Seth S. Martin

Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy

This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individuals absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10 000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (ie, 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and in 500 patients (ie, 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (primary prevention). Statin therapy has been shown to reduce vascular disease risk during each year it continues to be taken, so larger absolute benefits would accrue with more prolonged therapy, and these benefits persist long term. The only serious adverse events that have been shown to be caused by long-term statin therapy-ie, adverse effects of the statin-are myopathy (defined as muscle pain or weakness combined with large increases in blood concentrations of creatine kinase), new-onset diabetes mellitus, and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. Typically, treatment of 10 000 patients for 5 years with an effective regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily) would cause about 5 cases of myopathy (one of which might progress, if the statin therapy is not stopped, to the more severe condition of rhabdomyolysis), 50-100 new cases of diabetes, and 5-10 haemorrhagic strokes. However, any adverse impact of these side-effects on major vascular events has already been taken into account in the estimates of the absolute benefits. Statin therapy may cause symptomatic adverse events (eg, muscle pain or weakness) in up to about 50-100 patients (ie, 0·5-1·0% absolute harm) per 10 000 treated for 5 years. However, placebo-controlled randomised trials have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (ie, they represent misattribution). The large-scale evidence available from randomised trials also indicates that it is unlikely that large absolute excesses in other serious adverse events still await discovery. Consequently, any further findings that emerge about the effects of statin therapy would not be expected to alter materially the balance of benefits and harms. It is, therefore, of concern that exaggerated claims about side-effect rates with statin therapy may be responsible for its under-use among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events. For, whereas the rare cases of myopathy and any muscle-related symptoms that are attributed to statin therapy generally resolve rapidly when treatment is stopped, the heart attacks or strokes that may occur if statin therapy is stopped unnecessarily can be devastating.

High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and Cardiovascular Disease: A Resolute Belief or an Elusive Link?

The role of inflammation in the propagation of atherosclerosis and susceptibility to cardiovascular (CV) events is well established. Of the wide array of inflammatory biomarkers that have been studied, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) has received the most attention for its use in screening and risk reclassification and as a predictor of clinical response to statin therapy. Although CRP is involved in the immunologic process that triggers vascular remodeling and plaque deposition and is associated with increased CV disease (CVD) risk, definitive randomized evidence for its role as a causative factor in atherothrombosis is lacking. Whether measurement of hsCRP levels provides consistent, clinically meaningful incremental predictive value in risk prediction and reclassification beyond conventional factors remains debated. Despite publication of guidelines on the use of hsCRP in CVD risk prediction by several leading professional organizations, there is a lack of clear consensus regarding the optimal clinical use of hsCRP. This article reviews 4 distinct points from the literature to better understand the current state and application of hsCRP in clinical practice: 1) the biology of hsCRP and its role in atherosclerosis; 2) the epidemiological association of hsCRP with CVD; 3) the quality of hsCRP as a biomarker of risk; and 4) the use of hsCRP as a tool to initiate or tailor statin therapy. Furthermore, we highlight recommendations from societies and important considerations when using hsCRP to guide treatment decisions in the primary prevention setting.

Friedewald-estimated versus directly measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and treatment implications.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare Friedewald-estimated and directly measured low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values. BACKGROUND LDL-C is routinely estimated by the Friedewald equation to guide treatment; however, compatibility with direct measurement has received relatively little scrutiny, especially at levels <70 mg/dl now targeted in high-risk patients. METHODS We examined 1,340,614 U.S. adults who underwent lipid profiling by vertical spin density gradient ultracentrifugation (Atherotech, Birmingham, Alabama) from 2009 to 2011. Following standard practice, Friedewald LDL-C was not estimated if triglyceride levels were ≥ 400 mg/dl (n = 30,174), yielding 1,310,440 total patients and 191,333 patients with Friedewald LDL-C <70 mg/dl. RESULTS Patients were 59 ± 15 years of age and 52% were women. Lipid distributions closely matched those in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. A greater difference in the Friedewald-estimated versus directly measured LDL-C occurred at lower LDL-C and higher triglyceride levels. If the Friedewald-estimated LDL-C was <70 mg/dl, the median directly measured LDL-C was 9.0 mg/dl higher (5th to 95th percentiles, 1.8 to 15.4 mg/dl) when triglyceride levels were 150 to 199 mg/dl and 18.4 mg/dl higher (5th to 95th percentiles, 6.6 to 36.0 mg/dl) when triglyceride levels were 200 to 399 mg/dl. Of patients with a Friedewald-estimated LDL-C <70 mg/dl, 23% had a directly measured LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dl (39% if triglyceride levels were concurrently 150 to 199 mg/dl; 59% if triglyceride levels were concurrently 200 to 399 mg/dl). CONCLUSIONS The Friedewald equation tends to underestimate LDL-C most when accuracy is most crucial. Especially if triglyceride levels are ≥ 150 mg/dl, Friedewald estimation commonly classifies LDL-C as <70 mg/dl despite directly measured levels ≥ 70 mg/dl, and therefore additional evaluation is warranted in high-risk patients.

Comparison of a Novel Method vs the Friedewald Equation for Estimating Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels From the Standard Lipid Profile

IMPORTANCE In clinical and research settings worldwide, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is typically estimated using the Friedewald equation. This equation assumes a fixed factor of 5 for the ratio of triglycerides to very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG:VLDL-C); however, the actual TG:VLDL-C ratio varies significantly across the range of triglyceride and cholesterol levels. OBJECTIVE To derive and validate a more accurate method for LDL-C estimation from the standard lipid profile using an adjustable factor for the TG:VLDL-C ratio. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We used a convenience sample of consecutive clinical lipid profiles obtained from 2009 through 2011 from 1,350,908 children, adolescents, and adults in the United States. Cholesterol concentrations were directly measured after vertical spin density-gradient ultracentrifugation, and triglycerides were directly measured. Lipid distributions closely matched the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Samples were randomly assigned to derivation (n = 900,605) and validation (n = 450,303) data sets. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Individual patient-level concordance in clinical practice guideline LDL-C risk classification using estimated vs directly measured LDL-C (LDL-CD). RESULTS In the derivation data set, the median TG:VLDL-C was 5.2 (IQR, 4.5-6.0). The triglyceride and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels explained 65% of the variance in the TG:VLDL-C ratio. Based on strata of triglyceride and non-HDL-C values, a 180-cell table of median TG:VLDL-C values was derived and applied in the validation data set to estimate the novel LDL-C (LDL-CN). For patients with triglycerides lower than 400 mg/dL, overall concordance in guideline risk classification with LDL-CD was 91.7% (95% CI, 91.6%-91.8%) for LDL-CN vs 85.4% (95% CI, 85.3%-85.5%) for Friedewald LDL-C (LDL-CF) (P < .001). The greatest improvement in concordance occurred in classifying LDL-C lower than 70 mg/dL, especially in patients with high triglyceride levels. In patients with an estimated LDL-C lower than 70 mg/dL, LDL-CD was also lower than 70 mg/dL in 94.3% (95% CI, 93.9%-94.7%) for LDL-CN vs 79.9% (95% CI, 79.3%-80.4%) for LDL-CF in samples with triglyceride levels of 100 to 149 mg/dL; 92.4% (95% CI, 91.7%-93.1%) for LDL-CN vs 61.3% (95% CI, 60.3%-62.3%) for LDL-CF in samples with triglyceride levels of 150 to 199 mg/dL; and 84.0% (95% CI, 82.9%-85.1%) for LDL-CN vs 40.3% (95% CI, 39.4%-41.3%) for LDL-CF in samples with triglyceride levels of 200 to 399 mg/dL (P < .001 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A novel method to estimate LDL-C using an adjustable factor for the TG:VLDL-C ratio provided more accurate guideline risk classification than the Friedewald equation. These findings require external validation, as well as assessment of their clinical importance. The implementation of these findings into clinical practice would be straightforward and at virtually no cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01698489.

Statins and Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Short- and Long-term Cognitive Effects

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of statins on short-term cognitive function and the long-term incidence of dementia. PATIENTS AND METHODS A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register from their inception to April 25, 2013. Adults with no history of cognitive dysfunction treated with statins were included from high-quality randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies after formal bias assessment. RESULTS Sixteen studies were included in qualitative synthesis and 11 in quantitative synthesis. Short-term trials did not show a consistent effect of statin therapy on cognitive end points. Digit Symbol Substitution Testing (a well-validated measure of cognitive function) was the most common short-term end point, with no significant differences in the mean change from baseline to follow-up between the statin and placebo groups (mean change, 1.65; 95% CI, -0.03 to 3.32; 296 total exposures in 3 trials). Long-term cognition studies included 23,443 patients with a mean exposure duration of 3 to 24.9 years. Three studies found no association between statin use and incident dementia, and 5 found a favorable effect. Pooled results revealed a 29% reduction in incident dementia in statin-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82). CONCLUSION In patients without baseline cognitive dysfunction, short-term data are most compatible with no adverse effect of statins on cognition, and long-term data may support a beneficial role for statins in the prevention of dementia.

Dyslipidemia, Coronary Artery Calcium, and Incident Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Implications for Statin Therapy From the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

Background— Worldwide clinical practice guidelines for dyslipidemia emphasize allocating statin therapy to those at the highest absolute atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods and Results— We examined 5534 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants who were not on baseline medications for dyslipidemia. Participants were classified by baseline coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (>0, ≥100) and the common clinical scheme of counting lipid abnormalities (LA), including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥3.36 mmol/L (130 mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <1.03 mmol/L (40 mg/dL) for men or <1.29 mmol/L (50 mg/dL) for women, and triglycerides ≥1.69 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Our main outcome measure was incident CVD (myocardial infarction, angina resulting in revascularization, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke, cardiovascular death). Over a median follow-up of 7.6 years, more than half of events (55%) occurred in the 21% of participants with CAC ≥100. Conversely, 65% of events occurred in participants with 0 or 1 LA. In those with CAC ≥100, CVD rates ranged from 22.7 to 29.5 per 1000 person-years across LA categories. In contrast, with CAC=0, CVD rates ranged from 2.7 to 5.9 per 1000 person-years across LA categories. Individuals with 0 LA and CAC ≥100 had a higher event rate compared with individuals with 3 LA but CAC=0 (22.7 versus 5.9 per 1000 person-years). Similar results were obtained when we classified LA using data set quartiles of total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or low-density lipoprotein particle concentration and guideline categories of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Conclusions— CAC may have the potential to help match statin therapy to absolute CVD risk. Across the spectrum of dyslipidemia, event rates similar to secondary prevention populations were observed for patients with CAC ≥100. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-26}Background— Worldwide clinical practice guidelines for dyslipidemia emphasize allocating statin therapy to those at the highest absolute atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods and Results— We examined 5534 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants who were not on baseline medications for dyslipidemia. Participants were classified by baseline coronary artery calcium (CAC) score (>0, ≥100) and the common clinical scheme of counting lipid abnormalities (LA), including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥3.36 mmol/L (130 mg/dL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <1.03 mmol/L (40 mg/dL) for men or <1.29 mmol/L (50 mg/dL) for women, and triglycerides ≥1.69 mmol/L (150 mg/dL). Our main outcome measure was incident CVD (myocardial infarction, angina resulting in revascularization, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke, cardiovascular death). Over a median follow-up of 7.6 years, more than half of events (55%) occurred in the 21% of participants with CAC ≥100. Conversely, 65% of events occurred in participants with 0 or 1 LA. In those with CAC ≥100, CVD rates ranged from 22.7 to 29.5 per 1000 person-years across LA categories. In contrast, with CAC=0, CVD rates ranged from 2.7 to 5.9 per 1000 person-years across LA categories. Individuals with 0 LA and CAC ≥100 had a higher event rate compared with individuals with 3 LA but CAC=0 (22.7 versus 5.9 per 1000 person-years). Similar results were obtained when we classified LA using data set quartiles of total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or low-density lipoprotein particle concentration and guideline categories of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Conclusions— CAC may have the potential to help match statin therapy to absolute CVD risk. Across the spectrum of dyslipidemia, event rates similar to secondary prevention populations were observed for patients with CAC ≥100.

Non-cardiovascular effects associated with statins.

Statins form the pharmacologic cornerstone of the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In addition to beneficial cardiovascular effects, statins seem to have multiple non-cardiovascular effects. Although early concerns about statin induced hepatotoxicity and cancer have subsided owing to reassuring evidence, two of the most common concerns that clinicians have are myopathy and diabetes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that statins are associated with a modest increase in the risk of myositis but not the risk of myalgia. Severe myopathy (rhabdomyolysis) is rare and often linked to a statin regimen that is no longer recommended (simvastatin 80 mg). Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses suggest an increase in the risk of diabetes with statins, particularly with higher intensity regimens in people with two or more components of the metabolic syndrome. Other non-cardiovascular effects covered in this review are contrast induced nephropathy, cognition, cataracts, erectile dysfunction, and venous thromboembolism. Currently, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines indicate that the cardiovascular benefits of statins generally outweigh non-cardiovascular harms in patients above a certain threshold of cardiovascular risk. Literature is also accumulating on the potential non-cardiovascular benefits of statins, which could lead to novel applications of this class of drug in the future.

HDL cholesterol subclasses, myocardial infarction, and mortality in secondary prevention: the lipoprotein investigators collaborative

AIMS High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is highly heterogeneous and the link of its subclasses to prognosis remains controversial. We aimed to rigorously examine the associations of HDL subclasses with prognosis in secondary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS We collaboratively analysed data from two, complementary prospective cohorts: the TRIUMPH study of 2465 acute myocardial infarction patients, and the IHCS study of 2414 patients who underwent coronary angiography. All patients had baseline HDL subclassification by vertical-spin density gradient ultracentrifugation. Given non-linearity, we stratified by tertiles of HDL-C and its two major subclasses (HDL2-C, HDL3-C), then compared multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for mortality and mortality/myocardial infarction. Patients were middle-aged to elderly (TRIUMPH: 58.2 ± 12.2 years; IHCS: 62.6 ± 12.6 years), and the majority were men (TRIUMPH: 68.0%; IHCS: 65.5%). IHCS had lower mean HDL-C levels (34.6 ± 10.1 mg/dL) compared with TRIUMPH (40 ± 10.6 mg/dL). HDL3-C accounted for >3/4 of HDL-C (mean HDL3-C/HDL-C 0.78 ± 0.05 in both cohorts). During 2 years of follow-up in TRIUMPH, 226 (9.2%) deaths occurred, while death/myocardial infarction occurred in 401 (16.6%) IHCS patients over 5 years. No independent associations with outcomes were observed for HDL-C or HDL2-C. In contrast, the lowest tertile of HDL3-C was independently associated with >50% higher risk in each cohort (TRIUMPH: with middle tertile as reference, fully adjusted HR for mortality of HDL3-C, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.13-2.18; IHCS: fully adjusted HR for mortality/myocardial infarction, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.20-2.00). CONCLUSION In secondary prevention, increased risk for long-term hard clinical events is associated with low HDL3-C, but not HDL2-C or HDL-C, highlighting the potential value of subclassifying HDL-C.

Clinician-Patient Risk Discussion for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Importance to Implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines

Successful implementation of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines hinges on a clear understanding of the clinician-patient risk discussion (CPRD). This is a dialogue between the clinician and patient about potential for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction benefits, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences. Designed especially for primary prevention patients, this process of shared decision making establishes the appropriateness of a statin for a specific patient. CPRD respects the autonomy of an individual striving to make an informed choice aligned with personal values and preferences. Dedicating sufficient time to high-quality CPRD offers an opportunity to strengthen clinician-patient relationships, patient engagement, and medication adherence. We review the guideline-recommended CPRD, the general concept of shared decision making and decision aids, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Risk Estimator application as an implementation tool, and address potential barriers to implementation.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and serum lipoproteins: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

OBJECTIVE While nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with the metabolic syndrome, it is not known if NAFLD plays an independent role in the atherogenic dyslipidemia phenotype. METHODS AND RESULTS The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) is a population-based prospective cohort study of adults free of clinical cardiovascular disease at enrollment. We tested for a relationship between NAFLD, defined as a liver/spleen (L/S) attenuation ratio of <1 on a non-contrast cardiac CT scan, and multiple measures of fasting serum lipoprotein size, cholesterol and particle concentrations. NAFLD was present in 569 (17%) of 3362 participants. After adjustment for multiple metabolic risk factors, adiposity and measures of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), NAFLD was independently associated with higher fasting serum triglycerides and lower serum HDL-C. Despite a lack of association with LDL-C, NAFLD was associated with higher LDL particle concentration and lower LDL particle size. Modeling the L/S ratio as a continuous variable, a severity dependent association was observed between atherogenic lipoprotein abnormalities and NAFLD. CONCLUSION In a large, multi-ethnic, gender balanced cohort, CT-diagnosed NAFLD was associated with the atherogenic dyslipidemia phenotype in a dose dependent fashion. These relationships persisted after adjustment for several metabolic risk factors and HOMA-IR, suggesting a possible independent pathophysiologic role between NAFLD and dyslipidemia.