532 [5.2%]; p=0.006). Major vascular events of any kind were reported in significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin compared to placebo (2033 [19.8%] vs 2585 [25.2%]; p<0.0001).Any MVE2033 (19.8%)2585 (25.2%)0.76 (0.720.81)P <0.40.60.81.01.21.4Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2002;360:722.
27Recurrent MI or Cardiac Death HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitor: Secondary PreventionPravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy (PROVE-IT)—TIMI 22 Study4,162 patients with an ACS randomized to atorvastatin (80 mg) or pravastatin (40 mg) for 24 monthsFollow-up (months)30252015105P =0.005Recurrent MI or Cardiac Death16% RRRAtorvastatinPravastatinACS=Acute coronary syndrome, CV=Cardiovascular, MI=Myocardial infarction, RRR=Relative risk reductionCannon CP et al. NEJM 2004;350:
28Patients With CHD Events (%) TNT: RationaleTNTScreeningPatients With CHD Events (%)?Atorvastatin 10 mgThe primary hypothesis of the TNT study was that incremental reduction in cardiovascular risk can be achieved by lowering LDL-C levels beyond currently recommended minimum targets.1Atorvastatin 80 mg(1.6) (2.1) (2.6) (3.1) (3.6) (4.1) (4.7) (5.2)LDL-C, mg/dL (mmol/L)Adapted from LaRosa et al. N Engl J Med. 2005:352:Reference1. Waters DD, Guyton JR, Herrington DM, McGowan MP, Wenger NK, Shear C, for the TNT Steering Committee Members and Investigators. Treating to New Targets (TNT) study: does lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels below currently recommended guidelines yield incremental clinical benefit? Am J Cardiol. 2004;93:
29TNT: Changes in LDL-C by Treatment Group Baseline4.03.53.02.52.01.51.00.5Mean LDL-C level = 101 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L)Mean LDL-C (mg/dL)Mean LDL-C (mmol/L)Mean LDL-C level = 77 mg/dL (2.0 mmol/L)During the open-label period, LDL-C was reduced by 35% in the overall patient population, from 152 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) to 98 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L).1Following randomization, mean LDL-C in the atorvastatin 10-mg group was maintained at approximately baseline level for the duration of the treatment period, with an average of 101 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) across the 5 years of follow-up.1After 12 weeks of treatment, LDL-C was further reduced to a mean level of 77 mg/dL (2.0 mmol/L; P<.001) among patients receiving atorvastatin 80 mg.1The LDL-C level in the 80-mg group remained relatively stable over the course of the study.1P<.001Screen31224364860FinalStudy Visit (Months)LaRosa et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:Reference1. LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD, et al, for the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Investigators. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:
30TNT: Primary Efficacy Outcome Measure: Major Cardiovascular Events* 0.15Atorvastatin 10 mgAtorvastatin 80 mgRelative risk reduction 22%0.10Mean LDL-C level = 101 mg/dLProportion of Patients Experiencing Major Cardiovascular Event0.05Mean LDL-C level = 77 mg/dLOver the course of the study, there was a highly significant reduction in the composite efficacy outcome of major cardiovascular events in the atorvastatin 80-mg group compared with the atorvastatin 10-mg group.1The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI 0.69, 0.89; P<.001).1This represented a 22% reduction in relative risk in the atorvastatin 80-mg group relative to the atorvastatin 10-mg group, over and above the low absolute event rate of 10.9% recorded in the atorvastatin 10-mg group.1There was no statistical interaction for age or sex in the primary outcome measure.1HR=0.78 (95% CI 0.69, 0.89); P<.001123456Time (Years)* CHD death, nonfatal non–procedure-related MI, resuscitated cardiac arrest, fatal or nonfatal stroke.LaRosa et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:Reference1. LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD, et al, for the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Investigators. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:
31Meta analysis of moderate vs aggressive statin therapy Coronary death or MIACSStable CHDCannon et al (2006) JACC 48:43831
32Recent Coronary IVUS Progression Trials Relationship between LDL-C and Progression Rate1.8CAMELOT placeboREVERSAL pravastatin1.2ACTIVATE placebo0.6REVERSAL atorvastatinMedian change in percent atheroma volume (%)A-Plus placebo-0.6ASTEROID rosuvastatin-1.25060708090100110120Mean LDL-C (mg/dL)Nissen SE, Nicholls S et al. JAMA 2006;295:1555–156532
33ASTEROID: Study Design Patients (≥18 years)CAD, undergoing coronary angiographyTarget coronary artery: ≤50% reduction in lumen diameter of ≥40 mm segmentTarget segment for QCA: all segments >25% at baselineNo cholesterol entry criteriaRosuvastatin 40 mg (n=349 for IVUS analysis; n=292 for QCA analysis)Visit:Week:1–6231342653965276587899110104IVUS QCA LipidsEligibility assessmentLipidsLipids TolerabilityTolerabilityLipids TolerabilityTolerabilityTolerabilityIVUS QCA Lipids Tolerability33
34Change in Key IVUS Parameters End Point Analysis:Change in Key IVUS ParametersMedian atheroma volume in themost diseased 10-mmMedian normalized TAVsubsegmentn=319n=346-1-2-3-4Change from baseline (%)-5-6-7- 6.8%-8*-9- 9.1%-10**P<0.001 for difference from baseline. Wilcoxon signed rank testAdapted from Nissen et al. JAMA 2006;295(13):34
35Example of Regression of Atherosclerosis with Rosuvastatin in ASTEROID (measured by IVUS) Sipahi I, Nicholls S, Tuzcu E, Nissen S. Interpreting the ASTEROID trial: Coronary atherosclerosis can regress with very intensive statin therapy. Cleve Clin J Med, 2006; 73: Reprinted with permission. Copyright 2006. Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved.35
36A statin reduces adverse CV events in diabetics Diabetes Mellitus:Effect of an HMG-CoA Reductase InhibitorMeta-analysis of 18,686 patients with DM randomized to treatment with a HMG-CoA Reductase InhibitorA statin reduces adverse CV events in diabeticsCholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. Lancet 2008;37:117-25
37Residual CVD Risk in Statin vs Placebo Trials Many CHD Events Still Occur in Statin-Treated Patients25-40% CVD Reduction Leaves High Residual Risk28.0PlaceboStatinPatients ExperiencingMajor CHD Events, %19.412.310.28.75.56.815.913.211.810.97.9Residual Cardiovascular Risk in Major Statin Trials.In all of these major statin trials,1-6 significant residual cardiovascular risk remains even after reducing LDL-C. According to Libby, in the best of circumstances, the decrease in cardiovascular events due to statin treatment still allows two-thirds of cardiovascular events to occur. Libby concludes, “To address the majority of cardiovascular events that still occur despite our most powerful existing therapies, we must combine lifestyle change and evaluate new pharmacological strategies that will move us toward the goal of eradicating cardiovascular disease in the future.”7This has been highlighted in some of the trials that have compared high-dose versus low-dose statin or a potent statin versus a less potent statin.In clinical studies that have compared a statin versus placebo, we can see that there is a consistent benefit for statin therapy. This benefit occurs regardless, if the LDL cholesterol high, such as in the 4S Trial; borderline high, such as in the LIPID Trial and CARE Trial; or lower, such as in the Heart Protection Study. Across the board, statins provide benefit to individuals with established coronary heart disease, but they also provide benefit to individuals that are at risk, who have not yet had a CHD event, as was shown initially in the WOSCOPS Study and the AFCAPS/TexCAPS Study.Reference4S Group. Lancet. 1994;344:LIPID Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:Sacks FM, et al. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22.Shepherd J, et al. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:Downs JR, et al. JAMA. 1998;279:Libby PJ, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005:46:4S1LIPID2CARE3HPS4WOSCOPS5AFCAPS/TexCAPS6N44449014415920 53665956605 LDL-35%-25%-28%-29%-26%-25%SecondaryHigh RiskPrimary14S Group. Lancet. 1994;344:2LIPID Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:3Sacks FM et al. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:4HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22.5Shepherd J et al. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:6 Downs JR et al. JAMA. 1998;279:37
38Potential Antiatherogenic Actions of HDL Vasodilatory ActivityAnti-inflammatoryActivityAntithromboticActivityHDLAntiapoptoticActivityReverseCholesterolTransportCellular Cholesterol EffluxAnti-infectious ActivitySo all told, because of this very interesting protein cargo that HDL can carry, it confers a broad variety of functions including capacity to induce vasodilatation by stimulating endothelial cell function, nitric oxide production, prostacyclin production. It can even inhibit endothelial cell apoptosis, or programmed cell death, and promote endothelial cell repair. And because the HDL particle carries complements and other globulins, it also participates in immunity and combating infection.Other Antiatherogenic Actions of HDL.These include antiinflammatory activity, antioxidative activity, antiinfectious activity, antithrombotic activity, antiapoptotic activity, and vasodilatory activity. HDL also plays a role in endothelial repair.1,2Antioxidative ActivityEndothelial RepairApo A-IApo A-IIChapman MJ et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:Assmann G et al. Annu Rev Med. 2003;53:
39Should High-Density Lipoprotein Be a Target of Therapy?
40Change in % stenosis per year On-treatment HDL-C (mg/dL) Change in Percent Diameter Stenosis vs On-treatment HDL-C in QCA Trials1.4CCAIT1.2PLAC ILCAS1MARSMAASPlacebo0.8CCAITMARSStatin*PLAC I0.60.4Change in % stenosis per yearMAASLCAS0.2-0.2-0.4-0.6ASTEROID-0.8-1On-treatment HDL-C (mg/dL)*ASTEROID rosuvastatin MAAS simvastatin CCAIT lovastatin MARS lovastatin LCAS fluvastatin PLAC I pravastatinBallantyne CM, Nicholls S et al. Circulation 2008; Online40
41Should High-Density Lipoproteins Be a Target of Therapy ? ATP III Guidelines on HDL-C: “Current documentation of risk reduction through controlled clinical trials is not sufficient to warrant setting a specific goal value for raising HDL-C” (Grundy SM et al. Circulation. 2004;110: )Failure of ACCORD, FIELD, AIM-HIGH and the experience with torcetrapib and dalcetrapib have raised doubts re: the value of raising HDL-CStill,The one best study of niacin effects on CVD (HPS-2/THRIVE) is ongoing—results early in 2013Investigational CETP inhibitors greatly increase HDL-C and might be shown to reduce CVD—clinical trials ongoing, results after 2017The ATP III Guidelines, as promulgated in , state the following: “Current documentation of risk reduction through controlled clinical trials is not sufficient to warrant setting a specific goal for raising HDL cholesterol.”There are no clinical trial that has yet been done that allows us to ascertain what the threshold for HDL-raising should be. For now, the rule of thumb is that, if someone’s HDL is low, then just try to raise it as much as you can. But this has been complicated by the findings of ACCORD, FIELD, and AIM-HIGH, as well as the discouraging results of the ILLUMINATE Trial with torcetrapib. But then there are also some recent encouraging clinical trial data from Next Generation Investigational CETP inhibitors, which don’t have the off-target toxicity of torcetrapib.
42HDL-C Risk Factor vs Risk Marker? Low HDL-C predicts high CVD RiskHigh HDL-C predicts anti-atherogenic effects:Anti-inflammatoryAntioxidantAntithromboticPro-endothelialBut clinical trials of HDL-C-raising agents so far have failed to prove CVD benefit—suggesting that HDL-C may be only a risk markerHDL -- is it a risk factor or is it simply a risk marker? Low HDL predicts high CVD risk in observational cohorts all over the world. A low HDL predicts increased risk for cardiovascular events, and a high HDL, with very few exceptions, portends protection from coronary artery disease and its various sequelae. High HDL cholesterol also predicts antiatherogenic effects; you can beneficially impact carotid intima media thickness as well as focal target plaques in coronary vessels. But clinical trials have not yet proven that HDL is a causal factor versus a biomarker of risk, or that raising HDL cholesterol reduces CVD risk. But there are some studies that have shown benefit to raising HDL. One clear example of this is the VA HIT Trial, where raising HDL was associated with a reduction in acute cardiovascular events in men with established coronary disease.
43Lifestyle Modifications to Raise HDL-C Levels Smoking CessationHDL-C levels are lower in smokers (by 7%-20%), and return towards normal 1-2 months after smoking cessationWhole Food Plant Based Diet—dietary fiber blunts adverse carb effectWeight ReductionFor every 3 kg (7 lb) of weight loss, HDL-C levels increase by 2-4%, but only after stabilization at new lower weightExerciseAerobic exercise (40 min, 3-4 x weekly) may increase HDL- C by 5-10%So what are some lifestyle maneuvers that can help to raise HDL?Smoking cessation – smoking impacts HDL adversely in multiple wayys. including the fact that smoking promotes insulin resistance, which, of course, is associated with increased rates of HDL catabolism. If you get rid of the cigarette smoke, then HDL levels can increase quite substantially, even up to 20 to 25 percent, which is as good as the very best drugs that we currently have available.If you look at weight reduction, exercise, anything that relieves insulin resistance, then this is going to be associated with an increase in HDL. Clearly, lifestyle modification can impact HDL levels significantly.In summary, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are positively affected by certain lifestyle modifications, including weight reduction, smoking cessation, and exercise. For every 3 kg (7 lb) of weight loss, HDL-C levels increase 1 mg/dL. HDL-C levels in smokers are 7–20% lower than those in nonsmokers. HDL-C levels return to normal, however, within 30–60 days after smoking cessation. Aerobic exercise, such as running, increases HDL-C levels in a dose-dependent manner.Rössner S et al. Atherosclerosis. 1987;64:Wood PD et al. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:Ornish D et al. JAMA. 1998;280:Cullen P et al. Eur Heart J. 1998;19:Kokkinos PF et al. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:Kodama S et al. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:
44Available Agents for HDL-C Raising Agent HDL-C ↑ Primary Use Nicotinic acid 15-35% HDL ↑ Fibrates 5-20% TG ↓ Statins 5-15% LDL ↓ Prescr. Om-3* 2-10% TG ↓ Bile-acid resins* 2-5% LDL ↓ Ezetimibe* 1-3% LDL ↓ Pioglitazone* 5-20% Glucose ↓ Estrogens* 10-25% Hot flashes -blockers* 10-20% BPH Alcohol* 5-15% Social, etc.Effects of drugs on HDL-C levelsA number of drugs are available for inducing HDL elevation. Among the very best for doing this are niacin, or nicotinic acid, as well as fibrates, followed by statins and other drugs. Niacin provides the greatest increase in HDL-C.*Lacking FDA-approved indication for HDL-raising.Belalcazar LM, Ballantyne CM. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1998;41:Insull W et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:McKenney JM et al. Pharmacother. 2007;27:
45Risk Reduction for CHD Events As a Function of Changes in TC, LDL-C, and HDL-C PERCENT CHD EVENTCHANGE RATEThese are observational data correlating the change in events in studies that made multiple changes in lipoprotein metabolism and it is not clear that any single change was the causative operator. For every 1 mg/dL that you drop LDL, you typically observe about a one-percent reduction in risk. But when it comes to HDL, for every 1 mg/dL that you raise HDL, on average, you drop risk about three percent in men, up to four percent in women.*4S, CARE, LIPID, WOSCOPS**HELSINKI, VA-HIT,AFCAPS/TexCAPS
46Fibrate Evidence: Primary Prevention Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD)9,795 diabetic patients randomized to fenofibrate (200 mg) or placebo for 5 yearsA fibrate does not provide significant additional benefit* in diabetics11% RRR95.965.2CHD Death or Nonfatal MI (%)3P=0.16The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study sought to assess the effect of fibrate therapy on cardiovascular disease events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A total of 9795 individuals with diabetes not on statin therapy at study entry were randomized to fenofibrate (200 mg daily) or placebo for 5 years. The primary outcome was a composite of coronary events, including coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction.There was no statistically significant reduction in the primary end point with fibrate therapy (5.2% vs. 5.9%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% CI ; p=0.16). Treatment with fenofibrate, however, was associated with less albuminuria progression (p=0.002) and less retinopathy needing laser treatment (5.2% vs 3.6%, p=0.0003).Some of the disappointing results of the FIELD trial may have been due to a higher than expected use of statin therapy in the placebo group.PlaceboFenofibrateCHD=Coronary heart disease, MI=Myocardial infarction, RRR=Relative risk reduction*Unadjusted for concomitant statin useSource: Keech A et al. Lancet 2005;366:46
47ACCORD Lipid Study Results (NEJM 2010; 362: 1563-74) 5518 patients with type 2 DM treated with open label simvastatin randomly assigned to fenofibrate or placebo and followed for 4.7 years.Annual rate of primary outcome of nonfatal MI, stroke or CVD death 2.2% in fenofibrate group vs. 1.6% in placebo group (HR=0.91, p=0.33).Pre-specified subgroup analyses showed possible benefit in men vs. women and those with high triglycerides and low HDL-C.Results support statin therapy alone to reduce CVD risk in high risk type 2 DM patients.
48Primary and Secondary Prevention Fibrate Evidence:Primary and Secondary PreventionAction to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Lipid Trial5,518 diabetic patients on statin therapy randomized to fenofibrate (160 mg) or placebo for 4.7 yearsOn a background of statin therapy, a fibrate does not reduce CV events in diabetics8% RRR32.42.2CV death, nonfatal stroke or nonfatal MI (%/year)21P=0.32In the ACCORD trial, 5,518 diabetic patients already on statin therapy were randomized to fenofibrate or placebo and followed for 4.7 years. The addition of fenofibrate to statin therapy yielded no significant risk reduction of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction). The mean triglyceride level in the overall study, however, was just 162 mg/dL. Among a pre-specified subgroup of dyslipidemic patients (high triglycerides, low HDL), a possible benefit was suggested.PlaceboFenofibrateCV=Cardiovascular, MI=Myocardial infarction, RRR=Relative risk reductionSource: ACCORD study group. NEJM 2010;Epub ahead of print
50HATS: Percent Change in Stenosis 5.434.54.03.53.02.5Change (%)2.01.51.00.50.0-0.5Placebo Antioxidant Simvastatin/ Simvastatin / Vitamins* Niacin† Niacin/ Antioxidants‡-1.0*P = 0.16 for comparison with placebo; †P < 0.001; ‡P =HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study.Adapted from Brown BG et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:
51HATS: Patients Free of Events Patients Free of Events (%) 5.44Simvastatin-niacin10097%90Patients Free of Events (%)All placebos8076%RR = 0.10P = 0.0370123YearsHATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study.Adapted from Brown BG et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:
52Meta-Analysis: Effects of Nicotinic Acid Pre-AIM-HIGH Trials: Major Coronary Events StudyTreatmentn/NControlPeto OR95% ClARBITER-6-HALTS2/1879/1760.25 (0.08, 0.84)Guyton JR et al1/6761/2720.35 (0.02, 7.56)AFREGS0/711/720.14 (0.00, 6.92)ARBITER-22/872/800.92 (0.13, 6.65)HATS1/385/380.24 (0.05, 1.26)UCSF_SCOR0/481/490.14 (0.00, 6.96)STOCKHOLM72/279100/2760.61 (0.43, 0.88)CLAS1/945/940.25 (0.05, 1.29)CDP287/1119839/27890.81 (0.69, 0.94)TotalTest for heterogeneity: P = 0.24, I2 = 23.0%Test for overall effect: P <0.00010.75 (0.65, 0.86)Subtotal excluding CDP0.53 (0.38, 0.73)Log scaleIf you look at the risk for a major coronary event, risk – if you exclude the Coronary Drug Project – was reduced by about 47 percent. And ARBITER-6-HALTS, the Stockholm Heart Study, as well as the Coronary Drug Project all attained statistical significance. Overall, there is a trend, though, as we see that the confidence intervals cross one, and these studies did not hit statistical significance.Many of these trials were tests of drug combinations that included niacin.Bruckert E et al. Atherosclerosis. 2010;210:
53AIM-HIGH Design Purpose: “Rigorous test of the HDL hypothesis…” (not designed to be a test of niacin)Subjects: n=3414 men/women (85%/15%) w/ prior CVD event and HDL-C 35 (<42/53) LDL-C 74 (algorithm), TG 163 ( ) [median (range)]Randomized TherapyExtended-release niacin ( mg hs) vs“Placebo” (immediate-release niacin mg hs)Open-label titration/addition (keep LDL-C in mg/dL)Simvastatin 5-80 mg/dEzetimibe 10 mg/d + extended release niacin ( mg)AIM-HIGH – everyone was looking forward to this trial, and it turned out to be negative. Actually, it was stopped prematurely because of futility based on an NIH analysis of the data. Basically, this study included about 3,500 men and women with a prior cardiovascular disease-related event, with a mean HDL of 35. The average LDL was 71, and the average non-HDL was about Patients were randomized to simvastatin, plus or minus ezetimibe, versus plus or minus niacin at 1500 to 2000 mg daily.The titration of LDL-C was done with simvastatin and then ezetimibe in both groups as needed. The titration of ER niacin was done only in the assigned group and the purpose was to reach maximum tolerated dose up to 2g/d.AIM-HIGH Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2001;365:AIM-HIGH Investigators. Am Heart J. 2011;161: e2.
54AIM-HIGH — Results HDL-C at Baseline and Follow-up In the trial, they saw about a 4-mg/dL increase in the niacin group compared to the group that did not receive niacin.Boden WE. N Engl J Med. epub 15 Nov 2011; doi /NEJMoa
55AIM-HIGH — Results Primary Outcome 1o Endpoint: CHD Death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, high-risk ACS, hospitalization for coronary or cerebrovascular revascularizationBut as we see in the plots, looking at primary outcome, the curves for the two groups were virtually perfectly superimposable. And so with an average followup of just under three years, the study was discontinued due to futility.Still, we have the HPS2 THRIVE Study coming probably in the first quarter of next year, looking at 25,500 patients with a much broader range of baseline lipids with cardiovascular disease, also evaluating the impact of niacin therapy on top of statin therapy. So, the case is not closed yet.Boden WE. N Engl J Med. epub 15 Nov 2011; doi /NEJMoa
56Fate of Niacin Beyond AIM-HIGH: HPS2-THRIVE : December 2012 Update HPS2-THRIVE evaluated extended-release niacin/laropiprant plus statin therapy versus statin therapy alone in patients at high risk for cardiovascular eventsHPS2-THRIVE did not reach the primary endpoint to reduce coronary deaths, non-fatal heart attacks, strokes, or revascularizationsThis finding, supportive of AIM-HIGH, suggests that niacin may not provide additional benefit to reduce CVD risk when patients are well-treated with statins
58Role of CETP in Atherosclerosis LIVERPERIPHERAL TISSUECETGBileFoam cellsRCTHDLABC-A1VLDLLDLPLASMALDL-RABC-G1Free cholesterolCETPAthero- sclerosisSo what are some emerging HDL therapies? The hot buttons here are these CETP inhibitors, and there is a number of them currently in development – three. And what does a CETP inhibitor do, and how does it impact HDL levels? CETP inhibition would preserve HDL levels in serum, keep cholesterol ester levels higher in the HDL compartment, and reduce the loading of Apo B particles with cholesterol ester, but it would also decrease rates of indirect reverse cholesterol transport. CETP inhibitors do show promise because they raise HDL quite substantially. They also provide incremental LDL reduction.Key pointsHDL plays an essential anti-atherogenic role in the transport of cholesterol from extrahepatic tissues to the liver.CETP transfers cholesteryl esters from HDL to pro-atherogenic LDL and VLDL particles.Inhibition of CETP may enhance the anti-atherogenic effects of HDL, by reducing the transfer of cholesteryl esters from HDL to pro-atherogenic VLDL or LDL particles.Human CETP deficiency is usually associated with marked ↑ in HDL-CCETP activity is inversely correlated with plasma HDL-CDecreasing CETP activity has consistently inhibited atherosclerosis in animal modelsBarter PJ et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003;23:Contacos C et al. Atherosclerosis. 1998;141:87-98.Guerin M et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2008;28:
59CETP Inhibitors: 2 Down, 2 Remain ↑HDL-C~80% ~80% ~138% ~30%Evacetrapib↑CVD (25%)but OK HDLfunction(off-target eff.?)*No ↓CVD,but OK HDL function, +/- anti athero?CETPBarter et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(13):*Dalcetrapib development stopped May 7, 2012 due to lack of efficacy in the Dal-Outcomes CVD endpoint trial.Qiu X et al. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007;14(2):
60Lipid Effects of CETP Inhibitors/Modulators % Change from Baseline CETP AgentDose (mg/day)HDL-C (%)LDL-C (%)TG (%)Torcetrapib6061-24-9Anacetrapib100138-40-7Evacetrapib500129-36-11Dalcetrapib60031-2-3Dalcetrapib raises HDL about 31 percent, anacetrapib about 138 percent, evacetrapib about 129 percent, and they also provide some degree of incremental LDL reduction; although, dalcetrapib appears to be the exception, as it is really good at raising HDL but appears relatively neutral on LDL and triglyceride.Adapted from Cannon C et al. JAMA. 2011;306:Nicholls SJ et al. JAMA. 2011;306:
61Torcetrapib “Beneficial” Effects on Lipoproteins HDL-CLDL-C+42%+49%+55%-20%-18%-1%+1%If you look at the torcetrapib, everything moved in the right direction. HDL zoomed up, and LDL dropped incrementally as a function of dosePlacebo 60 mg 90 mg 120 mgIs the toxicity of torcetrapib related to the mechanism or the molecule?Barter PJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:
62Days After Randomization Torcetrapib: Increased Cardiovascular and Non-cardiovascular Morbidity and MortalityAtorvastatin onlyHR = 1.25P =Patients Without Event (%)Torcetrapib plus atorvastatinDays After RandomizationIs the toxicity of torcetrapib related to the mechanism or the molecule?Barter PJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:
63Torcetrapib Caused Off-target Hyperaldosteronism Torcetrapib arm of ILLUMINATE trial showed significant:1↑ Systolic Blood Pressure:Mean ↑5.4 mmHg>15 mmHg ↑ SBP: 19.5% torcetrapib arm (vs 9.4% placebo arm, P<0.001)↓ serum potassium↑ serum bicarbonate↑ serum sodium↑ serum aldosteroneInverse relationship of CVD and on-Rx-HDL-C preservedConclusion: ↑ CVD in ILLUMINATE likely due to off-target actions of torcetrapib, not related to CETP inhibition1,2Torcetrapib certainly influenced lipoproteins in a good way because HDL went up and LDL went down, but blood pressure also went up significantly. And in the torcetrapib arm of ILLUMINATE, up to 20 percent of patients had a 15-millimeter mercury elevation in systolic blood pressure or worse. They also had severe electrolyte disturbances because the torcetrapib stimulated aldosterone synthase activity, which increased serum aldosterone, and potassium levels dropped, and serum sodium and bicarbonate levels rose.Key pointsA consistent finding of the clinical trials with torcetrapib was the occurrence of adverse effects not related to its effect on CETP.Instead, the torcetrapib molecule has off-target effects, especially related to blood pressure control; an effect that is likely related to an increase in serum aldosterone.This slide summarizes the off-target effects of torcetrapib in the large outcomes trial; evidence for the off-target negative effects of torcetrapib can be seen in the electrolyte disturbances.1. Barter PJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2. Rosenson RS. Curr Athero Rep. 2008;10:
64dal-OUTCOMES Results: Isolated ↑HDL-C HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)No. at riskPlaceboDalcetrapibThere is a well-established linear relationship between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular events, especially when we look at the statin trials. If you plot all the statin trials – placebo group and the treatment group – we find a very linear relationship between LDL cholesterol values and cardiovascular events. And the actual data supports the fact that it is the on-treatment level that predicts the outcome even better than the dose of the statin utilized when it comes to cardiovascular risk reduction.LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)Schwartz GG et al. N Engl J Med Nov 5. [Epub ahead of print].MonthsNo. at riskPlaceboDalcetrapib
65Cumulative Incidence of Primary Outcome (% of patients) dal-OUTCOMES Results: No ↓CVDCumulative Incidence of Primary Outcome (% of patients)There is a well-established linear relationship between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular events, especially when we look at the statin trials. If you plot all the statin trials – placebo group and the treatment group – we find a very linear relationship between LDL cholesterol values and cardiovascular events. And the actual data supports the fact that it is the on-treatment level that predicts the outcome even better than the dose of the statin utilized when it comes to cardiovascular risk reduction.YearNo. at riskPlaceboDalcetrapibSchwartz GG et al. N Engl J Med Nov 5. [Epub ahead of print].
66Annualized Event Rate (%) dal-OUTCOMES Results: HDL STILL FunctionalAnnualized Event Rate (%)There is a well-established linear relationship between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular events, especially when we look at the statin trials. If you plot all the statin trials – placebo group and the treatment group – we find a very linear relationship between LDL cholesterol values and cardiovascular events. And the actual data supports the fact that it is the on-treatment level that predicts the outcome even better than the dose of the statin utilized when it comes to cardiovascular risk reduction.Change in HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) from Baseline to Month 1, According to QuintileSchwartz GG et al. N Engl J Med Nov 5. [Epub ahead of print].
67Anacetrapib Effects on LDL-C and HDL-C 2040608010020406080100120-39.8% (P<0.001)+138.1% (P<0.001)LDL-C (mg/dL) (SE)HDL-C (mg/dL) (SE)AnacetrapibPlaceboAnacetrapibPlaceboIf you look at anacetrapib, in this study done by Chris Cannon and the TIMI Group, you will see that there is incremental LDL reduction at about 40 percent and a 138-percent elevation in HDL cholesterol relative to placebo.The point estimates are for wk 24Baseline612182430466276Baseline612182430466276Study WeekStudy WeekAnacetrapib n =804771716687646604568540Anacetrapib n =776757718687647607572543Placebo n =803759741743735711691666Placebo n =766761741744736711691666Cannon CP et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:
68Revisiting the HDL Hypothesis Where do we go Next? Residual CVD risk exists despite intense statin monotherapyLow HDL-C predicts high CVD risk; high HDL-C is protectiveExisting HDL raising therapies have inconsistent effectsClinical trials have not yet answered the following:Is HDL a causal factor or a biomarker of risk?Does raising HDL-C reduce CVD risk?Investigational drugs to raise HDL-C and reduce CVD riskContinued need for multifactorial approaches to reduce CVD risk
69Current Investigational Approaches to Reduce Residual CVD Risk via Enhanced HDL, etc. Additional CETP inhibitors: anacetrapib, evacetrapibApolipoprotein A1 (Apo A1) Milano; Apo A1 agonistDelipidated HDL; rHDLSelective LXRβ (liver X receptor) agonistDMHCA; GW 3965PPAR (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α/γ agonistaleglitazar, muraglitazar, tesaglitazarDPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) antagonistalogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptinMTP (microsomal transport protein) antagonist
70Lp-PLA2 and vascular disease LpPLA2 Studies Collaboration (2010) Lancet 375;
71Novel anti-atherosclerotic agents Darapladib in animal models and clinical trials Effects of Lp-PLA2 inhibition by darapladibin diabetic, hypercholesterolemic pigsSTABILITY Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib TherapyEstimated enrolment 15,500Darapladib vs placebo in well treated patients with CHD plus other risk.1ary endpoint major coronary eventSOLID – TIMI52 Stabilization of plaques using darapladib.Incidence of major coronary events in patients with ACSDarapladib 160 mg vs placebo started within 30 days of index ACS event.Wilensky et al (2008) Nature Medicine (in press)
72NCEP ATP III: Evaluation— Major Risk Factors for CAD Age (men 45 y; women 55 y)Cigarette smokingHypertension (BP 140/90 mm Hg or antihypertensive medication)HDL-C <40 mg/dLFamily history of premature CAD<55 y in first-degree male relative<65 y in first-degree female relativeThe major risk factors for CAD areAge over 45 for men and over 55 for womenSmokingHypertension (BP 140/90 mm Hg or antihypertensive medication)HDL-C <40 mg/dLFamily history of premature CADBefore the age of 55 in a first-degree male relativeBefore the age of 65 in a first-degree female relativeAlthough it is a well-established risk factor, LDL-C is not included because it is recognized to be modified by other major risk factors.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
73Revised ATP III (AHA/NHLBI) Metabolic Syndrome Definition 2005 <40 mg/dL <50 mg/dL or Rx for ↓ HDLMen Women>102 cm (>40 in) >88 cm (>35 in)100 mg/dL or Rx for ↑ glucoseFasting glucose130/85 mm Hg or on HTN RxBlood pressureHDL-C150 mg/dL or Rx for ↑ TGTGAbdominal obesity† (Waist circumference‡)Defining LevelRisk Factor*Diagnosis is established when 3 of these risk factors are present.†Abdominal obesity is more highly correlated with metabolic risk factors than is BMI ‡Some men develop metabolic risk factors when circumference is only marginallyincreased.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285: ; Updated AHA/NHLBI Statement Oct 18, 2005: Grundy et al. Circulation 2005; 112 (epub).
74NCEP ATP III: Evaluation— Need for Framingham Calculation No>20%CAD or CAD risk equivalentYes0%-10%2 RF<10%1 RFNeed for Framingham Calculation10-Year Risk for CADRisk Profile10%-20%NCEP ATP III guidelines define 3 categories of risk, according to the number of risk factors and evidence of CAD or CAD risk equivalent.For individuals with 0 or 1 risk factor, the 10-year risk for CAD is <10%, and there is no need to calculate the absolute risk.For individuals with 2 or more risk factors, the 10-year risk for CAD varies from <10% to 10%-20%, and the absolute risk needs to be calculated to determine the appropriate management.For individuals with established CAD or a CAD risk equivalent, the 10-year risk of a coronary event is >20%, and there is no need to calculate the absolute risk.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
75NCEP ATP III: Evaluation— CAD Risk Equivalents DiabetesAtherosclerotic diseasePeripheral artery diseaseAbdominal aortic aneurysmSymptomatic carotid artery diseaseCAD 10-year risk >20%NCEP ATP III guidelines recognize the presence of CAD risk equivalents (eg, diabetes, atherosclerotic disease in other vascular beds, combination of several risk factors) that are associated with a 10-year risk equivalent to that of established CAD (>20%).Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
78Total Cholesterol:HDL Ratio hs-CRP Adds to Predictive Value of TC:HDL Ratio in Determining Risk of First MIRelative RiskA critical clinical question has been whether or not CRP levels add to information based upon cholesterol evaluation.As shown here, high sensitivity evaluation for CRP (hs-CRP) clearly adds to the predictive value of the total to HDL cholesterol ratio. As also shown, risk is high for those with elevated levels of CRP but average cholesterol values. Such patients, however, are largely missed by current screening protocols.hs-CRPTotal Cholesterol:HDL RatioRidker et al, Circulation. 1998;97:2007–2011.
79JUPITER Why Consider Statins for Low LDL, high hsCRP Patients? AFCAPS/TexCAPS Low LDL SubgroupsLow LDL, Low hsCRPLow LDL, High hsCRPLow LDL, Low hsCRPLow LDL, High hsCRP[A][B]0.51.02.00.51.02.0RRStatin EffectiveStatin Not EffectiveStatin EffectiveStatin Not EffectiveHowever, while intriguing and of potential public health importance, the observation in AFCAPS/TexCAPS that statin therapy might be effective among those with elevated hsCRP but low cholesterol was made on apost hoc basis. Thus, a large-scale randomized trial of statin therapy was needed to directly test this hypotheses.Ridker et al, New Engl J Med 2001;344:
80JUPITERTrial DesignJUPITER Multi-National Randomized Double Blind Placebo Controlled Trial of Rosuvastatin in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events Among Individuals With Low LDL and Elevated hsCRPMIStrokeUnstableAnginaCVD DeathCABG/PTCARosuvastatin 20 mg (N=8901)No Prior CVD or DMMen >50, Women >60LDL <130 mg/dLhsCRP >2 mg/LPlacebo (N=8901)4-week run-inArgentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands,Norway, Panama, Poland, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland,United Kingdom, Uruguay, United States, VenezuelaRidker et al, Circulation 2003;108:
81JUPITERPrimary Trial Endpoint : MI, Stroke, UA/Revascularization, CV DeathRidker et al NEJM 2008HR 0.56, 95% CIP <Placebo 251 / 89010.08Number Needed to Treat (NNT5) = 25- 44 %0.06Cumulative Incidence0.04Rosuvastatin 142 / 89010.020.001234Follow-up (years)Number at RiskRosuvastatin8,9018,6318,4126,5403,8931,9581,353983544157Placebo8,9018,6218,3536,5083,8721,9631,333955534174
82JUPITER population – high CRP (>2mg/l), low LDL Dual Target Analysis: LDL-C <70 mg/dL, hsCRP <2 mg/L0.08placebo HR 1.0 (referent)P <0.00010.06LDL >70 mg/dL and / or hsCRP >2 mg/L HR 0.64 ( )0.04Cumulative IncidenceLDL <70 mg/dL and hsCRP <2 mg/L HR 0.35 ( )0.020.001234Follow-up (years)Number at Riskrosuvastatin7,7167,6997,6786,0403,6081,8121,254913508145placebo7,8327,8067,7776,1143,6561,8631,263905507168Ridker PM et al. Lancet 2009;373:1175–1182
83NCEP ATP III Guidelines: Treatment LDL-C Levelto InitiateDrug Therapy(mg/dL)190160130<160<130<100LDL-CGoal(mg/dL)160130100LDL-C Levelto InitiateTLC (mg/dL)RiskCategory1 RF(10-year risk0%-10%)2 RFs(10-year risk10%-20%)The NCEP ATP III guidelines recommend the use of therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) and pharmacologic therapy according to the LDL-C goals and calculated risk.In individuals with an LDL-C goal of <160 mg/dL, initiation of TLC and pharmacologic therapy is recommended at LDL-C levels of 160 mg/dL and 190 mg/dL, respectively.In individuals with an LDL-C goal of <130 mg/dL, initiation of TLC is recommended at LDL-C level of 130 mg/dL, regardless of their 10-year risk of developing CAD. Initiation of pharmacologic therapy is recommended at LDL-C level of 160 mg/dL in patients with a 10-year risk of <10% and at LDL-C level of 130 mg/dL in those with a 10-year risk of 10%-20%.In individuals with an LDL-C goal of <100 mg/dL, initiation of TLC and pharmacologic therapy is recommended at LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dL and 130 mg/dL, respectively.CAD orCAD riskequivalentExpert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
84Statins in ACS - Guidelines Who - Initiate therapy regardless of baseline LDL.When – Pre-discharge; but no difference in benefit when initiated immediately or days post event (ESC <4 days).What – Evidence base is for high dose statin (but not 80mg simvastatin).Goal - <70 mg/dl (2.0 mmol/l) LDL cholesterol.ACC/ AHA 2007 in JACC (2008) 51;ESC 2007 in Eur Heart J (2007) 28;
85Lipid Management Goal: Persons with Pre-existing CHD LDL-C should be less than 100 mg/dLFurther reduction to LDL-C to < 70 mg/dL is reasonableIIIaIIbIIIIf TG >200 mg/dL, non-HDL-C should be < 130 mg/dL**Non-HDL-C = total cholesterol minus HDL-C
86NCEP ATP III: Setting Goals— Secondary–Non-HDL-C (Patients With TG 200) Risk Category Non–HDL-C Goal (mg/dL)1 RF <1902 RFs (CAD risk 20%) <160CAD orCAD risk equivalent <130(CAD risk >20%)In patients with elevated TG (200 mg/dL), cholesterol content of atherogenic remnant lipoprotein particles (chylomicron remnant, VLDL remnant) may be increased, and LDL-C alone may not be an adequate risk predictor.In these individuals, measurement of non–HDL-C (calculated by subtracting HDL-C from TC) is recommended, and its reduction is defined as a secondary therapeutic goal.Non–HDL-C goals are set at 30 mg/dL above the LDL-C goal in each risk category.For individuals with 0 or 1 risk factor: <190 mg/dLFor individuals with 2 risk factors and a 10-year risk of 0%-20%: <160 mg/dLFor individuals with established CAD or a CAD risk equivalent: <130 mg/dLExpert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
87ATP III Classification of Other Lipoprotein Levels Total CholesterolHDL-CholesterolLevel (mg/dl)Classification<200DesirableBorderline High>240HighLevel (mg/dl)Classification>40Minimum goal*40-50Desired goal*>50HighTriglycerideLevel (mg/dl)Classification<150NormalBorderline HighHigh>500Very HighThe NCEP ATP III guidelines identify LDL cholesterol as the primary target for lipid intervention, but recognize total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides as important factors.HDL=High density lipoprotein*These goals apply to men. For women, the minimum goal is >50 mg/dLSource: Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA 2001;285:8787
88NCEP ATP III Guidelines: Treatment TherapeuticLifestyle Change (TLC)Improve dietWeight reductionPhysical activityPharmacologicTreatmentStatins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors)FibratesNiacinBile acid sequestrantsNCEP ATP III guidelines recommend therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) as an essential component of lipid-lowering.DietReduced intake of saturated fat (<7% of total calories)Reduced intake of cholesterol (<200 mg/d)Use of plant stanols/sterolsUse of soluble fiberWeight reductionIncreased physical activityPatients at high risk are likely to require both TLC and pharmacologic therapy.StatinsFibratesNiacinBile acid sequestrantsThese agents target different aspects of lipid metabolism and have been shown to reduce the risk of CAD.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
91Lipid Management Recommendations For all patientsStart dietary therapy (<7% of total calories as saturated fat and <200 mg/d cholesterol)Adding plant stanol/sterols (2 gm/day) and viscous fiber (>10 mg/day) will further lower LDLPromote daily physical activity and weight management.Encourage increased consumption of omega-3 fatty acids in fish or 1 g/day omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form for risk reduction.IIIaIIbIII
92Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes Nutrient Composition of TLC Diet Nutrient Recommended IntakeSaturated fat Less than 7% of total caloriesPolyunsaturated fat Up to 10% of total caloriesMonounsaturated fat Up to 20% of total caloriesTotal fat 25–35% of total caloriesCarbohydrate 50–60% of total caloriesFiber 20–30 grams per dayProtein Approximately 15% of total caloriesCholesterol Less than 200 mg/dayTotal calories (energy) Balance energy intake and expenditure to maintain desirable body weight
93Possible Benefits From Other Therapies 5.10Therapy ResultSoluble fiber in diet (2–8 g/d) (oat bran, fruit, and vegetables)Soy protein (20–30 g/d)Stanol esters (1.5–4 g/d) (inhibit cholesterol absorption)Fish oils (3–9 g/d)(n-3 fatty acids) LDL-C 1% to 10% LDL-C 5% to 7% LDL-C 10% to 15% Triglycerides 25% to 35%Jones PJ. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 1999;1:Lichtenstein AH. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 1999;1:Rambjor GS et al. Lipids. 1996;31:S45-S49.Ripsin CM et al. JAMA. 1992;267:
94Dietary Adjuncts TLC for patients with LDL-C = 160 Dietary Component LDL-C (mg/dL)Low saturated fat/dietary cholesterol–12Viscous fiber (10–25 g/d)–8Plant stanols/sterols (2 g/d)–16Total–36 mg/dlDietary adjunctsThis slide shows that in a hypothetical patient with an LDL-C of 160 mg/dL, average reductions in LDL-C obtained by a diet lower in saturated fat and dietary cholesterol and the addition of viscous fiber and plant stanol/sterol esters could reduce LDL-C to <130 mg/dL. This is the goal for many patients with multiple risk factors and may obviate the need for cholesterol-lowering drug therapy or an increase in dosage of cholesterol-lowering drug therapy.References:Walden CE, Retzlaff BM, Buck BL, McCann BS, Knopp RH. Lipoprotein lipid response to the National Cholesterol Education Program Step II diet by hypercholesterolemic and combined hyperlipidemic women and men. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1997;17:Jenkins DJ, Kendall CW, Axelsen M, Augustin LS, Vuksan V. Viscous and nonviscous fibres, nonabsorbable and low glycaemic index carbohydrates, blood lipids and coronary heart disease. Curr Opin Lipidol 2000;11:49-56.Cato N. Stanol meta-analysis. Personal communication, 2000.Walden CE et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1997;17:Jenkins DJ et al. Curr Opin Lipidol 2000;11:49-56.Cato N. Stanol meta-analysis. Personal communication, 2000.
95Hospital Specialty_FINAL ATS 4/8/2017 4:57 AMTHE REAL NIGHTMAREModerate physical activity at least minutes 5 days a week or longer will help to raise HDL-C, lower total and LDL-C, lower TG, lower glucose, insulin, and blood pressure levels.95
96Effect of Lipid-modifying Therapies TherapyTCLDLHDLTGPatient tolerabilityBile acid sequestrants¯ 7-10%¯ 10-18% 3%Neutral or PoorNicotinic acid¯ 10-20% 14-35%¯ 30-70%Poor to reasonableFibrates (gemfibrozil)¯ 19%¯ 4-21% 11-13%¯ 30%GoodStatins*¯ 19-37%¯ 25-50% 4-12%¯ 14-29%Ezetimibe¯ 13%¯ 18% 1%¯ 9%Lipid-modifying therapies include HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), fibrates, bile acid sequestrants (resins), nicotinic acid and its derivatives, and probucol.Statins are highly effective in lowering LDL-cholesterol and have a good tolerability profile.1-3 Data presented in this slide does not include rosuvastatin.Bile acid sequestrants are potent cholesterol-modifying agents. Adverse events such as gastrointestinal bloating, nausea and constipation limit compliance to the bile acid sequestrants.1,2Nicotinic acid, a B-complex vitamin, is effective at reducing both LDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, and increasing HDL cholesterol levels. To be effective, it must be given in pharmacologic doses. The value of nicotinic acid has been limited by the incidence of adverse events, which include flushing, skin problems, gastrointestinal distress, liver toxicity, hyperglycaemia and hyperuricemia.1,2Fibrates are effective triglyceride-lowering and HDL-raising drugs. However, in the majority of patients they are only moderately successful in reducing LDL-cholesterol.1,2Probucol is not available in most countries. It has only a modest LDL-cholesterol-lowering effect, and there is no evidence that it reduces CHD risk and there are limited long-term tolerability data.1,2Ezetimibe is the first of a novel class of selective cholesterol-absorption inhibitors. Ezetimibe may be useful in patients who are intolerant to other lipid-modifying therapies, and in combination with a statin in patients who are intolerant to large doses of statins or need further reductions in LDL cholesterol despite maximum doses of a statin.4References1. Yeshurun D, Gotto AM. Southern Med J 1995;88(4):379–391.2. National Cholesterol Education Program. Circulation 1994;98(3):1333–1445.3. Knopp RH. N Engl J Med 1999;341:498–511.4. Gupta EK, Ito MK. Heart Dis 2002;4:399–409.TC–total cholesterol, LDL–low density lipoprotein, HDL–high density lipoprotein, TG–triglyceride. * Daily dose of 40mg of each drug, excluding rosuvastatin.Questran® Prescribing Information, Colestid ® Prescribing Information, WelChol ® Prescribing information, Niaspan ® Prescribing Information, Lopid ® Prescribing Information, TriCor ® Prescribing Information, Lipitor ® Prescribing Information, Zocor ® Prescribing Information, Mevaco ® r Prescribing Information, Lescol ® Prescribing Information, Pravacol ® Prescribing Information; Zetia ® Prescribing Information.
97When LDL-lowering drug therapy is employed in high-risk or moderately high risk patients, intensity of therapy should be sufficient to achieve a 30–40% reduction in LDL-C levels.Summary (I)In patients at high or moderately risk, therapeutic lifestyle change is an integral part of risk reduction. If an LDL-C–lowering drug is used, the intensity of therapy should achieve an additional LDL-C reduction of at least 30–40% beyond diet.
98Effect of Statin Therapy on LDL-C Levels: “The Rule of 6” Key point: In general, Rule of 6: Each doubling of the dose of a statin drug produces approximately a 6% decrease in LDL-C.The potency of the statin drugs varies, with fluvastatin being the least potent and atorvastatin the most potent of the currently available compounds.8The effect of the statins on LDL-C is dose related. The recommended starting dose of each statin drug results in a mean reduction in LDL-C of approximately 19% to 37%. Thereafter, a doubling of the dose of the statin drug lowers LDL-C approximately 6%. Titration to the maximum approved dose produces a mean reduction of approximately 31% to 51%.8Statins are indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce elevated total cholesterol, LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and triglyceride levels and to increase high-density-lipoprotein (HDL)-C in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (heterozygous familial and nonfamilial) and combined hyperlipidemia (Fredrickson types IIa and IIb) after a trial of diet and other nondrug therapy has proved inadequate.Illingworth DR. Med Clin North Am. 2000;84:23-42.
99Percentage Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 6 by Dose (ITT)1,2 10 mg20 mg40 mg80 mg–60–50–40–30–20–10RosuvastatinAtorvastatinSimvastatinPravastatinMean Percent Change From Baseline in LDL-C (SE)This slide shows the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C at week 6 by drug and dose range comparison. Rosuvastatin mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin across the dose range of mg (P<.002) aligning the maximum doses of each drug.2Rosuvastatin 10 mg resulted in a statistically significant greater percent reduction in LDL-C compared with atorvastatin 10 mg; simvastatin 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg; or pravastatin 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg (P< 0.002).Rosuvastatin 20 mg treatment resulted in a statistically significant greater percent reduction in LDL-C compared with atorvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg (P<0.002); pravastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, or simvastatin 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg (P< 0.002).Rosuvastatin 40 mg treatment resulted in statistically significantly greater percent reductions in LDL-C compared with atorvastatin 40 mg, pravastatin 40 mg, or simvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg (P< 0.002).ReferenceJones PH, Davidson MH, Stein EA, et al. Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin, Simvastatin, and Pravastatin Across Doses (STELLAR Trial) Am. J. Cardiology 2003; 93:2. Data on file, DA-CRS-02 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE.***†*P<.002 vs atorvastatin 10 mg; simvastatin 10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg; pravastatin 10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg**P<.002 vs atorvastatin 20 mg, 40 mg; simvastatin 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg; pravastatin 20 mg, 40 mg† P<.002 vs atorvastatin 40 mg; simvastatin 40 mg, 80 mg; pravastatin 40 mgJones PH, Davidson MH, Stein EA, et al. Am. J. Cardiology 2003; 93:Data on file, DA-CRS-02 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE./03
100Doses of Statins Required to Attain 30-40% Reduction of LDL-CDose, mg/dLDL Reduction, %Atorvastatin1039Lovastatin4031Pravastatin34Simvastatin20-4035-41Fluvastatin40-8025-35Rosuvastatin5-1039-45At their starting dosages, all of the currently available statins reduce levels of LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and increase levels of HDL cholesterol. Rosuvastatin is the most potent at LDL lowering.ReferenceProduct Data SheetsGrundy et al. Circulation ;110:
10174,102 subjects in 35 randomized clinical trials with statins HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitor:Adverse Effects74,102 subjects in 35 randomized clinical trials with statins1.4% incidence of elevated hepatic transaminases (1.1% incidence in control arm)Dose-dependent phenomenon that is usually reversibleHepatocyte15.4% incidence of myalgias* (18.7% incidence in control arm)0.9% incidence of myositis (0.4% incidence in control arm)0.2% incidence of rhabdomyolysis (0.1% incidence in control arm)The incidence of very high transaminases or myositis is relatively low with statin therapy.Skeletal myocyte*The rate of myalgias leading to discontinuation of atorvastatin in the TNT trial was 4.8% and 4.7% in the 80 mg and 10 mg arms, respectively.Source: Kashani A et al. Circulation 2006;114:101
102Why combination therapy? Few patients achieve LDL-C goal on monotherapyUptitration of dosage is rareLDL-C goals are getting more aggressiveHigh-dose statins increase risk of side effectsCan address mixed dyslipidemia (e.g., few pts achieve adequate control of HDL-C and triglycerides on monotherapy)Combinations of lipid-lowering agents may help patients achieve their LDL cholesterol goals, which happens infrequently on statin monotherapy, especially for patients who have the most aggressive goals (those with CHD or CHD risk equivalents). Studies have shown that few physicians uptitrate statin dosages as necessary to achieve LDL cholesterol goals. Furthermore, using high does of statins increases the risk of muscle symptoms and liver enzyme abnormalities. Finally, use of combinations of drugs with different mechanisms may address lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemias.
103Options for Patients who Fail to Reach LDL-C Goal on Statin Monotherapy Addition of:NiacinBile acid sequestrantCholesterol absorption inhibitor
104Pharmacologic Therapy: Niacin Reduces HDL catabolism and VLDL productionPrimarily used to treat low HDL-C (15%-35%) and elevated TG (20%-50% )LDL-C 5%-25%Side effectsHepatotoxicity, hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia, upper GI distress, flushing, itchingContraindicated in patients with liver disease, gout, peptic ulcerNiacin reduces hepatic HDL catabolism and VLDL production.Niacin is primarily used to treat low HDL-C and elevated TG.HDL-C is increased by 15%-35%.TG is reduced by 20%-50%.Niacin also reduces LDL-C by 5%-25%.Side effects of niacin include hepatotoxicity, hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia, upper gastrointestinal distress, and flushing.Niacin is contraindicated in patients with liver disease, gout, or peptic ulcer.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
105Mean change from Baseline Nicotinic Acid Evidence:Effect on Lipid Parameters30%-50-40-30-20-1010203030%26%HDL-C22%15%10%–9%Mean change from Baseline–14%–5%–17%–21%–22%–11%LDL-C–28%This slide shows representative data with extended release niacin. Niacin is the most effective medication for increasing levels of HDL-C; however, it also lowers levels of LDL-C and triglycerides.–35%TG–39%–44%Dose (mg)50010001500200025003000HDL-C=High density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C=Low density lipoprotein cholesterol, TG=TriglycerideSource: Goldberg A et al. Am J Cardiol 2000;85:105105
106Bile Acid Sequestrants Major actionsReduce LDL-C 15%-30%Raise HDL-C 3%-5%May increase TGSide effectsGI distress/constipationDecreased absorption of other drugs (1st generation)ContraindicationsDysbetalipoproteinemiaElevated TG (especially >400 mg/dL)Bile acid sequestrants reduce LDL-C by 15%-30%, raise HDL-C by 3%-5%, but may increase TG in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.Side effects associated with bile acid sequestrants include gastrointestinal distress or constipation, which may often lead to decreased compliance. Additionally, first-generation agents (such as cholestyramine) reduce absorption of other drugs.Bile acid sequestrants are contraindicated in patients with dysbetalipoproteinemia and in individuals with elevated TG (particularly those with TG >400 mg/dL).
107New Bile Acid Sequestrant: Colesevelam Lower dose for effectFewer GI complaints than with other bile acid sequestrantsReduces absorption of -caroteneRequires 4-6 tablets/dayA bile acid sequestrant introduced more recently, colesevelam, is effective at lower doses and is associated with fewer GI disturbances than previous agents in this class.Colesevelam has been reported to reduce intestinal absorption of b-carotene.Colesevelam regimen consists of 4-6 large tablets per day, which may decrease compliance.Davidson et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2000;9:2663.Davidson MH, Dicklin MR, Maki KC, Kleinpell RM. Colesevelam hydrochloride: a non-absorbed, polymeric, cholesterol-lowering agent. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2000;9:
108Colesevelam Monotherapy: Efficacy LDL-CHDL-CTG†% Change from baseline at wk 24Colesevelam (3.8 g/d) significantly reduced LDL-C by 15% (P<0.001 vs placebo) and significantly increased HDL-C by 3% (P=0.04 vs placebo).TG concentrations vs baseline were significantly increased in both the placebo and colesevelam groups (by 5% and 10%, respectively), although the difference between the placebo and colesevelam groups was not statistically significant.Placebo (n=88)Colesevelam 3.8 g/d (n=95)**P<0.001 vs placebo.†P=0.04 vs placebo.Insull et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:971.Insull W Jr, Toth P, Mullican W, et al. Effectiveness of colesevelam hydrochloride in decreasing LDL cholesterol in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: A 24-week, randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:
109Pharmacologic Therapy: Fibrates Inhibit hepatic TG production and increase HDL productionUsed to treat elevated TG (20%-50% ) and low HDL-C (10%-20% )Variable effect on LDL-CSide effectsDyspepsia, gallstones, myopathyIncreased with statinsContraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic diseaseFibrates inhibit production of TG by the liver and increase HDL-C production.Plasma level of TG is reduced by 20%-50%.Plasma level of HDL-C is increased by 10%-20%.Depending on the patient’s plasma TG concentration, fibrates have a variable effect on plasma LDL-C concentration.Side effects associated with fibrates include dyspepsia, gallstones, and myopathy; their incidence is increased in combination with statins.Fibrates are contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic disease.Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:
110Limitations of Current Intestinal-Acting Agents Bile acid sequestrantsNoncomplianceGI tolerabilityReduced absorption of lipid-soluble vitaminsMay increase TG in patients with hypertriglyceridemiaPlant stanol and sterol estersLack of selectivitySome patients may find difficult to incorporate into dietMay reduce absorption of lipid-soluble vitaminsDespite their ability to reduce LDL-C, clinical use of both bile acid sequestrants and plant stanol and sterol esters is limited by several factors.Principal limitations of bile acid sequestrants include inadequate compliance, relatively poor GI tolerability, reduced absorption of lipid-soluble vitamins, and potential for increase in TG in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.Plant stanol and sterol esters are limited by the lack of selectivity for cholesterol, and some patients may find it difficult to incorporate them into their diet. In addition, these agents have been reported to reduce absorption of lipid-soluble vitamins.
111Ezetimibe — Localizes at Brush Border of Small Intestine Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, localizes and appears to act at the brush border of the small intestine and inhibits cholesterol absorptionThis results inA decrease in the delivery of intestinal cholesterol to the liverA reduction of hepatic cholesterol stores and an increase in clearance of cholesterol from the blood
112Ezetimibe and Statins Complementary Mechanisms Ezetimibe reduces the delivery of cholesterol to the liverStatins reduce cholesterol synthesis in the liverThe distinct mechanism of ezetimibe is complementary to that of statinsThe effects of ezetimibe, either alone or in addition to a statin, on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality have not been establishedKnopp RH. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:498–511.
113Coadministration: Simvastatin + Ezetimibe EZE 10 mg(n = 11)Placebo(n = 11)SIMVA 10 mg(n = 12)-3.2-10-20Mean Percent Change in LDL-C From Baseline-30-34.9*-4017%*P < 0.01 vs placebo†P < 0.01 vs simvastatin 10 mg-50-51.9*†-60Stein, E. Eur Heart J. 2001;3(suppl E):E14.
114w-3 Fatty Acids Evidence: Effect on Lipid Parameters 27 patients with hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL-C treated with w-3 fatty acid (4 grams/day) for 7 monthsTotal CholesterolTriglyceride-10-20% Reduction-21*-30-40Omega 3 fatty acids are another strategy available to lower triglyceride levels.-46*-50HDL-C=High-density lipoprotein cholesterol*P<0.05Source: Abe Y et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998;18:114114
115Japan Eicosapentaenoic acid Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) w-3 Fatty Acids Evidence:Primary and Secondary PreventionJapan Eicosapentaenoic acid Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS)18,645 patients with hypercholesterolemia randomized to EPA (1800 mg) with a statin or a statin alone for 5 yearsw-3 fatty acids provide CV benefit, particularly in secondary preventionThe JELIS trial randomized 18,645 hypercholesterolemic patients in Japan to receive either 1800 mg of EPA daily with a statin (EPA group; n=9326) vs. a statin alone (controls; n=9319). After a 5-year follow-up, the primary endpoint of any major coronary event was reduced from 3.5% in the statin alone group to 2.8% in the EPA + statin group (RRR 19% p=0.011). In patients with no history of coronary artery disease, EPA treatment reduced major coronary events by 18%, but this finding was not significant (1.4% in the EPA group vs 1.7% in the control group; p=0.132).YearsCV=Cardiovascular, EPA=Eicosapentaenoic acid*Composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, angina, PCI, or CABGSource: Yokoyama M et al. Lancet. 2007;369:1090-8115115
116w-3 Fatty Acids Evidence: Secondary Prevention Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART)2,033 men with a history of a MI randomized to a diet of reduced fat with an increased ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat, increased fatty fish intake*, or increased fiber intake for 2 yearsw-3 fatty acids reduce all cause mortality** after a MIw-3 Fatty AcidsPlaceboAll cause mortality (%)In the Diet and Reinfarction Trial (DART), 2033 men with a history of MI received one of three dietary recommendations: (a) reduced fat and increased ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat, (b) increased fatty fish intake, or (c) increased fiber intake. The fish group was advised to eat at least 2 portions of fatty fish (300 grams total), corresponding to a weekly intake of about 2.5 grams of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). Those who could not tolerate this fish intake were advised to supplement it with fish oil capsules. Those advised to eat fatty fish had a 29% relative decrease in two year all-cause mortality compared with the other two groups.EPA=Eicosapentaenoic acid, MI=Myocardial infarction*Corresponds to 2.5 grams of EPA (PUFA)**p<0.05Source: Burr ML et al. Lancet 1989;2:116
117w-3 fatty acids provide significant CV benefit after a MI w-3 Fatty Acids Evidence:Secondary PreventionGruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto miocardico (GISSI-Prevenzione)11,324 patients with a history of a MI randomized to w-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids [PUFA] (1 gram), vitamin E (300 mg), both or none for 3.5 yearsw-3 fatty acids provide significant CV benefit after a MIPercent of patientsP=0.048P=0.053P=0.023P=0.008stroke246810121416Death,NF MI,NF stroke(2 way)CVdeath,and NF(4 way)w-3 PUFAPlaceboThe GISSI trial randomized 11,324 patients with a history of MI to n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (1 gram daily), vitamin E (300 mg daily), both, or none for 3.5 years. Patients treated with n-3 PUFA, but not vitamin E, had a significantly lowered risk of the primary end point (a composite of death, nonfatal MI, and stroke). Treatment with n-3 PUFA decreased the relative risk of one primary end point by 10% in a two-way analysis (p=0.048) and 15% in a four-way analysis (p=0.023). Of note, the dose of n-3 PUFA used in this study (1 gram daily) is the dose recommended for patients with coronary heart disease, but is lower than the dose approved for triglyceride lowering (2-4 gram daily).CV=Cardiovascular, MI=Myocardial infarction, NF=Non-fatal, PUFA=Polyunsaturated fatty acidsSource: GISSI Investigators. Lancet 1999;354:117117
118Rate of reinfarction, stroke, or death* (%) w-3 Fatty Acids Evidence:Secondary PreventionOMEGA Trial3,827 patients 3-14 days following a MI randomized to w-3 fatty acids (460 mg EPA mg DHA) or placebo for 1 yearw-3 fatty acids provide no benefit following a MI in those with high utilization of risk reducing therapies1210.48.88Rate of reinfarction, stroke, or death* (%)4P=0.10PlaceboFatty acidsOmega-3 fatty acid supplementation does not seem to help in persons who are on aspirin, a statin, and antihypertensive therapy, at least in the short-term.DHA=Docosahexaenoic acid, EPA=Eicosapentaenoic acid, MI=Myocardial infarction*This is a secondary endpointSource: Senges J et al. Presented at the Annual Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology, March 2009, Orlando, FL118
119CONCLUSIONSMany persons with normal total or LDL-C levels still suffer CHD events.While statin-based clinical trials significantly reduce risk of CHD, residual risk still exists.Non-HDL-C, which reflects all the atherogenic lipid fractions, appears to be a stronger predictor of CHD events than LDL-C.The measurement of non-HDL-C and its use as a secondary therapeutic target is warranted to better address residual CHD risk.Lifestyle therapies as well as pharmacologic approaches, particular combination therapy with statins and other agents, are important for optimizing the entire lipid profile.