LDL as a therapeutic target. / LDL como objetivo terapéutico.

The incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovsacular disease (ASCVC) has increased in the developed countries. Dyslipidemia is a primary major risk factor for ASCVD and LDL lowering is one of the main objectives. Although treatment goals for dyslipidemias should be personalized in every patient, statins are cost-effective in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. New treatments with higher power and greater decreases in LDL, PSCK9 inhibitors, have made a new breakthrough in ASCVD treatment. The 2019 Guidelines for de Management of Dyslipidaemias: Lipid Modification to reduce Cardiovascular Risk (European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) with the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations can facilitate the best decisions and benefits to our patients in clinical practice.

LDL as a therapeutic objective. / LDL como objetivo terapéutico.

The incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has increased in the developed countries. Dyslipidemia is a primary major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL lowering is one of the main objectives. Although treatment goals for dyslipidemias should be personalized in every patient, statins are cost-effective in primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. New treatments with higher power and greater decreases in LDL, PSCK9 inhibitors, have made a new breakthrough in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treatment. The 2019 guidelines for de management of dyslipidemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk (European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) with the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations can facilitate the best decisions and benefits to our patients in clinical practice.

Management of atherogenic dyslipidemia in the primary care setting in Spain.

AIM: To describe the management of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) in routine clinical practice in the Primary Care (PC) setting in Spain. METHODS: Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study based on a structured questionnaire designed for this study and addressed to PC physicians. The questionnaire content was based on a literature review and was validated by 3 experts in AD. RESULTS: A total of 1029 PC physicians participated in the study. 96.99% indicated that AD is determinant for cardiovascular risk, even if LDL-C levels are appropriate. 88.43% evaluated residual cardiovascular risk in their clinical practice, however, only 27.89% of them evaluated it in secondary prevention. Regarding diagnosis, 82.22% reported that TC, TG, HDL-C and non-HDL-C are essential measures when evaluating AD. Almost all physicians reported that they can request fractionated cholesterol to assess HDL-C and LDL-C, however 3.69% could not. Physicians (95.63%) considered that the first step in AD treatment should be diet, regular exercise, smoking cessation and pharmaceutical treatment, if necessary. 19.1% agreed partially or completely that gemfibrozil is the most suitable fibrate to associate with statins. 74.83% completely agreed that fenofibrate is the most suitable fibrate to combine with statins. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians have access to general Spanish guidelines and recommendations associated with AD management, however, it is necessary to continue rising awareness about the importance of early detection and optimal control of AD to reduce patients' cardiovascular risk.

[The role of atherogenic dyslipidaemia in clinical practice guidelines]. / El papel de la dislipemia aterogénica en las guías de práctica clínica.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Atherogenic dyslipidaemia is underdiagnosed, undertreated, and under-controlled. The aim of the present study was to assess the positioning of clinical guidelines as regards atherogenic dyslipidaemia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The major clinical guidelines of scientific societies or official agencies issued between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2015 were collected from the MEDLINE database. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, atherogenic dyslipidaemia, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B were gathered from the 10 selected guidelines, and it was assessed whether these parameters were considered a cardiovascular risk factor, a therapeutic target, or proposed a pharmacological strategy. RESULTS: American guidelines, except the National Lipid Association (NLA), do not consider HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in cardiovascular prevention. The NLA emphasises the relevance of atherogenic dyslipidaemia. The Canadian guidelines introduced non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB as alternative targets, and proposes non-statin treatment in the presence of low HDL cholesterol and hypertriglyceridaemia. The International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines promote the importance of non-HDL cholesterol. European, Brazilian and Japanese guidelines highlight HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, but with the limitation that the main evidence comes from sub-analysis of clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical guidelines analysed do not consider, or unconvincingly address, the importance of atherogenic dyslipidaemia.

Cardiometabolic Risk Related to the Association of hypertriglyceridemia-Low HDLc.

AIMS: High levels of plasma triglycerides (TG) are a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases often associated with anomalies in other lipids or lipoproteins. However, results from randomized trials, suggesting that low high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) might not cause cardiovascular disease, as originally thought, have generated renewed interest in increased concentrations of TG. The objective has been to determine the prevalence and factors associated with hypertrigliceridemia (HTG) and with low HDLc. METHODS: Patients, included in the HTG Registry of the Spanish Association of Atherosclerosis, have been analyzed and anthropometric as well as metabolic data have been collected from them. RESULTS: 1349 patients have been evaluated. Low HDLc has been found in 60.86% (821). Factors significantly associated with low HDLc and HTG were the female sex, being overweight with an increase in the body mass index, using tobacco, diabetes mellitus, low-alcohol consumption and a low exercise rate. Among them, two types of association may be identified with anthropometric variables (especially in men) and metabolic variables (diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome). No significant differences have been found insofar as the prevalence of cardiovascular illness between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: HTG - low HDLc association is very frequent and it is related to overweight-obesity and other metabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus with or without metabolic syndrome. In addition, these findings underscore the intricate relationship between HDLc, TG, and glucose metabolism that need to be studied simultaneously. In this context, TG lowering treatment is suggested to be more strongly recommended to address the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

[METABOLIC SYNDROME IN PATIENTS WITH CLINICAL PHENOTYPE "HYPERTRIGLYCERIDEMIC WAIST"]. / SINDROME METABÓLICO EN PACIENTES CON FENOTIPO CLÍNICO DE "CINTURA HIPERTRIGLICERIDÉMICA".

INTRODUCTION: hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype has been associated with metabolic syndrome. OBJETIVES: in the present work has been raised to study the relationship between hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype and metabolic syndrome as well as other metabolic risk factors. And finally, assess whether it is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: this study was conducted recruiting patients in a national registry of hypertriglyceridemia of the Spanish Society of Artherosclerosis. The total number of patients included in the present study was 1 369. The criteria used to define the increased waist perimeter and metabolic syndrome were based on those established by the ATPIII or IDF, respectively. RESULTS: hypertriglyceridemic waist prevalence in patients with hypertriglyceridemia was near to 50% and 80% using ATPII and IDF anthropometric criteria, respectively. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in these patients was close to 97% (ATPIII criteria) and 63% (IDF criteria). Also was significantly higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2. However, the association with cardiovascular disease does not depend on the existence of hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype, but the existence (or not) of metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: the CHTG can be used in clinical practice routine as a marker of metabolic alterations.

Introducción: el fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica se ha asociado con la presencia de síndrome metabólico. Objetivo: en el presente estudio se ha planteado estudiar la relación entre el fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica y el síndrome metabólico, así como otros factores de riesgo metabólicos. Y, finalmente, valorar si se asocia a un incremento del riesgo cardiovascular. Métodos: este estudio se ha realizado reclutando a los pacientes incluidos en un registro nacional de hipertrigliceridemias de la Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis. El total de pacientes evaluables para el presente estudio ha sido de 1.369. Los criterios empleados para definir el aumento de perímetro y para el síndrome metabólico fueron en base a los establecidos por la ATPIII o por la IDF, respectivamente. Resultados: la prevalencia de cintura hipertrigliceridémica en los pacientes con hipertrigliceridemia resultó casi del 50 % y 80 % empleándose criterios antropométricos de ATPIII y de IDF, respectivamente. La prevalencia de síndrome metabólico en estos pacientes estuvo próxima al 97% (criterios ATPIII) y al 63% (criterios IDF). Asimismo, resultó significativamente elevada la prevalencia de hipertensión arterial y de diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Sin embargo, la asociación con la enfermedad cardiovascular no dependía de la existencia del fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica, sino de la existencia (o no) de síndrome metabólico. Conclusiones: la CHTG puede ser utilizada en la práctica clínica habitual como un marcador de alteraciones metabólicas.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management: differences between the European and American Guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en pacientes con riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto en España.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in Spain, according to the European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: A Markov long-term cost-effectiveness model of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk defined according to 5 factors (sex, age, smoking habit, baseline cholesterol level, and systolic blood pressure) using the SCORE system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed in euros per quality adjusted life years and is calculated according to the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin is associated with a greater health benefit than the other statins across the considered profiles. Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared to simvastatin in patients with SCORE risk ≥8% in females and ≥6% in males, while between 5% and the indicated values its cost-effectiveness is conditional to the patient baseline c-LDL level. Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective versus atorvastatin in female profiles associated with a SCORE risk≥11% and male profiles with SCORE risk ≥10%. Rosuvastatin is superior versus pitavastatin in both female and male profiles with high and very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin, especially in specific profiles of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk factors, according to the SCORE system, in Spain.

[Spanish interdisciplinary committee for cardiovascular disease prevention and the spanish society of cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and american guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and American guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del comité español interdisciplinario de prevención cardiovascular y la sociedad española de cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and American guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Use of expert consensus to improve atherogenic dyslipidemia management.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Although atherogenic dyslipidemia is a recognized cardiovascular risk factor, it is often underassessed and thus undertreated and poorly controlled in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to reach a multidisciplinary consensus for the establishment of a set of clinical recommendations on atherogenic dyslipidemia to optimize its prevention, early detection, diagnostic evaluation, therapeutic approach, and follow-up. METHODS: After a review of the scientific evidence, a scientific committee formulated 87 recommendations related to atherogenic dyslipidemia, which were grouped into 5 subject areas: general concepts (10 items), impact and epidemiology (4 items), cardiovascular risk (32 items), detection and diagnosis (19 items), and treatment (22 items). A 2-round modified Delphi method was conducted to compare the opinions of a panel of 65 specialists in cardiology (23%), endocrinology (24.6%), family medicine (27.7%), and internal medicine (24.6%) on these issues. RESULTS: After the first round, the panel reached consensus on 65 of the 87 items discussed, and agreed on 76 items by the end of the second round. Insufficient consensus was reached on 3 items related to the detection and diagnosis of atherogenic dyslipidemia and 3 items related to the therapeutic goals to be achieved in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: The external assessment conducted by experts on atherogenic dyslipidemia showed a high level of professional agreement with the proposed clinical recommendations. These recommendations represent a useful tool for improving the clinical management of patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. A detailed analysis of the current scientific evidence is required for those statements that eluded consensus.

[Prevalence of diabetes in an adult population in the region of Madrid (Spain). The Madrid Cardiovascular Risk study]. / Prevalencia de diabetes en una población adulta de Madrid (España). Estudio MADRIC (MADrid RIesgo Cardiovascular).

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and impaired fasting glycemia in an adult population living in Madrid (Spain). METHODS: In this cross-sectional, population-based survey, we studied 1,344 adults aged 31-70 years, randomly selected from the population living in 14 primary care districts of the Madrid region. All participants underwent a clinical evaluation that included a clinical interview, physical examination and fasting blood analysis (glycemia, cholesterol and triglyceride levels). The participants were considered to be diabetic if they had been previously diagnosed with diabetes by their general physician or had a fasting glycemia ≥ 126 mg/dl without a previous diabetes diagnosis. Impaired fasting glycemia was defined as fasting glycemia between 100mg/dl and 125 mg/dl in non-diabetic participants. RESULTS: The sex- and age-adjusted prevalence figures for diabetes and impaired fasting glucose were 6.6% (95% CI: 5.9-8.7) and 14.1% (95% CI: 12.1-15.8), respectively. A substantial proportion of diabetic patients [17.2% (95% CI: 10.9-23.5)] had not been previously diagnosed. The variables independently associated with diabetes were age, male gender, abdominal obesity and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Our prevalence figure for diabetes is similar to those reported in other Spanish regions. The high frequency of impaired fasting glucose is worrisome, particularly when combined with obesity, as this association confers a high risk for developing diabetes mellitus.

[Patients with vascular ulcers and cardiovascular risk factors. Case reports]. / Paciente con úlceras vasculares y factores de riesgo cardiovascular. Caso clínico.

We present the case of a patient with severe obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic venous insufficiency, as well as several vascular ulcers in the right extremity with complex clinical course. The importance of the treatment and follow-up of these vascular ulcers in primary care is essential to achieve healing or improvement. Because primary care centers can provide easy access and daily evaluation -if required-, the clinical course of vascular ulcers can be more favorable in this setting than in the hospital setting, where appointments are less frequent. In our case, the patient required several changes of treatment; at all times, the importance of controlling all the cardiovascular risk factors was explained to the patient. The involvement of the patient and his family in the disease, as well as follow-up in the primary care center, were essential to obtaining improvement.