Rafael Carmena

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.

Apo B versus cholesterol in estimating cardiovascular risk and in guiding therapy: report of the thirty-person/ten-country panel.

There is abundant evidence that the risk of atherosclerotic vascular disease is directly related to plasma cholesterol levels. Accordingly, all of the national and transnational screening and therapeutic guidelines are based on total or LDL cholesterol. This presumes that cholesterol is the most important lipoprotein‐related proatherogenic risk variable. On the contrary, risk appears to be more directly related to the number of circulating atherogenic particles that contact and enter the arterial wall than to the measured concentration of cholesterol in these lipoprotein fractions. Each of the atherogenic lipoprotein particles contains a single molecule of apolipoprotein (apo) B and therefore the concentration of apo B provides a direct measure of the number of circulating atherogenic lipoproteins. Evidence from fundamental, epidemiological and clinical trial studies indicates that apo B is superior to any of the cholesterol indices to recognize those at increased risk of vascular disease and to judge the adequacy of lipid‐lowering therapy. On the basis of this evidence, we believe that apo B should be included in all guidelines as an indicator of cardiovascular risk. In addition, the present target adopted by the Canadian guideline groups of an apo B <90 mg dL−1 in high‐risk patients should be reassessed in the light of the new clinical trial results and a new ultra‐low target of <80 mg dL−1 be considered. The evidence also indicates that the apo B/apo A‐I ratio is superior to any of the conventional cholesterol ratios in patients without symptomatic vascular disease or diabetes to evaluate the lipoprotein‐related risk of vascular disease.

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.

Atherogenic Lipoprotein Particles in Atherosclerosis

The importance of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in the development of atherosclerosis has long been recognized, and LDL cholesterol remains the primary target of therapy for the prevention of coronary heart disease. Nevertheless, increasing research attention over the past decade has been devoted to the heterogeneity of LDL particles and the atherogenicity of lipids and lipoproteins other than LDL. Particularly atherogenic forms of LDL include small, dense LDL particles and oxidized LDL. All lipoproteins that contain apolipoprotein B, such as LDL, very-low-density lipoprotein, and intermediate-density lipoprotein, tend to promote atherosclerosis; however, these particles differ in their apolipoprotein and triglyceride content. High levels of plasma triglycerides increase the risk of acute coronary events. Lipoprotein(a) is now considered an independent risk factor in both men and women. Ultimately, better understanding of the roles of these lipid particles and subfractions in the initiation and progression of atherosclerosis may affect treatment decisions.

An International Atherosclerosis Society Position Paper: Global recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia

An international panel of the International Atherosclerosis Society has developed a new set of recommendations for management of dyslipidemia. The panel identifies non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as the major atherogenic lipoprotein. Primary and secondary prevention are considered separately. Optimal levels for atherogenic lipoproteins are derived for the two forms of prevention. For primary prevention, the recommendations emphasize lifestyle therapies to reduce atherogenic lipoproteins; drug therapy is reserved for higher risk subjects. Risk assessment is based on estimation of lifetime risk according to differences in baseline population risk in different nations or regions. Secondary prevention emphasizes use of cholesterol-lowering drugs to attain optimal levels of atherogenic lipoproteins.

Cuantificación de insulinorresistencia con los valores de insulina basal e índice HOMA en una población no diabética

Fundamento Calcular la prevalencia y definir el sindrome de insulinorresistencia mediante la determinacion de insulinemia basal y el indice HOMA, y estudiar su relacion con otros componentes del sindrome metabolico. Sujetos y metodo Estudiamos una poblacion de 292 sujetos no diabeticos, de ambos sexos y edades entre 20 y 65 anos, seleccionados por un metodo de muestreo simple aleatorio entre los que consultaron durante un ano en un centro de salud (en el area metropolitana de Valencia), mediante un metodo de busqueda oportunista. De ellos se selecciono a un subgrupo formado por 96 sujetos que no tenian caracteristicas clinicas ni analiticas del sindrome de insulinorresistencia, y se estudiaron los lipidos plasmaticos, parametros antropometricos, glucosa e insulina plasmatica y el valor del indice HOMA. Resultados El diagnostico de insulinorresistencia se ha establecido por los cortes del percentil 90 de la subpoblacion sin parametros clinicos ni analiticos del sindrome de insulinorresistencia, considerando una insulina plasmatica basal de 16,7 mU/l o superior, o indice HOMA de 3,8 o mayor. El indice HOMA es mas sensible que la insulina plasmatica para el diagnostico de insulinorresistencia. La prevalencia de insulinorresistencia (HOMA ≥ 3,8) en la poblacion estudiada por nosotros es elevada, 31,8%, siendo mas frecuente en hombres que en mujeres. Conclusion Ademas de los valores plasmaticos de insulina e indice HOMA, los mejores indicadores clinicobioquimicos de insulinorresistencia son los valores de glucemia en ayunas, el indice de masa corporal (IMC) y los trigliceridos plasmaticos. Asi, la razon de probabilidad de tener insulinorresistencia es de 5,9, 2,6 y 2,2, respectivamente para glucemia ≥ 110 mg/dl, IMC ≥ 25 kg/m2 y trigliceridos ≥ 150 mg/dl.

Plant sterols and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of increased serum concentrations of plant sterols on cardiovascular risk is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether there is an association between serum concentrations of two common plant sterols (sitosterol, campesterol) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). We systematically searched the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE for studies published between January 1950 and April 2010 that reported either risk ratios (RR) of CVD in relation to serum sterol concentrations (either absolute or expressed as ratios relative to total cholesterol) or serum sterol concentrations in CVD cases and controls separately. We conducted two meta-analyses, one based on RR of CVD contrasting the upper vs. the lower third of the sterol distribution, and another based on standardized mean differences between CVD cases and controls. Summary estimates were derived by fixed and random effects meta-analysis techniques. We identified 17 studies using different designs (four case–control, five nested case–control, three cohort, five cross-sectional) involving 11 182 participants. Eight studies reported RR of CVD and 15 studies reported serum concentrations in CVD cases and controls. Funnel plots showed evidence for publication bias indicating small unpublished studies with non-significant findings. Neither of our meta-analyses suggested any relationship between serum concentrations of sitosterol and campesterol (both absolute concentrations and ratios to cholesterol) and risk of CVD. Our systematic review and meta-analysis did not reveal any evidence of an association between serum concentrations of plant sterols and risk of CVD.

The response to lovastatin treatment in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia is modulated by apolipoprotein E polymorphism

In a retrospective study, we examined the influence of apolipoprotein (apo) E polymorphism and gender on the response to treatment with 80 mg/d lovastatin in a homogeneous population of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), most of whom were carriers of the 10-kb deletion of the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor gene. Apo E phenotype distribution among the 189 FH patients was not different from that of a normal population sample. The total and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) response to lovastatin in the overall group (men and women) was significantly lower in the E4 subset compared with E2 and E3 subsets. This finding is in agreement with trends observed in previous reports. On the other hand, the response of LDL-C to lovastatin was significantly lower in E4 men than in E4 women, whereas the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentration in the E4 group increased significantly more in men than in women, suggesting a role of gender in modulating the response to lovastatin. Hence, apo E polymorphism influenced LDL-C (and HDL-C) response to lovastatin in men, but not in women, revealing the existence of a gene-by-gender interaction. These findings were independent of the nature of the LDL receptor defect. We conclude that male FH patients carrying the epsilon 4 allele respond less efficiently to lovastatin than men carrying the epsilon 3 or epsilon 2 allele or women of any apo E phenotype with respect to decreasing total cholesterol and LDL-C levels, but respond more efficiently with respect to increasing HDL-C levels. The full practical implication of these findings remains to be explored.

Coronary Heart Disease: Reducing The Risk A Worldwide View

Worldwide, cardiovascular diseases are now the most common cause of death and a substantial source of chronic disability and health costs. In the light of new data from clinical trials and a fuller understanding of risk factors, the International Task Force for the Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, in cooperation with the International Atherosclerosis Society, prepared a revised and comprehensive statement regarding the scientific basis of the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The following is a short account of the clinical implications of this statement. It is best read in conjunction with the full document, which can be found at http://www.chd-taskforce.com Assessing a patient’s overall or global risk of cardiovascular disease is the first step in preventive care, for it enables the physician to identify and provide the appropriate level of treatment for risk factors. Much can be learned from measuring even a few risk factors. The fuller the knowledge of the patient’s risk status, the sounder the treatment decisions. Initial costs may be offset by long-term rational treatment. The goals of treatment and, hence, the extent of dietary change and the need for (and choice and dosage of) drug treatment all depend on global risk assessment. Two methods for determining global risk follow. Note and tabulate the following risk factors, including those laboratory investigations that are available. ### Age, Sex, and Menopausal Status Risk increases progressively with adult age, and coronary heart disease (CHD) is most common after the age of 60 years. In premenopausal women, CHD is rare (except in those who use oral contraceptives and smoke). After menopause, risk increases steeply, approaching that of men after the age of 70 years. ### History of Cardiovascular Disease The risk of further CHD events or stroke is much higher in persons with a history of myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, or intermittent claudication and in those who have ischemic …

A proposal to redefine familial combined hyperlipidaemia -- third workshop on FCHL held in Barcelona from 3 to 5 May 2001, during the scientific sessions of the European Society for Clinical Investigation.

Familial combined hyperlipidaemia (FCHL) was described in 1973 by three separate groups as a common familial disorder characterized by multiple lipoprotein phenotypes and an increased risk of premature coronary artery disease [1– 3]. No metabolic explanation was offered for the variable lipid phenotypes and opinion differed as to whether this was likely to be a monogenic or polygenic disorder. In 1986, the first FCHL workshop was held in Seattle and at that meeting an elevated plasma apolipoprotein B (apoB) was added to the list of characteristics. However, it was not made an essential feature, nor was any change to the fundamental approach to phenotypic classification suggested, notwithstanding that complexity of diagnosis severely limits clinical application and comparison of research results [4]. In 1998, investigators met in Helsinki for the second FCHL workshop and heard of the newest efforts to identify the genetic and metabolic bases for FCHL. All of the analyses were presented within the context of the original diagnostic approach. At the most recent meeting of the European Society for Clinical Investigation in Barcelona, the third workshop on FCHL was organized by Dr J. Ribalta (Reus, Spain) and Dr M. Castro Cabezas (Utrecht, the Netherlands) to reconsider this most common, but least well characterized, familial atherogenic dyslipoproteinaemia. Our objective became to search for the most important pathophysiological features. From the outset, as outlined by Professor M-R. Taskinen (Helsinki, Finland) , the two most well-documented features are increased very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) secretion and impaired clearance of postprandial lipoproteins [5,6]. The increased VLDL2 secretion results in hypertriglyceridaemia and an elevated plasma apoB. Long residence time of VLDL1 particles favour the formation of small dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Based on this, we considered the hypothesis that the phenotype of FCHL might not be multiple but unitary – namely, hypertriglyceridaemic (hyperTg) hyperapoB. If so, FCHL phenotype could be defined more simply and consistently as follows. The phenotype of hyperTg hyperapoB would have to be present in more than one family member and at least one individual in the family must have premature symptomatic coronary artery disease. Other genetic disorders and secondary causes of dyslipidaemia, including type 1 and type 2 diabetes would, of course, have to be excluded [4,5]. It was emphasized that such a change only represents an evolution in diagnosis based on the advances in knowledge and technology that have occurred since the disorder was Mike Rosenbloom Laboratory for Cardiovascular Research, McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (A. D. Sniderman); Departments of Internal Medicine and Endocrinology, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, the Netherlands (M. Castro Cabezas, D. W. Erkelens); Unitat de Recerca de Lípids i Arteriosclerosi, Facultat de Medicina, Hospital Universitari de Sant Joan, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Reus, Spain (J. Ribalta, L. Masana); Servicio de Endocrinología, Departamento de Medicina, Universidad de Valencia, Valencia, Spain (R. Carmena, J. T. Real); Departments of Medicine and Endocrinology, Academic Hospital, 6202 AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands (T. W. A. de Bruin); Department General Internal Medicine 541, UMC Nijmegen, the Netherlands (J. de Graaf); Division of Cardiovascular Genetics, Department of Medicine, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London WC1E 6JJ, UK (S. E. Humphries, P. J. Talmud); Department of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland (M. R. Taskinen).