John C. LaRosa

Primary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease: Guidance From Framingham A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the AHA Task Force on Risk Reduction

The Framingham Heart Study has contributed importantly to understanding of the causes of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases. Framingham research has helped define the quantitative and additive nature of these causes or, as they are now called, “cardiovascular risk factors.”1 The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)2 3 has made extensive use of Framingham data in developing its strategy for preventing CHD by controlling high cholesterol levels. The NCEP guidelines2 3 adjust the intensity of cholesterol-lowering therapy with absolute risk as determined by summation of risk factors. The National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBPEP) has set forth a parallel approach for blood pressure control. In contrast to the NCEP,2 however, earlier NHBPEP reports issued through the Joint National Committee4 did not match the intensity of therapy to absolute risk for CHD. “Normalization” of blood pressure is the essential goal of therapy regardless of risk status. Blood pressure–lowering therapy is carried out as much for prevention of stroke and other cardiovascular complications as for reduction of CHD risk. Nonetheless, risk assessment could be important for making decisions about type and intensity of therapy for hypertension. Thus, the most recent Joint National Committee report5 gives more attention to risk stratification for adjustment of therapy for hypertension. Although Framingham data have already been influential in the development of national guidelines for risk factor management, the opportunity may exist for both cholesterol and blood pressure programs to draw more extensively from Framingham results when formulating improved risk assessment guidelines and recommending more specific strategies for risk factor modification. The American Heart Association has previously used Framingham risk factor data to prepare charts for estimating CHD risk. Framingham investigators of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute prepared the original charts and have now revised …

Effect of lowering LDL cholesterol substantially below currently recommended levels in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes: The Treating To New Targets (TNT) study

OBJECTIVE—The Treating to New Targets study showed that intensive lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg/day provides significant clinical benefit beyond that afforded by atorvastatin 10 mg/day in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD). The objective of our study was to investigate whether similar benefits of high-dose intensive atorvastatin therapy can be achieved in patients with CHD and diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—A total of 1,501 patients with diabetes and CHD, with LDL cholesterol levels of <130 mg/dl, were randomized to double-blind therapy with either atorvastatin 10 (n = 753) or 80 (n = 748) mg/day. Patients were followed for a median of 4.9 years. The primary end point was the time to first major cardiovascular event, defined as death from CHD, nonfatal non–procedure-related myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or fatal or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS—End-of-treatment mean LDL cholesterol levels were 98.6 mg/dl with atorvastatin 10 mg and 77.0 mg/dl with atorvastatin 80 mg. A primary event occurred in 135 patients (17.9%) receiving atorvastatin 10 mg, compared with 103 patients (13.8%) receiving atorvastatin 80 mg (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.58–0.97], P = 0.026). Significant differences between the groups in favor of atorvastatin 80 mg were also observed for time to cerebrovascular event (0.69 [0.48–0.98], P = 0.037) and any cardiovascular event (0.85 [0.73–1.00], P = 0.044). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the rates of treatment-related adverse events and persistent elevations in liver enzymes. CONCLUSIONS—Among patients with clinically evident CHD and diabetes, intensive therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg significantly reduced the rate of major cardiovascular events by 25% compared with atorvastatin 10 mg.

Association of LDL Cholesterol, Non–HDL Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein B Levels With Risk of Cardiovascular Events Among Patients Treated With Statins: A Meta-analysis

CONTEXT The associations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B (apoB) levels with the risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statin therapy have not been reliably documented. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the relative strength of the associations of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB with cardiovascular risk among patients treated with statin therapy. DESIGN Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled statin trials in which conventional lipids and apolipoproteins were determined in all study participants at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. DATA SOURCES Relevant trials were identified by a literature search updated through December 31, 2011. Investigators were contacted and individual patient data were requested and obtained for 62,154 patients enrolled in 8 trials published between 1994 and 2008. DATA EXTRACTION Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs for risk of major cardiovascular events adjusted for established risk factors by 1-SD increase in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB. RESULTS Among 38,153 patients allocated to statin therapy, 158 fatal myocardial infarctions, 1678 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 615 fatal events from other coronary artery disease, 2806 hospitalizations for unstable angina, and 1029 fatal or nonfatal strokes occurred during follow-up. The adjusted HRs for major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.10-1.17) for LDL-C, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.19) for non-HDL-C, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.18) for apoB. These HRs were significantly higher for non-HDL-C than LDL-C (P = .002) and apoB (P = .02). There was no significant difference between apoB and LDL-C (P = .21). CONCLUSION Among statin-treated patients, on-treatment levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB were each associated with risk of future major cardiovascular events, but the strength of this association was greater for non-HDL-C than for LDL-C and apoB.

Reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease and metabolic syndrome: analysis of the Treating to New Targets study

BACKGROUND Despite the prognostic value of metabolic syndrome for predicting cardiovascular events, few trials have investigated the effects of statin therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Our post hoc analysis of the Treating to New Targets (TNT) study assessed whether intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with high-dose atorvastatin therapy results in cardiovascular benefits for patients with both coronary heart disease and the metabolic syndrome. METHODS The TNT study was a prospective, double blind, parallel-group trial done at 256 sites in 14 countries between April, 1998, and August, 2004, with a median follow-up of 4.9 years. 10,001 patients were enrolled aged 35-75 years with clinically evident coronary heart disease. Our analysis includes 5584 patients with metabolic syndrome based on the 2005 NCEP ATP III criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg per day (n=2820) or 80 mg per day (n=2764). The primary outcome measure was time to first major cardiovascular event, defined as death from coronary heart disease, non-fatal non-procedure-related myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or fatal or non-fatal stroke. FINDINGS In patients with coronary heart disease and metabolic syndrome, mean on-treatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations at 3 months were 2.6 mmol/L (99.3 mg/dL) with atorvastatin 10 mg, and 1.9 mmol/L (72.6 mg/dL) with atorvastatin 80 mg. At a median follow-up of 4.9 years, major cardiovascular events occurred in 367 (13%) patients receiving atorvastatin 10 mg, compared with 262 (9.5%) receiving atorvastatin 80 mg (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% CI 0.61-0.84; p<0.0001). Irrespective of treatment assignment, significantly more patients with metabolic syndrome (11.3%) had a major cardiovascular event at a median of 4.9 years than those without metabolic syndrome (8.0%; hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI 1.26-1.64; p<0.0001). This increased risk was significantly reduced by intensive therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg beyond that achieved with atorvastatin 10 mg. INTERPRETATION These data indicate that patients with coronary heart disease and metabolic syndrome derive incremental benefit from high-dose atorvastatin therapy, irrespective of the presence of diabetes.

Lipids, Apolipoproteins, and Their Ratios in Relation to Cardiovascular Events With Statin Treatment

Background— Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is the principal target of lipid-lowering therapy, but recent evidence has suggested more appropriate targets. We compared the relationships of on-treatment levels of LDL cholesterol, non–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B, as well as ratios of total/HDL cholesterol, LDL/HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B/A-I, with the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients receiving statin therapy. Methods and Results— A post hoc analysis was performed that combined data from 2 prospective, randomized clinical trials in which 10 001 (“Treating to New Targets”) and 8888 (“Incremental Decrease in End Points through Aggressive Lipid Lowering”) patients with established coronary heart disease were assigned to usual-dose or high-dose statin treatment. In models with LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B were positively associated with cardiovascular outcome, whereas a positive relationship with LDL cholesterol was lost. In a model that contained non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B, neither was significant owing to collinearity. Total/HDL cholesterol ratio and the apolipoprotein B/A-I ratio in particular were each more closely associated with outcome than any of the individual proatherogenic lipoprotein parameters. Conclusions— In patients receiving statin therapy, on-treatment levels of non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B were more closely associated with cardiovascular outcome than levels of LDL cholesterol. Inclusion of measurements of the antiatherogenic lipoprotein fraction further strengthened the relationships. These data support the use of non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B as novel treatment targets for statin therapy. Given the absence of interventions that have been proven to consistently reduce cardiovascular disease risk through raising plasma levels of HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein A-I, it seems premature to consider the ratio variables as clinically useful.

Very low levels of atherogenic lipoproteins and the risk for cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis of statin trials.

BACKGROUND Levels of atherogenic lipoproteins achieved with statin therapy are highly variable, but the consequence of this variability for cardiovascular disease risk is not well-documented. OBJECTIVES The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate: 1) the interindividual variability of reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), or apolipoprotein B (apoB) levels achieved with statin therapy; 2) the proportion of patients not reaching guideline-recommended lipid levels on high-dose statin therapy; and 3) the association between very low levels of atherogenic lipoproteins achieved with statin therapy and cardiovascular disease risk. METHODS This meta-analysis used individual patient data from 8 randomized controlled statin trials, in which conventional lipids and apolipoproteins were determined in all study participants at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS Among 38,153 patients allocated to statin therapy, a total of 6,286 major cardiovascular events occurred in 5,387 study participants during follow-up. There was large interindividual variability in the reductions of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB achieved with a fixed statin dose. More than 40% of trial participants assigned to high-dose statin therapy did not reach an LDL-C target <70 mg/dl. Compared with patients who achieved an LDL-C >175 mg/dl, those who reached an LDL-C 75 to <100 mg/dl, 50 to <75 mg/dl, and <50 mg/dl had adjusted hazard ratios for major cardiovascular events of 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.67), 0.51 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.62), and 0.44 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.55), respectively. Similar associations were observed for non-HDL-C and apoB. CONCLUSIONS The reductions of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB levels achieved with statin therapy displayed large interindividual variation. Among trial participants treated with high-dose statin therapy, >40% did not reach an LDL-C target <70 mg/dl. Patients who achieve very low LDL-C levels have a lower risk for major cardiovascular events than do those achieving moderately low levels.

J-curve revisited: an analysis of blood pressure and cardiovascular events in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Trial

AIM In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), a J-curve relationship has been reported between blood pressure (BP) and future cardiovascular events. However, this is controversial. The purpose of the study was to determine the relationship between on-treatment BP and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS We evaluated 10 001 patients with CAD and a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level <130 mg/dL, randomized to atorvastatin 80 vs. 10 mg, enrolled in the TNT trial. The post-baseline, time-dependent BPs [systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)] were categorized into 10 mmHg increments. The primary outcome was a composite of death from coronary disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), resuscitated cardiac arrest, and fatal or non-fatal stroke. Among the 10 001 patients, 982 (9.82%) experienced a primary outcome at 4.9 years (median) of follow-up. The relationship between SBP or DBP and primary outcome followed a J-curve with increased event rates above and below the reference BP range, both unadjusted and adjusted (for baseline covariates, treatment effect, and LDL levels). A time-dependent, non-linear, multivariate Cox proportional hazard model identified a nadir of 146.3/81.4 mmHg where the event rate was lowest. A similar non-linear relationship with a higher risk of events at lower pressures was found for most of the secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal MI, or angina. However, for the outcome of stroke, lower was better for SBP. CONCLUSION In patients with CAD, a low BP (<110-120/<60-70 mmHg) portends an increased risk of future cardiovascular events (except stroke).

Guide to Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Task Force on Risk Reduction

The clinical and public health approaches to primary prevention are complementary. Primary prevention refers to guidance given to persons with no known cardiovascular disease. Physicians can contribute to the public health approach through patient education. The first goal of prevention is to prevent the development of risk factors. Physicians should instruct all patients about adopting healthy life habits that will prevent intensification of risk factors. Patient education should be family oriented. Ideally, risk factor prevention begins in childhood. Preventing cigarette smoking by children and adolescents is a prime goal. Another major goal is prevention of overweight and obesity in children and weight gain in adults; overweight lies at the heart of several risk factors. Encouraging life habits that incorporate regular physical activity, especially walking, and active recreational sports likewise will decrease intensity of risk factors. Patients and their …

When to Start Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association Task Force on Risk Reduction

At present a large number of patients with atherosclerotic disease are not receiving aggressive cholesterol-lowering therapy. Consequently they are being deprived of a cost-effective, risk-reducing treatment. Every physician who treats patients with clinical atherosclerotic disease should become fully informed about the results of cholesterol-lowering trials in patients at high risk. All physicians who care for high-risk patients should take responsibility for cholesterol management, including primary care physicians and cardiovascular specialists. Highly effective and generally safe drugs for cholesterol lowering are available. The benefits of therapy for reducing recurrent CHD and prolonging life are considerable. There is no justification for unduly delaying institution of therapy for the majority of patients. The many advantages of nonpharmaceutical therapy call for its use in almost all patients, but drug treatment should not be postponed if the target for LDL cholesterol lowering (< or = 100 mg/dL) is unlikely to be achieved in the near term by a nonpharmaceutical approach alone. The view that patients with CHD or other forms of atherosclerotic disease do not receive substantial clinical benefits from aggressive cholesterol-lowering therapy is no longer warranted. Intensive cholesterol reduction, initiated immediately, has the potential to significantly reduce both morbidity and mortality. Cholesterol-lowering therapy thus should become a routine part of clinical management to reduce risk of future coronary events and to prolong life in patients with CHD or other forms of atherosclerotic disease.

Effects of Conjugated Equine Estrogen With and Without Three Different Progestogens on Lipoproteins, High-density Lipoprotein Subfractions, and Apolipoprotein A-i

The effects of conjugated equine estrogen and subsequent cyclical progestogen supplementation on lipoprotein and apolipoprotein A-I levels were investigated in three groups of postmenopausal women. Unopposed conjugated equine estrogen (0.625 mg) lowered total cholesterol 4-8% and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol 12-19% below pre-treatment levels in all three groups. Levels of highdensity lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I were increased 9-13 and 9-18%, respectively, with unopposed estrogen. The increase in HDL cholesterol was mainly due to increases in the high-density lipoprotein2 (HDL2) subfraction. Addition of medroxyprogesterone acetate, norethindrone acetate, or d,l-norgestrel at doses shown previously to provide protection against endometrial hyperplasia reversed some of the beneficial estrogen effects, reducing levels of HDL cholesterol 14-17%, HDL2 cholesterol 22-37%, and apolipoprotein A-I 11-15% from those obtained cholesterol 22-37%, and apolipoprotein A-I 11-15% from those obtained with unopposed estrogen. The LDL cholesterol levels fell 12-19% with unopposed estrogen but remained 7-12% below baseline when progestogens were added. These observations demonstrate that after 3 months of treatment, all three progestogens reversed some of the favorable effects of unopposed estrogen on lipoproteins but permitted a continued modest reduction in LDL cholesterol.