Expert Dyslipidemia Panel of the International Atherosclerosis Society Panel members. An International Atherosclerosis Society Position Paper: global recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia--full report. J Clin Lipidol. 2014;8:29-60. [PMID: 24528685 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacl.2013.12.005]

Cholesterol Guidelines: More Similar Than Different

A clinician has a large number of guidelines to follow. Searching the words "cardiovascular" and "guideline" on the website, www.guideline.gov yielded 502 cardiovascular guidelines, 40 alone in 2015. ¹ [National Guideline Clearinghouse: Agency for Healthcare Research and 19 Quality (n.d.)] Similarly, searching the words "cholesterol" and "guideline" yielded 107 results, 6 alone in 2015. This information overload can decrease providers' self-efficacy in using guidelines, particularly if they have inconsistent messages. Moreover, a busy provider can easily be lost if the emphasis is on highlighting differences rather than similarities on the same topic. There are several guidelines for management of blood cholesterol and lipids. Despite being more similar than different, their similarities have not received as much attention as the differences between them. Unfortunately, there are still major gaps in current clinical practice even across these common themes. In this review, we will provide a brief overview of various cholesterol/lipid guidelines followed by a discussion of the differences but more importantly, similarities between them.

Omega-3 Fatty Acid Formulations in Cardiovascular Disease: Dietary Supplements are Not Substitutes for Prescription Products

Omega-3 fatty acid products are available as prescription formulations (icosapent ethyl, omega-3-acid ethyl esters, omega-3-acid ethyl esters A, omega-3-carboxylic acids) and dietary supplements (predominantly fish oils). Most dietary supplements and all but one prescription formulation contain mixtures of the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Products containing both EPA and DHA may raise low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). In clinical trials, the EPA-only prescription product, icosapent ethyl, did not raise LDL-C compared with placebo. To correct a common misconception, it is important to note that omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements are not US FDA-approved over-the-counter drugs and are not required to demonstrate safety and efficacy prior to marketing. Conversely, prescription products are supported by extensive clinical safety and efficacy investigations required for FDA approval and have active and ongoing safety monitoring programs. While omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements may have a place in the supplementation of diet, they generally contain lower levels of EPA and DHA than prescription products and are not approved or intended to treat disease. Perhaps due to the lack of regulation of dietary supplements, EPA and DHA levels may vary widely within and between brands, and products may also contain unwanted cholesterol or fats or potentially harmful components, including toxins and oxidized fatty acids. Accordingly, omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements should not be substituted for prescription products. Similarly, prescription products containing DHA and EPA should not be substituted for the EPA-only prescription product, as DHA may raise LDL-C and thereby complicate the management of patients with dyslipidemia.

Dyslipidaemia in the Middle East: Current status and a call for action

The increase in the cardiovascular disease (CVD)-associated mortality rate in the Middle East (ME) is among the highest in the world. The aim of this article is to review the current prevalence of dyslipidaemia and known gaps in its management in the ME region, and to propose initiatives to address the burden of dyslipidaemia. Published literature on the epidemiology of dyslipidaemia in the ME region was presented and discussed at an expert meeting that provided the basis of this review article. The high prevalence of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) and consanguineous marriages, in the ME region, results in a pattern of dyslipidaemia (low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high triglycerides) that is different from many other regions of the world. Early prevention and control of dyslipidaemia is of paramount importance to reduce the risk of developing CVD. Education of the public and healthcare professionals and developing preventive programs, FH registries and regional guidelines on dyslipidaemia are the keys to dyslipidaemia management in the ME region.

Common medications used by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: what are their effects on the lipid profile?

Dyslipidemia is the most fundamental risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). In clinical practice, many commonly prescribed medications can alter the patient's lipid profile and, potentially, the risk for ASCVD-either favorably or unfavorably. The dyslipidemia observed in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be characterized as both ominous and cryptic, in terms of unrecognized, disproportionately elevated atherogenic cholesterol particle concentrations, in spite of deceptively and relatively lower levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Several factors, most notably insulin resistance, associated with the unfavorable discordance of elevated triglyceride (TG) levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), have been shown to correlate with an increased risk/number of ASCVD events in patients with T2DM. This review focuses on known changes in the routine lipid profile (LDL-C, TGs, and HDL-C) observed with commonly prescribed medications for patients with T2DM, including antihyperglycemic agents, antihypertensive agents, weight loss medications, antibiotics, analgesics, oral contraceptives, and hormone replacement therapies. Given that the risk of ASCVD is already elevated for patients with T2DM, the use of polypharmacy may warrant close observation of overall alterations through ongoing lipid-panel monitoring. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce levels of atherogenic cholesterol particles and thus the patient's absolute risk.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied.

RESULTS

LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

[Statin and cardiovascular diseases after 75 years]

Statin prescription in persons older than 75 years or with frailty signs raises questions on the role of cholesterol in the genesis of atherosclerosis in this population, on the benefit of this treatment in primary or secondary prevention, and on their side effects in a context of multiple pathology and multiple medications. These questions are approached with the available literature data for this population. In secondary prevention, statin prescription is recommended whatever the age although intensive treatment should be avoided. In primary prevention, in the absence of consensus, their prescription depends on both geriatric and cardiovascular risk assessment.

Rationale and Design of the PROSPECTIVE Trial: Probucol Trial for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Events in Patients with Prior Coronary Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Reduction of serum LDL-cholesterol by statins was shown to improve clinical outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Although intensive statin therapy significantly reduced cardiovascular risks, atherosclerotic cardiovascular events have not been completely prevented. Therefore, effective pharmacologic therapy is necessary to improve "residual risks" in combination with statins. Probucol has a potent antioxidative effect, inhibits the oxidation of LDL, and reduces xanthomas. Probucol Trial for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Events in Patients with Prior Coronary Heart Disease (PROSPECTIVE) is a multicenter, randomized, prospective study designed to test the hypothesis that the addition of probucol to other lipid-lowering drugs will prevent cerebro- and cardiovascular events in patients with prior coronary events and high LDL cholesterol levels.

STUDY DESIGN

The study will recruit approximately 860 patients with a prior CHD and dyslipidemia with LDL-C level ≥140 mg/dl without any medication and those treated with any lipid-lowering drugs with LDL-C level ≥100 mg/dl. Lipid-lowering agents are continuously administered during the study period in control group, and probucol (500 mg/day, 250 mg twice daily) is added to lipid-lowering therapy in the test group. The efficacy and safety of probucol with regard to the prevention of cerebro- and cardiovascular events and the intima-media thickness of carotid arteries as a surrogate marker will be evaluated.

SUMMARY

PROSPECTIVE will determine whether the addition of probucol to other lipid-lowering drugs improves cerebro- and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with prior coronary heart disease. Furthermore, the safety of a long-term treatment with probucol will be clarified.

Association Between Very Low Levels of High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Long-term Outcomes of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated Without Revascularization: Insights From the TRILOGY ACS Trial

BACKGROUND

Low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C; <40 mg/dL) are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events, but it is unclear whether lower thresholds (<30 mg/dL) are associated with increased hazard.

HYPOTHESIS

Very low levels of HDL-C may provide prognostic information in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated medically without revascularization.

METHODS

We examined data from 9064/9326 ACS patients enrolled in the TRILOGY ACS trial. Participants were randomized to clopidogrel or prasugrel plus aspirin. Study treatments continued for 6 to 30 months. Relationships between baseline HDL-C and the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, and individual endpoints of death (cardiovascular and all-cause), MI, and stroke, adjusted for baseline characteristics through 30 months, were analyzed. The HDL-C was evaluated as a dichotomous variable-very low (<30 mg/dL) vs higher (≥30 mg/dL)-and continuously.

RESULTS

Median baseline HDL-C was 42 mg/dL (interquartile range, 34-49 mg/dL) with little variation over time. Frequency of the composite endpoint was similar for very low vs higher baseline HDL-C, with no risk difference between groups (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.34). Similar findings were seen for MI and stroke. However, risks for cardiovascular (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13-1.78) and all-cause death (HR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.11-1.67) were higher in patients with very low baseline HDL-C.

CONCLUSIONS

Medically managed ACS patients with very low baseline HDL-C levels have higher risk of long-term cardiovascular and all-cause death but similar risks for nonfatal ischemic outcomes vs patients with higher baseline HDL-C.

Statin tolerability: In defence of placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Statin intolerance is a barrier to effective lipid-lowering treatment. A significant number of patients stop prescribed statins, or can take only a reduced dose, because of adverse events attributed to the statin, and are then considered statin-intolerant.

METHODS

Examination of differences between statin and placebo in withdrawal rates due to adverse events - a good measure of tolerability - in statin cardiovascular outcome trials in patients with advanced disease and complex medical histories, who may be more vulnerable to adverse effects. The arguments commonly used to dismiss safety and tolerability data in statin clinical trials are examined.

RESULTS

Rates of withdrawal due to adverse events in trials in patients with advanced disease and complex medical histories are consistently similar in the statin and placebo groups. We find no support for arguments that statin cardiovascular outcome trials do not translate to clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the absence of any signal of intolerance in clinical trials, it appears that statin intolerance in the clinic is commonly due to the nocebo effect causing patients to attribute background symptoms to the statin. Consistent with this, over 90% of patients who have stopped treatment because of an adverse event can tolerate a statin if re-challenged. Consequently, new agents, including monoclonal antibodies to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, will be useful when added to statin therapy but should rarely be used as a statin substitute.

Improving lipids with prescription icosapent ethyl after previous use of fish oil dietary supplements

Managing dyslipidemia can be challenging in patients with statin intolerance. We describe the lipid effects of icosapent ethyl 4 g/day (high-purity prescription omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid) in two coronary artery disease patients with statin intolerance who were self-treating with fish oil dietary supplements. After initiating icosapent ethyl, improvements were noted in the first and second patients, respectively, in total cholesterol (-12%; -21%), LDL cholesterol (-3%; -24%), triglycerides (-34%; -16%), non-HDL cholesterol (-12%; -22%), the omega-3 index (+42%; +8%) and eicosapentaenoic acid levels (+275%; +138%). Icosapent ethyl was well tolerated with no adverse events reported. These cases demonstrated favorable lipid effects with prescription icosapent ethyl treatment that may help optimize the care of high-risk coronary artery disease patients with statin intolerance.

Current Treatment of Dyslipidemia: Evolving Roles of Non-Statin and Newer Drugs

Since their introduction, statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) drugs have advanced the practice of cardiology to unparalleled levels. Even so, coronary heart disease (CHD) still remains the leading cause of death in developed countries, and is predicted to soon dominate the causes of global mortality and disability as well. The currently available non-statin drugs have had limited success in reversing the burden of heart disease, but new information suggests they have roles in sizeable subpopulations of those affected. In this review, the status of approved non-statin drugs and the significant potential of newer drugs are discussed. Several different ways to raise plasma high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (HDL-C) levels have been proposed, but disappointments are now in large part attributed to a preoccupation with HDL quantity, rather than quality, which is more important in cardiovascular (CV) protection. Niacin, an old drug with many antiatherogenic properties, was re-evaluated in two imperfect randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and failed to demonstrate clear effectiveness or safety. Fibrates, also with an attractive antiatherosclerotic profile and classically used for hypertriglyceridemia, lacks evidence-based proof of efficacy, save for a subgroup of diabetic patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. Omega-3 fatty acids fall into this category as well, even with an impressive epidemiological evidence base. Omega-3 research has been plagued with methodological difficulties yielding tepid, uncertain, and conflicting results; well-designed studies over longer periods of time are needed. Addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy has now been shown to decrease levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C), accompanied by a modest decrease in the number of CV events, though without any improvement in CV mortality. Importantly, the latest data provide crucial evidence that LDL lowering is central to the management of CV disease. Of drugs that inhibit cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) tested thus far, two have failed and two remain under investigation and may yet prove to be valuable therapeutic agents. Monoclonal antibodies to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, now in phase III trials, lower LDL-C by over 50 % and are most promising. These drugs offer new ability to lower LDL-C in patients in whom statin drug use is, for one reason or another, limited or insufficient. Mipomersen and lomitapide have been approved for use in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, a more common disease than appreciated. Anti-inflammatory drugs are finally receiving due attention in trials to elucidate potential clinical usefulness. All told, even though statins remain the standard of care, non-statin drugs are poised to assume a new, vital role in managing dyslipidemia.

Current Treatment of Dyslipidemia: A New Paradigm for Statin Drug Use and the Need for Additional Therapies

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in most countries, with the high prevalence currently driven by dual epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Statin drugs, the most effective, evidence-based agents to prevent and treat this disease, have a central role in management and are advised in all published guidelines. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol and assessment guidelines ('new ACC/AHA guidelines') emphasized global cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction as opposed to targeting low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, stressed the use of statins in two dose intensities, utilized a new risk calculator using pooled cohort equations, and lowered the risk cutoff for initiation of statin therapy. Although there were major strengths of the new ACC/AHA guidelines, substantial controversy followed their release, particulars of which are discussed in this review. They were generally regarded as improvements in an ongoing transition using evidenced-based data for maximum patient benefit. Several guidelines, other than the ACC/AHA guidelines, currently provide practitioners with choices, some depending on practice locations. Cholesterol control with statin drugs is used in all paradigms. However, some patients respond inadequately, approximately 15% are intolerant, and other factors prevent attaining cholesterol goals in as many as 40% of patients. Even after treatment, substantial residual risk for ongoing major events remains. Another readily available modality that can rival statin drugs in effectiveness is vast improvement in diet and lifestyle within the general population; however, despite great effort, existing programs to implement such changes have failed. Hence, despite unrivaled success, there is great need for additional drugs to prevent and treat CHD, whether as monotherapy or in combination with statin drugs. New American guidelines do not discuss or recommend any nonstatin drugs for CHD, and the US FDA has moved away from approving drugs based solely on changes in surrogates in the absence of clinical outcomes trials. Both have significantly altered the realities of developing pharmacotherapies and cardiology practice.

Statin non-adherence: clinical consequences and proposed solutions

Large controlled clinical trials have demonstrated reductions with statin therapy in cardiovascular events in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary heart disease and individuals at high risk of a cardiovascular event. In trials of acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary heart disease, high-intensity statin therapy is more effective in the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events than low-intensity statin therapy. Thus, evidence-based guidelines recommend in-hospital initiation of high-intensity statin therapy for all acute coronary syndrome patients. Clinical trials report high adherence to and low discontinuation of high-intensity statin therapy; however, in clinical practice, high-intensity statins are prescribed to far fewer patients, who often discontinue their statin after the first refill. A coordinated effort among the patient, provider, pharmacist, health system, and insurer is necessary to improve utilization and persistence of prescribed medications. The major cause for statin discontinuations reported by patients is perceived adverse events. Evaluation of potential adverse events requires validated tools to distinguish between statin-associated adverse events versus non-specific complaints. Treatment options for statin-intolerant patients include the use of a different statin, often at a lower dose or frequency. In order to lower LDL cholesterol, lower doses of statins may be combined with ezetimibe or bile acid sequestrants. Newer treatment options for patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms may include proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.

Prescription omega-3 fatty acid products: considerations for patients with diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and metabolic syndrome contribute to hypertriglyceridemia, which may increase residual risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with elevated triglyceride (TG) levels despite optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with statin therapy. Prescription products containing the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (OM3FAs) eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are an effective strategy for reducing TG levels. This article provides an overview of prescription OM3FAs, including relevant clinical data in patients with T2DM and/or metabolic syndrome. Prescription OM3FAs contain either combinations of DHA and EPA (omega-3-acid ethyl esters, omega-3-carboxylic acids, omega-3-acid ethyl esters A) or EPA alone (icosapent ethyl). These products are well tolerated and can be used safely with statins. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that all prescription OM3FAs produce statistically significant reductions in TG levels compared with placebo; however, differential effects on LDL-C levels have been reported. Products containing DHA may increase LDL-C levels, whereas the EPA-only product did not increase LDL-C levels compared with placebo. Because increases in LDL-C levels may be unwanted in patients with T2DM and/or dyslipidemia, the EPA-only product should not be replaced with products containing DHA. Available data on the effects of OM3FAs in patients with diabetes and/or metabolic syndrome support that these products can be used safely in patients with T2DM and have beneficial effects on atherogenic parameters; in particular, the EPA-only prescription product significantly reduced TG, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, Apo B, remnant lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-sensitivity CRP levels without increasing LDL-C levels compared with placebo. Ongoing studies of the effects of prescription OM3FAs on cardiovascular outcomes will help determine whether these products will emerge as effective add-on options to statin therapy for reduction of residual cardiovascular disease risk.

Current drug treatment of hyperlipidemia in older adults

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of death, especially in older adults. Managing modifiable risk factors (e.g., hyperlipidemia, hypertension) remains the primary approach to prevent ASCVD events and ASCVD-related mortality. Statins are generally considered one of the most effective approaches to reduce ASCVD risk, especially for secondary prevention, yet remain underutilized in older adults. The evidence to support statin therapy in older adults is less robust than in their younger counterparts, especially in individuals aged 75 years and older. Recent lipid guidelines have raised this concern, yet statin therapy is recommended in 'at risk' older adults. Determining which older adults should receive statin therapy for primary prevention of ASCVD is challenging, as the currently available risk estimation tools are of limited use in those aged over 75 years. Furthermore, non-statin therapies have been de-emphasized in recent clinical practice guidelines and remain understudied in the older adult population. This is unfortunate given that older adults are less likely to tolerate moderate- to high-intensity statins. Non-statin therapies could be viable options in this population if more was understood about their ability to lower ASCVD risk and safety profiles. Nevertheless, lipid-lowering agents remain an integral component of the overall strategy to reduce atherogenic burden in older adults. Future research in this area should aim to enroll more older adults in clinical trials, determine the utility of ASCVD risk estimation for primary prevention, and investigate the role of non-statin therapies in this population.

Controversies Regarding Lipid Management and Statin Use for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With CKD

Adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at heightened risk for dying of cardiovascular disease. Results from randomized clinical trials of statin drugs versus placebo demonstrate that statin drugs or statin plus ezetimibe reduce the absolute risk for coronary heart disease and mortality among adults with non-dialysis-dependent CKD. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes 2013 clinical practice guideline for lipid management in CKD recommends that adults 50 years or older with non-dialysis-dependent CKD be treated with a statin or statin plus ezetimibe regardless of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. However, at least 9 guidelines published during the last 5 years address lipid management for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and not all guidelines address the utility of lipid-lowering therapy in adults with CKD. Because most patients with CKD receive most of their clinical care from non-nephrologists, differences in recommendations for lipid-lowering therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention may negatively affect the clinical care of adults with CKD and cause confusion for both patients and providers. This review addresses the identification and management of lipid levels in patients with CKD and discusses the existing controversies regarding testing and treatment of lipid levels in the CKD population.

Lipid Management in Human Immunodeficiency Virus

The development and use of antiretroviral medications to treat patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has dramatically changed the course of this disease from one that was fatal to a chronic and more manageable condition. Recommendations and guidelines for the general population are presented in this review with suggestions as to how they may be applied to this patient population. Issues for which there is little or no information available are noted to highlight the many gaps in our knowledge regarding diagnosis and management of dyslipidemia for patients living with HIV.

Hypertriglyceridemia in an outpatient department--Significance as an atherosclerotic risk factor

BACKGROUND

Although a relationship between elevated triglycerides (TG) and cardiovascular diseases is generally accepted, its extent is still discussed. This retrospective study analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events (CVE) and pancreatitis as well as the therapeutic regimen in patients being treated for hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) at an outpatient department.

METHODS

The cohort included 183 patients with mild and 49 patients with severe HTG; subgroups were formed and compared according to gender, presence of metabolic vascular syndrome (MVS) and lipid values.

RESULTS

Patients in this study seem to have had CVE at younger age than reported event rates in the general population. TG levels, rates of CVE and pancreatitis were reduced in all groups during therapy, which could be linked to use of omega-3 fatty acids and fibrates. Patients with persisting severe HTG as a result of incompliance showed massive risk for pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

Although no significant association between TG levels and CVE could be established, the combination of HTG and other cardiovascular risk factors such as MVS seems to be especially dangerous. The lipid-lowering drug therapy appeared to be effective with respect to CVE and pancreatitis incidence.

Lipid management in human immunodeficiency virus

The development and use of antiretroviral medications to treat patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has dramatically changed the course of this disease from one that was fatal to a chronic and more manageable condition. Recommendations and guidelines for the general population are presented in this review with suggestions as to how they may be applied to this patient population. Issues for which there is little or no information available are noted to highlight the many gaps in our knowledge regarding diagnosis and management of dyslipidemia for patients living with HIV.

Phytosterol oxidation products (POP) in foods with added phytosterols and estimation of their daily intake: A literature review

To evaluate the content of phytosterol oxidation products (POP) of foods with added phytosterols, in total 14 studies measuring POP contents of foods with added phytosterols were systematically reviewed. In non‐heated or stored foods, POP contents were low, ranging from (medians) 0.03–3.6 mg/100 g with corresponding oxidation rates of phytosterols (ORP) of 0.03–0.06%. In fat‐based foods with 8% of added free plant sterols (FPS), plant sterol esters (PSE) or plant stanol esters (PAE) pan‐fried at 160–200°C for 5–10 min, median POP contents were 72.0, 38.1, and 4.9 mg/100 g, respectively, with a median ORP of 0.90, 0.48, and 0.06%. Hence resistance to thermal oxidation was in the order of PAE > PSE > FPS. POP formation was highest in enriched butter followed by margarine and rapeseed oil. In margarines with 7.5–10.5% added PSE oven‐heated at 140–200°C for 5–30 min, median POP content was 0.3 mg/100 g. Further heating under same temperature conditions but for 60–120 min markedly increased POP formation to 384.3 mg/100 g. Estimated daily upper POP intake was 47.7 mg/d (equivalent to 0.69 mg/kg BW/d) for foods with added PSE and 78.3 mg/d (equivalent to 1.12 mg/kg BW/d) for foods with added FPS as calculated by multiplying the advised upper daily phytosterol intake of 3 g/d with the 90% quantile values of ORP. In conclusion, heating temperature and time, chemical form of phytosterols added and the food matrix are determinants of POP formation in foods with added phytosterols, leading to an increase in POP contents.

Practical applications: Phytosterol oxidation products (POP) are formed in foods containing phytosterols especially when exposed to heat treatment. This review summarising POP contents in foods with added phytosterols in their free and esterified forms reveals that heating temperature and time, the chemical form of phytosterols added and the food matrix itself are determinants of POP formation with heating temperature and time having the biggest impact. The estimated upper daily intakes of POP is 78.3 mg/d for fat‐based products with added free plant sterols and 47.7 mg/d for fat‐based products with added plant sterol esters.

Phytosterols in foods are susceptible to oxidation to form phytosterol oxidation products (POP). This review summarizes literature data regarding POP contents of foods with added phytosterols that were exposed to storage and heat treatments.

Dyslipidemia and cardiovascular changes in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we firstly highlight the role of dyslipidemia as a trigger in the initiation and progression of endothelial dysfunction, considered the earliest atherosclerotic lesion and patent in children with risk factors.In this context, we also revise methods that reflect the impact of endothelial dysfunction not only on arterial stiffness but also on cardiovascular morphology, namely, the common carotid intima-media thickness and the ventricular geometry.

RECENT FINDINGS

In view of its atherogenic burden, the most widely studied lipoprotein has been low density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, the smaller, denser, low density lipoprotein cholesterol particles, the nonhigh density lipoprotein cholesterol fraction, appear to be more atherogenic and a more sensitive cardiovascular risk marker. Studies have shown that in children, atherogenic lipids have also been linked to cardiovascular morphological changes, such as the common carotid intima-media thickness and the ventricular geometry, both independent cardiovascular risk markers.

SUMMARY

In infancy, atherosclerosis is a preclinical disorder in which dyslipidemia plays a crucial role. Due to its impact on cardiovascular structures, potentially reversible during childhood, dyslipidemia ought to be managed aggressively to prevent further disease progression that will ultimately culminate in cardiac disease, a leading cause of mortality in adults.

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol target achievement in patients on lipid-lowering drugs and stratified by triglyceride levels in the Arabian Gulf

BACKGROUND

Atherogenic dyslipidemia is highly prevalent in the Arabian Gulf. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) reduction has been proposed as an additional goal to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Data on non-HDL-C goal attainment in patients with high triglycerides (TGs) on lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs) in the region is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate non-HDL-C target attainment according to the National Lipid Association in patients on LLDs stratified by TG (<150 [1.69], 150-200 [1.69-2.26], >200 [2.26] mg/dL [mmol/L]) levels in the Arabian Gulf.

METHODS

Overall, 4383 patients on LLD treatment from 6 Middle Eastern countries participating in the Centralized Pan-Middle East Survey on the Undertreatment of Hypercholesterolemia study were evaluated. Patients were classified according to TG levels and ASCVD risk.

RESULTS

The overall non-HDL-C goal attainment was 41% of the subjects. Non-HDL-C goal was less likely attained in patients with high TGs (12% vs 27% vs 55%; P < .001). Very high ASCVD risk patients with high TGs attained less their non-HDL-C targets compared with those with lower TG levels (8% vs 23% vs 51%; P < .001). Similarly, high ASCVD risk patients with high TGs also failed more in attaining non-HDL-C targets compared with those with lower TGs (26% vs 42% vs 69%; P < .001). In addition, those with high TG also succeeded less in attaining LDL-C and apolipoprotein B goals (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of very high and high ASCVD patients on LLDs in the Arabian Gulf are not at recommended non-HDL-C targets and hence remain at a substantial residual risk.

A lipidologist perspective of global lipid guidelines and recommendations, part 2: Lipid treatment goals

Having knowledge of worldwide areas of harmonization and consensus regarding lipid guidelines and recommendations may provide clinicians a more global perspective on lipid management. This review examines 8 international scientific/medical organizations that have issued lipid guidelines, recommendations, and position papers: the National Lipid Association (2014), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014), International Atherosclerosis Society (2013), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (2013), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (2013), Japan Atherosclerosis Society (2012), European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (2012), and Adult Treatment Panel III (2001/2004). Part 1 of this perspective focused on sentinel components of these lipid guidelines and recommendations as applied to the role of atherogenic lipoprotein cholesterol levels, primary lipid target of therapy, other primary and secondary lipid treatment targets, and assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. This part 2 examines goals of lipid-altering therapy. While lipid guidelines and recommendations may differ regarding ASCVD risk assessment and lipid treatment goals, lipid guidelines and recommendations generally agree on the need to reduce atherogenic lipoprotein cholesterol levels, with statins being the first-line treatment of choice.

A review of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, treatment strategies, and its impact on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for approximately 31.4% of deaths globally in 2012. It is estimated that, from 1980 to 2000, reduction in total cholesterol accounted for a 33% decrease in coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths in the United States. In other developed countries, similar decreases in CHD deaths (ranging from 19%-46%) have been attributed to reduction in total cholesterol. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has now largely replaced total cholesterol as a risk marker and the primary treatment target for hyperlipidemia. Reduction in LDL-C levels by statin-based therapies has been demonstrated to result in a reduction in the risk of nonfatal CV events and mortality in a continuous and graded manner over a wide range of baseline risk and LDL-C levels. This article provides a review of (1) the relationship between LDL-C and CV risk from a biologic, epidemiologic, and genetic standpoint; (2) evidence-based strategies for LDL-C lowering; (3) lipid-management guidelines; (4) new strategies to further reduce CV risk through LDL-C lowering; and (5) population-level and health-system initiatives aimed at identifying, treating, and lowering lifetime LDL-C exposure.

Current Controversies With Recent Cholesterol Treatment Guidelines

Several guidelines and expert recommendations have been published recently regarding the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines recommend a drastic paradigm change in the treatment of cholesterol where treatment, based on level of cardiovascular risk, is based around using a fixed statin intensity therapy. This approach is endorsed by the American Diabetes Association. However, recommendations by the National Lipid Association (NLA) consist of the traditional approach of titrating therapy to achieve patient-specific lipoprotein targets. Despite the differences in overall approaches, the use of statin therapy as the cornerstone of treatment to reduce risk of cardiovascular events in at risk patients is a strong common theme. Clinicians should be aware of these differences, as they represent controversies with the overall treatment of ASCVD risk. Additional controversies related to the treatment of patients with ASCVD risk pertain to the role of nonstatin drugs and approaches to managing side effects. These topics are reviewed within this article and discuss implications for patient care.

The recent national lipid association recommendations: how do they compare to other established dyslipidemia guidelines?

The National Lipid Association (NLA) recently released recommendations for the treatment of dyslipidemias. These recommendations have commonalities and differences with those of other major societies with respect to risk assessment, lifestyle therapy, targets of therapy, and the use of non-statin agents. In this review, we compare the basic elements of the guidelines from each major society to provide clinicians with a comprehensive document reviewing the key principles of each.

Efficacy and safety of adding alirocumab to rosuvastatin versus adding ezetimibe or doubling the rosuvastatin dose in high cardiovascular-risk patients: The ODYSSEY OPTIONS II randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare lipid-lowering efficacy of adding alirocumab to rosuvastatin versus other treatment strategies (NCT01730053).

METHODS

Patients receiving baseline rosuvastatin regimens (10 or 20 mg) were randomized to: add-on alirocumab 75 mg every-2-weeks (Q2W) (1-mL subcutaneous injection via pre-filled pen); add-on ezetimibe 10 mg/day; or double-dose rosuvastatin. Patients had cardiovascular disease (CVD) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) or CVD risk factors and LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L). In the alirocumab group, dose was blindly increased at Week 12 to 150 mg Q2W (also 1-mL volume) in patients not achieving their LDL-C target. Primary endpoint was percent change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to 24 weeks (intent-to-treat).

RESULTS

305 patients were randomized. In the baseline rosuvastatin 10 mg group, significantly greater LDL-C reductions were observed with add-on alirocumab (-50.6%) versus ezetimibe (-14.4%; p < 0.0001) and double-dose rosuvastatin (-16.3%; p < 0.0001). In the baseline rosuvastatin 20 mg group, LDL-C reduction with add-on alirocumab was -36.3% compared with -11.0% with ezetimibe and -15.9% with double-dose rosuvastatin (p = 0.0136 and 0.0453, respectively; pre-specified threshold for significance p < 0.0125). Overall, ∼80% alirocumab patients were maintained on 75 mg Q2W. Of alirocumab-treated patients, 84.9% and 66.7% in the baseline rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg groups, respectively, achieved risk-based LDL-C targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 56.3% of alirocumab patients versus 53.5% ezetimibe and 67.3% double-dose rosuvastatin (pooled data).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of alirocumab to rosuvastatin provided incremental LDL-C lowering versus adding ezetimibe or doubling the rosuvastatin dose.

Circulating non-HDL-C levels were more relevant to atherogenic lipoprotein subfractions compared with LDL-C in patients with stable coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Conflicting results have been yielded as to whether low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C) or non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (non-HDL-C) is a better marker of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. Recently, plasma LDL and HDL subfractions have been suggested to be more accurately reflecting the lipoproteins' atherogenicity.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the relationship between LDL-C or non-HDL-C and lipoprotein subfractions.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study in 351 consecutive stable CAD patients without lipid-lowering therapy. The LDL and HDL separations were performed using the Lipoprint System. The LDL-C levels were measured directly, and the non-HDL-C levels were calculated.

RESULTS

The cholesterol concentrations of LDL (large, medium, and small) and HDL (small) particles were increased (all P < .001) by non-HDL-C or LDL-C quartiles, whereas the mean LDL particle size and cholesterol concentrations of HDL (large) were decreased (both P < .001) by non-HDL-C quartiles. In age- and gender-adjusted analysis, the cholesterol in small LDL was much strongly related to non-HDL-C than to LDL-C (r = 0.539 vs 0.397, both P < .001). Meanwhile, the mean LDL particle size was more closely associated with non-HDL-C than LDL-C (r = -0.336 vs r = -0.136, both P < .05). Significantly, the cholesterol in large HDL was negatively correlated with non-HDL-C (r = -0223, P < .001) but not with LDL-C. These correlations were further confirmed by the fully adjusted multivariable linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-HDL-C, in comparison to LDL-C, was more relevant to atherogenic lipoprotein subfractions in patients with stable CAD, supporting that it may be better in assessing cardiovascular risk.

Fibrates for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke

BACKGROUND

Fibrates are a class of drugs characterised by mainly lowering high triglyceride, raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and lowering the small dense fraction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Their efficacy for secondary prevention of serious vascular events is unclear, and to date no systematic review focusing on secondary prevention has been undertaken.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of fibrates for the prevention of serious vascular events in people with previous cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease and stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2014) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2014 week 41), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM) (1978 to 2014), the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 2014), Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP) (1989 to 2014). We also searched other resources, such as ongoing trials registers and databases of conference abstracts, to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a fibrate (for example gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) was compared with placebo or no treatment. We excluded RCTs with only laboratory outcomes. We also excluded trials comparing two different fibrates without a placebo or no-treatment control.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We contacted authors of trials for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving a total of 16,112 participants. Eleven trials recruited participants with history of coronary heart disease, two trials recruited participants with history of stroke, and one trial recruited participants with a mix of people with CVD. We judged overall risk of bias to be moderate. The meta-analysis (including all fibrate trials) showed evidence for a protective effect of fibrates primarily compared to placebo for the primary composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.94; participants = 16,064; studies = 12; I(2) = 45%, fixed effect). Fibrates were moderately effective for preventing MI occurrence (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.93; participants = 13,942; studies = 10; I(2) = 24%, fixed effect). Fibrates were not effective against all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 23%), death from vascular causes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect), and stroke events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 11,719; studies = 6; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect). Excluding clofibrate trials, as the use of clofibrate was discontinued in 2012 due to safety concerns, the remaining class of fibrates were no longer effective in preventing the primary composite outcome (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; participants = 10,320; studies = 7; I(2) = 50%, random effects). However, without clofibrate data, fibrates remained effective in preventing MI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94; participants = 8304; studies = 6; I(2) = 47%, fixed effect). There was no increase in adverse events with fibrates compared to control. Subgroup analyses showed the benefit of fibrates on the primary composite outcome to be consistent irrespective of age, gender, and diabetes mellitus.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate evidence showed that the fibrate class can be effective in the secondary prevention of composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, and vascular death. However, this beneficial effect relies on the inclusion of clofibrate data, a drug that was discontinued in 2002 due to its unacceptably large adverse effects. Further trials of the use of fibrates in populations with previous stroke and also against a background treatment with statins (standard of care) are required.

Effect of Switching From Statin Monotherapy to Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Combination Therapy Compared With Other Intensified Lipid-Lowering Strategies on Lipoprotein Subclasses in Diabetic Patients With Symptomatic Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease may not achieve adequate low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) lowering on statin monotherapy, attributed partly to atherogenic dyslipidemia. More intensive LDL‐C–lowering therapy can be considered for these patients. A previous randomized, controlled study demonstrated greater LDL‐C lowering in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease who switched from simvastatin 20 mg (S20) or atorvastatin 10 mg (A10) to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (ES10/20) therapy, compared with statin dose‐doubling (to S40 or A20) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10). The effect of these regimens on novel biomarkers of atherogenic dyslipidemia (low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein particle number and lipoprotein‐associated phospholipase A2 [Lp‐PLA₂]) was assessed.

Methods and Results

Treatment effects on low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein particle number (by NMR) and Lp‐PLA₂ (by ELISA) were evaluated using plasma samples available from 358 subjects in the study. Switching to ES10/20 reduced low‐density lipoprotein‐particle number numerically more than did statin dose‐doubling and was comparable with R10 (−133.3, −94.4, and −56.3 nmol/L, respectively; P>0.05). Increases in high‐density lipoprotein particle number were significantly greater with switches to ES10/20 versus statin dose‐doubling (1.5 and −0.5 μmol/L; P<0.05) and comparable with R10 (0.7 μmol/L; P>0.05). Percentages of patients attaining low‐density lipoprotein particle number levels <990 nmol/L were 62.4% for ES10/20, 54.1% for statin dose‐doubling, and 57.0% for R10. Switching to ES10/20 reduced Lp‐PLA₂ activity significantly more than did statin dose‐doubling (−28.0 versus −3.8 nmol/min per mL, P<0.05) and was comparable with R10 (−28.0 versus −18.6 nmol/min per mL; P>0.05); effects on Lp‐PLA₂ concentration were modest.

Conclusions

In diabetic patients with dyslipidemia, switching from statins to combination ES10/20 therapy generally improved lipoprotein subclass profile and Lp‐PLA₂ activity more than did statin dose‐doubling and was comparable with R10, consistent with its lipid effects.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00862251.

Usefulness of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol as Predictors of Cardiovascular Disease in Chinese

The predictive effect of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Chinese general population has not been well demonstrated. The aim of our study was to examine the relation between non-HDL-C and CVD and compare the predictive effect of non-HDL-C and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) for CVD in Chinese population. The baseline examination of 27,020 participants aged 35 to 74 years from the China Cardiovascular Health Study and the China Multicenter Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Epidemiology was conducted in 1998 to 2001. Follow-up evaluation was conducted in 2007 to 2008 with a response rate of 79.8%. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CVD. Compared with those with non-HDL-C level of <130 mg/dl, multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios of CVD were 1.30 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.62) and 1.93 (95% CI 1.50 to 2.47) in participants with non-HDL-C levels of 160 to 189.9 and ≥190 mg/dl, respectively. An increase of 30 mg/dl in non-HDL-C level would correspond to 15%, 24%, and 12% increase in risk of CVD, coronary heart disease, and stroke, respectively. Using likelihood ratio tests, non-HDL-C appeared to be a similar predictor for CVD incidence as LDL-C (chi-square for non-HDL-C, 18.02, p <0.001; chi-square for LDL-C, 18.90, p <0.001). In conclusion, higher non-HDL-C level is associated with the increased CVD incidence and has a similar effect as LDL-C on predicting CVD risk in Chinese.

A life course approach to cardiovascular aging

A life course approach in epidemiology investigates the biological, behavioral and social pathways that link physical and social exposures and experiences during gestation, childhood, adolescence and adult life, and across generations, to later-life health and disease risk. We illustrate how a life course approach has been applied to cardiovascular disease, highlighting the evidence in support of the early origins of disease risk. We summarize how trajectories of cardiometabolic risk factors change over the life course and suggest that understanding underlying 'normal' or 'healthy' trajectories and the characteristics that drive deviations from such trajectories offer the potential for early prevention and for identifying means of preventing future disease.

Effect of Ezetimibe on LDL-C Lowering and Atherogenic Lipoprotein Profiles in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Poorly Controlled by Statins

Background

There exists a subpopulation of T2DM in whom first-line doses of statin are insufficient for optimally reducing LDL-C, representing a major risk of CVD. The RESEARCH study focuses on LDL-C reduction in this population along with modifications of the lipid profiles leading to residual risks.

Methods

Lipid changes were assessed in a randomized, multicenter, 12-week, open-label study comparing a high-potency statin (10mg of atorvastatin or 1mg of pitavastatin) plus ezetimibe (EAT: n = 53) with a double dose of statin (20mg of atorvastatin or 2mg of pitavastatin) (DST: n = 56) in DM subjects who had failed to achieve the optimal LDL-C targets. Lipid variables were compared with a primary focus on LDL-C and with secondary focuses on the percentage of patients who reached the LDL-C targets and changes in the levels of RLP-C (remnant like particle cholesterol) and sd-LDL-C, two characteristic atherogenic risks of DM.

Results

The reduction of LDL-C (%), the primary endpoint, differed significantly between the two groups (-24.6 in EAT vs. -10.9 in DST). In the analyses of the secondary endpoints, EAT treatment brought about significantly larger reductions in sd-LDL-C (-20.5 vs. -3.7) and RLP-C (-19.7 vs. +5.5). In total, 89.4% of the patients receiving EAT reached the optimized treatment goal compared to 51.0% of the patients receiving DST. The changes in TC (-16.3 vs. -6.3) and non-HDL-C (-20.7 vs. -8.3) differed significantly between the two groups.

Conclusion

Ezetimibe added to high-potency statin (10 mg of atorvastatin or 1 mg of pitavastatin) was more effective than the intensified-dose statin (20 mg of atorvastatin or 2 mg of pitavastatin) treatment not only in helping T2DM patients attain more LDL-C reduction, but also in improving their atherogenic lipid profiles, including their levels of sd-LDL-C and RLP-C.

We thus recommend the addition of ezetimibe to high-potency statin as a first line strategy for T2DM patients with insufficient statin response.

Trial Registration

The UMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000002593

Statins: Cholesterol guidelines and Indian perspective

Statins have become an important drug in preventing the occurrence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The effectiveness of statins in reducing ASCVD has been established in large-scale clinical trials. The lipid management guidelines have been periodically modified due to accumulating evidence about the proportionate benefit achieved with a progressive reduction in cholesterol levels with higher doses of statins and even in those at low risk of development of ASCVD. The current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines have based its recommendations from data gathered exclusively from randomized controlled trials. It has simplified the use of statins, but also raised questions regarding the validity of its cardiovascular event risk prediction tool. Epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in India differs from the western population; there is an increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and atherogenic dyslipidemia phenotype a group not addressed in the current guidelines. The guidelines are based on trials, which do not have a representative South Asian population. This article reviews the relevant literature, and examines the issues involved in adopting the guidelines to the Indian population.

Pathways Forward in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention One and a Half Years After Publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Guidelines

The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines represent an important step forward in the risk assessment and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Differentiated risk prediction equations for women and black individuals were developed, and convenient 10-year and lifetime risk assessment tools were provided, facilitating their implementation. Lifestyle modification was portrayed as the foundation of preventive therapy. In addition, based on high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials, statins were prioritized as the first lipid-lowering pharmacologic treatment, and a shared decision-making model between the physician and the patient was emphasized as a key feature of personalized care. After publication of the guidelines, however, important limitations were also identified. This resulted in a constructive scientific debate yielding valuable insights into potential opportunities to refine recommendations, fill gaps in guidance, and better harmonize recommendations within and outside the United States. The latter point deserves emphasis because when guidelines are in disagreement, this may result in nonaction on the part of professional caregivers or nonadherence by patients. In this review, we discuss the key scientific literature relevant to the guidelines published in the year and a half after their release. We aim to provide cohesive, evidence-based views that may offer pathways forward in cardiovascular disease prevention toward greater consensus and benefit the practice of clinical medicine.