Targeting residual risk: the rationale for the use of non-HDL cholesterol

Efficacy and Safety of Saroglitazar in Patients with Cardiometabolic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The incidence of cardiometabolic diseases is increasing because of an increase in the standard of living. Currently, clinical treatment strategies for cardiometabolic diseases mainly focus on maintaining glycemic and lipid profiles. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of saroglitazar in patients with metabolic disease and provide evidence for clinical decision making.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL], and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled trials that examined saroglitazar for the treatment of patients with cardiometabolic disease. A total of seven randomized controlled trials were included for the qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were applied for continuous and dichotomous data, respectively.

RESULTS

The overall effect of saroglitazar showed significant changes in triglycerides, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein, non-high-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, very low-density lipoprotein, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels [MD: - 40.50; 95% CI - 58.09 to - 22.92; p < 0.00001; I² = 78%], [MD: - 7.49; 95% CI - 11.33 to - 3.65; p = 0.0001; I² = 41%], [MD: - 3.53; 95% CI - 6.91 to - 0.15; p = 0.04; I² = 19%], [MD: - 8.08; 95% CI - 15.63 to - 0.54; p = 0.04; I² = 58%], [MD: 2.04; 95% CI 0.17 to 3.92; p = 0.03; I² = 69%], [MD: - 6.10; 95% CI - 9.40 to - 2.80; p = 0.0003; I² = 65%], [MD: - 5.89; 95% CI - 7.50 to - 4.28; p < 0.00001; I² = 98%], and [MD: - 1.64; 95% CI - 2.83 to - 0.45; p = 0.007; I² = 95%], respectively. A subgroup analysis showed favorable outcomes with sarogiltazar 4 mg. There was a statistically non-significant reduced risk of adverse event occurrence in the saroglitazar treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results conclude that the overall effect of saroglitazar was beneficial only in terms of lipid profiles and liver function parameters, whereas saroglitazar 4 mg showed a better therapeutic role in maintaining lipid and glycemic parameters in patients with cardiometabolic disease.

A reappraisal of the risks and benefits of treating to target with cholesterol lowering drugs

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one cause of death globally, and lipid modification, particularly lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), is one of the cornerstones of prevention and treatment. However, even after lowering of LDLc to conventional goals, a sizeable number of patients continue to suffer cardiovascular events. More aggressive lowering of LDLc and optimization of other lipid parameters like triglycerides (TG) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) have been proposed as two potential strategies to address this residual risk. These strategies entail use of maximal doses of highly potent HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and combination therapy with other lipid modifying agents. Though statins in general are fairly well tolerated, adverse events like myopathy are dose related. There are further risks with combination therapy. In this article, we review the adverse effects of lipid modifying agents used alone and in combination and weigh these effects against the evidence demonstrating their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all cause mortality. For patients with established CVD, statins are the only group of drugs that have shown consistent reductions in hard outcomes. Though more aggressive lipid lowering with high dose potent statins can reduce rates of non fatal events and need for interventions, the incremental mortality benefits remain unclear, and their use is associated with a higher rate of drug related adverse effects. Myopathy and renal events have been a significant concern with the use of high potency statin drugs, in particular simvastatin and rosuvastatin. For patients who have not reached target LDL levels or have residual lipid abnormalities on maximal doses of statins, the addition of other agents has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes and carries an increased risk of adverse events. The clinical benefits of drugs to raise HDLc remain unproven. In patients without known cardiovascular disease, there is conflicting evidence as to the benefits of aggressive pursuit of numerical lipid targets, particularly with respect to all cause mortality. Certainly, in statin intolerant patients, alternative agents with a low side effect profile are desirable. Bile acid sequestrants are an effective and safe choice for decreasing LDLc, and omega-3 fatty acids are safe agents to decrease TG. There remains an obvious need to design and carry out large scale studies to help determine which agents, when combined with statins, have the greatest benefit on cardiovascular disease with the least added risk. These studies should be designed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes rather than surrogate endpoints, and require a comprehensive assessment and reporting of safety outcomes.

A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Saroglitazar 2 and 4 mg Compared to Pioglitazone 45 mg in Diabetic Dyslipidemia (PRESS V)

Dual PPARα/γ can improve both metabolic effects and minimized the side effects caused by either PPARα or PPARγ agonist. The PRESS V study was aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of saroglitazar 2 mg and 4 mg capsules (Lipaglyn™; Zydus Code: ZYH1) as compared to high dose pioglitazone in patients with diabetic dyslipidemia. In this 26-week double-blind, parallel arm, phase 3 study patients with hypertriglyceridemia with type 2 diabetes mellitus (BMI > 23 kg/m²; hypertriglyceridemia: TG > 200 to 400 mg/dL; glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA_1c] >7 to 9%) were enrolled from 14 sites in India. After 2 weeks of lifestyle modification, 122 patients were randomized double-blind to 24-week treatment with the study drugs (saroglitazar 2 mg or 4 mg or pioglitazone 45 mg once daily) in a 1:1:1 ratio. The primary end point was change in plasma triglyceride level at week 24. The secondary end points were change in lipid profile and fasting plasma glucose at week 24. Patients who received study medication and had undergone at least 1 postbaseline efficacy evaluation were included in the efficacy analysis. All randomized patients who received at least a single dose were included for safety evaluation. The efficacy analysis included 109 patients (n = 37 in saroglitazar 2 mg; n = 39 in saroglitazar 4 mg; n = 33 in pioglitazone). Saroglitazar 2 mg and 4 mg significantly reduced (P < .001) plasma triglyceride from baseline by 26.4% (absolute change ± SD: -78.2 ± 81.98 mg/dL) and 45% (absolute change ± SD -115.4 ± 68.11 mg/dL), respectively, as compared to pioglitazone -15.5% (absolute change ± SD: -33.3 ± 162.41 mg/dL) at week 24. Saroglitazar 4 mg treatment also demonstrated marked decrease in low-density lipoprotein (5%), very-low-density lipoprotein (45.5%), total cholesterol (7.7%), and apolipoprotein-B (10.9%). Saroglitazar treatment was generally safe and well tolerated. No serious adverse events were reported in saroglitazar treatment arm and no persistent change in laboratory parameters. Saroglitazar appeared to be an effective and safe therapeutic option for improving hypertriglyceridemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Is prevention a fantasy, or the future of medicine? A panoramic view of recent data, status, and direction in cardiovascular prevention

Americans are under assault by a fierce epidemic of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, of their own doing. Lowered death rates from heart disease and reduced rates of smoking are seriously threatened by the inexorable rise in overweight and obesity. Latest data indicate that 32% of children are overweight or obese, and fewer than 17% exercise sufficiently. Over 68% of adults are overweight, 35% are obese, nearly 40% fulfill criteria for the metabolic syndrome, 8–13% have diabetes, 34% have hypertension, 36% have prehypertension, 29% have prediabetes, 15% of the population with either diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia are undiagnosed, 59% engage in no vigorous activity, and fewer than 5% of the US population qualifies for the American Heart Association (AHA) definition of ideal cardiovascular health. Health, nutrition, and exercise illiteracy is prevalent, while misinformation and unrealistic expectations are the norm. Half of American adults have at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Up to 65% do not have their conventional risk biomarkers under control. Of those patients with multiple risk factors, fewer than 10% have all of them adequately controlled. Even when patients are treated according to evidence-based protocols, about 70% of cardiac events remain unaddressed. Undertreatment is also common. Poor patient adherence, probably well below 50%, adds further difficulty in reducing cardiovascular risk. Available data indicate that only a modest fraction of the total cardiovascular risk burden in the population is actually now being eliminated. A fresh view of these issues, a change in current philosophy, leading to new and different, multimechanistic methods of prevention may be needed. Adherence to published guidelines will improve substantially outcomes in both primary and secondary prevention. Primordial prevention, which does not allow risk values to appear in a population, affords more complete protection than subsequent partial reversal of elevated risk factors or biomarkers. Current evidence supports recent calls for massive educational programs supporting primordial prevention, individual responsibility and pride in achieving population-wide ideal cardiovascular health through lifestyle modification. Environmental and social changes will be necessary, along with major supportive adjustments in the food industry and the assistance of the media. Cooperation is critical to the success of such an initiative.