[Familial hypercholesterolemia: A largely underestimated cardiovascular risk]. / Hypercholestérolémie familiale : un risque cardiovasculaire largement sous-estimé.

BACKGROUND: Familial hypercholesterolemia is a monogenic autosomal dominant dyslipidemia characterized by a permanent and isolated increase of cholesterol carried by low-density lipoproteins. The prevalence of its heterozygous form is estimated between 1/500 and 1/250, and in the absence of specific treatment, this form is responsible for an increase by a factor of 13 of the risk of premature coronary artery disease compared to patients non-affected by the disease. OBJECTIVES: To perform an inventory of the knowledge of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia in France for physicians involved in the management of the disease. METHODS: A survey was conducted (by phone and internet) among a representative sample of 495 physicians (cardiologists, endocrinologists/diabetologists, gynecologists, general practitioners) who, in parallel, completed 579 patient records. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent (95% CI [27.8; 36.2]) of physicians reported the difference between polygenic hypercholesterolemia and familial hypercholesterolemia. The presence of tendinous xanthomas, a key element of diagnosis, was spontaneously mentioned by 44% (95% CI [34; 54.2]) of cardiologists. Six percent (95% CI [2.2; 12.6]) of them gave a correct estimate of the prevalence of familial hypercholesterolemia. The likelihood of transmission of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, when one parent is affected, was known for 59% (95% CI [48.7; 68.7]) of surveyed cardiologists. A cascade screening was performed systematically by 4% (95% CI [1.1; 9.9]) of them. Eighteen percent (95% CI [11; 26.9]) of cardiologists gave an accurate estimation of cardiovascular risk of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Fifty-seven percent (95% CI [46.7; 66.8]) of cardiologists admitted being misinformed about the heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and 83% (95% CI [74.1; 89.7]) expressed a need for information about this disease. CONCLUSION: The lack of knowledge of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and its associated cardiovascular risk is probably the cause of a diagnostic default leading to inappropriate management of this disease.

Improvement in LDL-cholesterol levels of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia: can we do better? Analysis of results obtained during the past two decades in 1669 French subjects.

BACKGROUND: Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (heFH) is an autosomal disease that affects about 1/500 people. It is characterized by markedly elevated plasma LDL-cholesterol (C) levels and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim of this study was to measure changes in LDL-C levels in heFH patients over two decades, and to evaluate if patients achieved LDL-C targets. METHODS: Data from 1669 heFH patients in five academic French centers were recorded between 1988 and 2011. RESULTS: The mean LDL-C concentrations under medical care improved between 1988 and 2011 (245 mg/dL before 1995, 164 mg/dL after 2009; p < 0.0001). However, mean LDL-C level and the number of patients treated with statins (79.3%) have not improved since 2005. In patients registered and treated after 2005 (n = 616), only 10.4% reached target LDL-C levels of <100 mg/dL. Indeed, 29.4% (n = 181) were treated with a maximal therapy (statins with a potency of >45% LDL-C reduction plus at least another lipid-lowering agent). Despite maximal treatment, only 18.8% of these heFH patients (n = 34/181) reached target LDL-C levels of <100 mg/dL. In addition, 75.3% of patients with CVD did not reach the LDL-C of <100 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that after significant improvement over the past two decades, the mean LDL-C levels in heFH French patients has remained stable since 2005. We also show that most heFH patients are not achieving their recommended LDL-C goals: this highlights the need for improved treatment and for new therapeutics in this population.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of combination therapy with ezetimibe/statin vs. statin monotherapy in patients with and without diabetes: an analysis of pooled data from 27 clinical trials.

AIM: This post hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (EZE/statin) vs. statin monotherapy in hypercholesterolaemic patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 27 previously published, randomized, double-blind, active- or placebo-controlled clinical trials comprising 21 794 adult patients with (n = 6541) and without (n = 15253) diabetes receiving EZE/statin or statin alone for 4-24 weeks evaluated percentage change from baseline in lipids and other parameters. Consistency of the treatment effect across the subgroups was tested using treatment × subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made. RESULTS: Treatment effects within both subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. EZE/statin was more effective than statin alone in improving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (apo) B and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in the overall population and both subgroups. Patients with diabetes achieved significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C compared with non-diabetic patients. Incidences of adverse events or creatine kinase elevations were similar between groups. A small but significantly higher incidence of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations was seen in patients receiving EZE/statin (0.6%) vs. statin monotherapy (0.3%) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with EZE/statin vs. statin monotherapy provided significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC, TG, non-HDL-C, apo B and hs-CRP and significantly greater increases in HDL-C, with a similar safety profile in patients with and without diabetes. Reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C were larger in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes.

[Recommendations for children with hypercholesterolemia]. / Prise en charge des hypercholestérolémies de l'enfant : recommandations du Comité de nutrition de la Société française de pédiatrie et de la Nouvelle société française d'athérosclérose.

Some cases of hypercholesterolemia observed in childhood present a high risk of premature cardiovascular disease, such as in monogenic dominantly inherited hypercholesterolemia, particularly familial hypercholesterolemia due to mutations on the LDL receptor gene. This article, jointly written by the Société Française de Pédiatrie Nutrition Committee and the Nouvelle Société Française d'Athérosclérose, proposes recommendations for a screening strategy and management of childhood hypercholesterolemia. A practical approach to high-risk cases of inherited hypercholesterolemia is detailed and the dietary management, indications, and supervision of lipid-lowering drug therapy in children are discussed.

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients inadequately controlled with prior statin monotherapy - The IN-CROSS study.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of switching from a previous statin monotherapy to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg vs. rosuvastatin (ROSUVA) 10 mg. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind study, 618 patients with documented hypercholesterolaemia [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or = 2.59 and < or = 4.92 mmol/l] and with high cardiovascular risk who were taking a stable daily dose of one of several statin medications for > or = 6 weeks prior to the study randomisation visit entered a 6-week open-label stabilisation/screening period during which they continued to receive their prestudy statin dose. Following stratification by study site and statin dose/potency, patients were randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 314) or ROSUVA 10 mg (n = 304) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: EZE/SIMVA produced greater reductions in LDL-C (-27.7% vs. -16.9%; p < or = 0.001), total cholesterol (-17.5% vs. -10.3%; p < or = 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (-23.4% vs. -14.0%; p < or = 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (-17.9% vs. -9.8%; p < or = 0.001) compared with ROSUVA, while both treatments were equally effective at increasing HDL-C (2.1% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.433). More patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.59 mmol/l (73% vs. 56%), < 2.00 mmol/l (38% vs. 19%) and < 1.81 mmol/l (25% vs. 11%) with EZE/SIMVA than ROSUVA (p < or = 0.001). A borderline significantly greater reduction in triglycerides (p = 0.056) was observed for EZE/SIMVA (-11.0%) vs. ROSUVA (-5.3%). There were no between-group differences in the incidences of adverse events or liver transaminase and creatine kinase elevations. CONCLUSION: EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg produced greater improvements in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apoB with a similar safety profile as for ROSUVA 10 mg.

[Dyslipidemia and abdominal obesity: mechanisms and characteristics (Part I)]. / Dyslipidémie de l'obésité abdominale: mécanismes et caractéristiques (partie I).

The dyslipidemia classically associated with abdominal obesity is characterised by a metabolic atherogenic triad including an elevation of triglycerides, a low HDL-cholesterol and an excess of small dense LDL fractions. All of these lipid anomalies contribute to an increased cardio-metabolic risk, and are engendered by an excess of visceral adipose tissue. This excess adipose tissue seems to be the direct origin of the dyslipidemia associated with abdominal obesity, causing more free fatty acids to flow into the liver and contributing to insulin resistance.

[Dyslipidemia and abdominal obesity: therapeutic approaches (Part II)]. / Dyslipidémie de l'obésité abdominale: approches thérapeutiques (partie II).

Lifestyle changes form the basis of the therapeutic management of dyslipidemia associated with abdominal obesity and other risk factors associated with an excess of visceral adipose tissue. The use of lipid-lowering agents is justified if the therapeutic objectives are not attained by lifestyle changes alone. New therapeutic approaches are aimed directly at the excess visceral adipose tissue, and the CB1 receptor blockers are particularly promising for improving the overall lipid profile for patients with abdominal obesity.

Prevalence of low HDL-cholesterol in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: The ECHOS (Etude du Cholesterol HDL en Observationnel) French Survey.

A low concentration of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular heart disease (CHD), but little is known about the distribution of HDL-C in France. This study evaluated the prevalence of low HDL-C among a large French population (5232 patients) with other cardiovascular risk factors. Depending on the guidelines used, the prevalence of low HDL-C varied from 8.7% (cutoff value of 35 mg/dl) to 26.9% (National Cholesterol Education Program metabolic syndrome cutoff values). The prevalence of low HDL-C gradually increased with the number of associated risk factors. We identified three independent risk predictors for low HDL-C: hypertriglyceridaemia (HTG), abdominal obesity and gender. Overall, the frequency of HDL-C assessment was very high (>85%) and it was highest in patients with hypercholesterolaemia or a history of CHD. Risk factors more frequently associated with low HDL-C (i.e. HTG, abdominal obesity and type 2 diabetes) were not associated with a more frequent assessment of HDL-C. Our findings indicate that in France, the prevalence of low HDL-C remains relatively high, particularly for patients with obesity and HTG.

Ezetimibe in hypercholesterolaemia.

Ezetimibe is the first member of a new class of selective cholesterol absorption inhibitors, compounds that effectively block intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol, without affecting absorption of fat soluble vitamins or triglycerides. Ezetimibe underwent glucuronidation to a single metabolite and localised at the intestinal wall, where it prevented luminal cholesterol absorption. Pre-clinical studies demonstrated the lipid-lowering and antiatherosclerotic properties of ezetimibe. The efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy have been determined in phase II/III studies: in phase II studies, the optimal efficacy was reached with ezetimibe 10 mg per day and the pooled efficacy data have shown that ezetimibe 10 mg has a positive effect on the lipoprotein profile with a significant reduction in LDL-cholesterol of 18.5%, an increase in HDL-cholesterol of 3.5% and a trend towards lowering in triglyceride concentrations (-4.9%). The monotherapy phase III studies have confirmed the efficacy with a decrease in LDL-C of 17.4% and have demonstrated an excellent safety and tolerability profile. The potential for a pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic interaction between ezetimibe and various statins and the efficacy and safety or the co-administration of ezetimibe and statins have been evaluated in different phase I/II studies: ezetimibe had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin or atorvastatin. Ezetimibe 10 mg co-administrated with the starting dose of any statin induced a mean 18% additive LDL-C lowering effect. This additive 18% reduction in LDL-C is achieved in one step compared with the three steps necessary with statin monotherapy.

[Management of dyslipidemias diagnosed in general practice in France--The PRAGMA Study]. / Prise en charge des dyslipidémies diagnostiquées en médecine générale en France--etude PRAGMA.

Several studies have reported the penetration and impact of national and international recommendations on the management of dyslipidaemia, a major cardiovascular risk factor. Most of them were carried out on patients participating in clinical trials or on in-hospital cases. The PRAGMA study was developed in order to evaluate management of this condition in general practice, at the heart of the health care system. From September to December 1998, 1,717 general practitioners were chosen randomly and included 6,623 patients considered to have a lipid disorder. In this sample, the prevalence of the main risk factors was as follows: hypertension: 39.6%, diabetes: 11.6%, obesity: 19.6%, past or present smokers: 33.8%. The main lines of management consisted in prescribing lipid lowering drugs (96.6%) with dietary recommendations (95.8%) and a fall lipid profile (59.9%). The main factors spontaneously cited by the general practitioners as being decisional were: the total cholesterol level (47.8%), diet (40.8%), body weight (29.4%) and drug therapy (19.2%). The cardiovascular risk factors were rarely taken into account in their totality. These results suggest that the management of dyslipidaemia patients by general practitioners is far from being optimal. Efforts should be made to change attitudes to take into consideration the global cardiovascular risk factors of patients with lipid disorders.

[Hyperlipidemia in the elderly]. / Hyperlipidémies du sujet âgé.

UNLABELLED: THE ELDERLY SUBJECT: Cardiovascular prevention trials have clearly established the beneficial effect of lipid-lowering drugs, basically statins, for adults, and in particular for adult males. There has not however been any study specifically analyzing prevention in the elderly. In addition, the relationships between high cholesterol level and cardiovascular risk in the elderly subject are complex and require specific adaptation with markers of poor health status. PREVENTIVE MEASURES: Even though the relationship between elevated total cholesterol or LDL-cholesterol and cardiovascular risk is difficult to demonstrate in the elderly, analyses of subpopulations are beginning to show evidence that a lipid-lowering treatment can have a beneficial preventive effect in the elderly. Other research avenues also point to perspectives for stroke prevention or reduced risk of dementia in patients treated with statins. RECOMMENDATIONS: Until the results of ongoing clinical trials become available, recommendations for therapeutic strategies in the elderly are basically founded on clinical experience in light of current evidence. It is reasonable to recommend a lipid-lowering regimen for secondary prevention and to continue treatment beyond 70 years for primary prevention if the patient's overall cardiovascular risk warrants prevention. But, on the basis of current evidence, there is no rationale for recommending a large screening of hypercholesterolemia in primary prevention in subjects over 70 years of age. Likewise, taking into account associated disease states and the increased risk of drug interactions, primary prevention regimens cannot be recommended except for elderly patients with a high overall cardiovascular risk.

Effects of statins on biomarkers of bone metabolism: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recently, several studies have indicated there may be differences among statins regarding a possible association between therapy and a reduction in risk of fractures. No data from prospective randomised clinical trials designed to assess either biochemical or clinical effects on bone metabolism are yet available. We assayed levels of biochemical markers of bone formation in stored serum samples from a recently completed randomised clinical trial conducted to compare the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: This 12-week, randomised, multicenter, open-label study was designed to compare the safety and lipid-lowering efficacy of simvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg with that of atorvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg in 846 hypercholesterolaemic patients. Stored serum samples from this study were analysed to compare the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on 2 biomarkers of bone turnover, bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP), a marker of bone formation, and C-teleopeptide of type 1 collagen (CTx), a marker of bone resorption. Treatment with simvastatin 40 and 80 mg/day, but not atorvastatin 20 and 40 mg/day, led to significant (p < 0.05) reductions in BSAP in both men (4.1-5.4% reduction) and women (4.2-7.4% reduction). In addition, there appeared to be a dose-dependent effect with greater reductions in BSAP seen with the 80 mg dose of simvastatin. Treatment with either 20 mg or 40 mg of atorvastatin had no significant effect on BSAP levels on the groups as a whole or in the gender-specific subgroups. CTx showed a small, but not statistically significant, decrease with simvastatin, again with an apparent dose-related trend. Atorvastatin treatment generally resulted in small, non significant increases in CTx. CONCLUSIONS: The present serum bone biomarker results show that treatment with simvastatin, but not atorvastatin, decreases BSAP and suggest that simvastatin may have a beneficial effect on bone turnover.

Diabetes: statins, fibrates, or both?

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Among the many factors that are involved in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis in diabetic patients, dyslipidemia plays a major role. It is characterized by an increase in triglycerides, a decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and normal or mildly elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The management of patients with diabetic dyslipidemia is difficult because we lack studies specifically designed for diabetic patients. Thus, strategy has to rely on post hoc analyses of landmark intervention trials, which usually include only a small number of diabetic patients, or on rare trials enrolling small cohorts of diabetic patients. When lifestyle changes fail, monotherapy should be tried first with either a statin or a fibrate, depending on triglyceride level. If lipid target values are not reached, a combination therapy can then be initiated, with close follow-up of potential side effects.

[Obesity and cardiovascular risk]. / Obésité et risque cardio-vasculaire.

Overweight and obesity are recognised as responsible for an increase in vascular risk and in excess mortality due to cardio-vascular diseases. This is especially true in presence of increased visceral (central) fat distribution, a key factor for insulin-resistance, the main component of the metabolic syndrome X. Cardio-vascular risk in overweight and obese subjects appears strongly correlated with the common risk factors, more frequently present in these patients: type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lipid abnormalities. Weight reduction improves all risk factors and decreases the patient's global vascular risk. The improvement in the various risk factors is significant with a moderate weight loss (10% of the initial weight). Weight reduction should been obtained always with nutritional-hygienic means (physical activity, weight-reducing diet...) maintained for several months. Only when these approaches appear to be insufficient, the need for an associated pharmacological treatment has to be considered. Amongst the weight-reducing drugs currently available or close to be, orlistat has demonstrated its interest in the glycemic control of type 2 diabetic patients, and its favourable effect in hypertensive patients. Available clinical studies have clearly shown the more marked effect of orlistat in comparison to placebo in reducing the various risk factors. So far, few studies have been conducted to assess the effects of the specific drug therapy on the control of metabolic abnormalities and risk factors in overweight or obese patients, except in type 2 diabetic patients for whom, most of the oral anti-diabetic agents have been tested in overweight or obese diabetic population.

Effect of combined fluvastatin-fenofibrate therapy compared with fenofibrate monotherapy in severe primary hypercholesterolemia. French Fluvastatin Study Group.

This double-blind study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of fluvastatin-fenofibrate combination therapy compared with fenofibrate monotherapy in severe primary hypercholesterolemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol > or =190 mg/dl [4.9 mmol/L], triglycerides < or =350mg/dl [3.9 mmol/l]). After a 10-week placebo and dietary baseline period, 102 patients were randomized to receive micronized fenofibrate 200 mg, fluvastatin 20 mg plus micronized fenofibrate 200 mg, or fluvastatin 40 mg plus micronized fenofibrate 200 mg. At week 16, fenofibrate 200 mg alone lowered LDL cholesterol from baseline by 21% compared with 32% for fluvastatin 20 mg plus fenofibrate 200 mg and 41% for fluvastatin 40 mg plus fenofibrate 200 mg (p <0.001). Triglycerides decreased by 29% with fenofibrate 200 mg alone, 39% with fluvastatin 20 mg plus fenofibrate 200 mg, and 40% with fluvastatin 40 mg plus fenofibrate 200 mg (p <0.05). Safety was assessed by recording adverse events and measuring clinical laboratory parameters. The adverse event profile was similar for the 3 treatment groups. One patient withdrew due to an increase in transaminase levels. No significant increase in creatine phosphokinase levels was observed with combination therapy. In conclusion, the addition of fluvastatin to micronized fenofibrate results in substantial improvement in atherogenic plasma lipids and is well tolerated.

Autosomal dominant type IIa hypercholesterolemia: evaluation of the respective contributions of LDLR and APOB gene defects as well as a third major group of defects.

Autosomal dominant type IIa hypercholesterolaemia (ADH) is characterised by an elevation of total plasma cholesterol associated with increased LDL particles. Numerous different molecular defects have been identified in the LDL receptor (LDLR) and few specific mutations in the apolipoprotein B (APOB) gene resulting in familial hypercholesterolaemia and familial defective apoB-100 respectively. To estimate the respective contribution of LDLR, APOB and other gene defects in this disease, we studied 33 well characterised French families diagnosed over at least three generations with ADH through the candidate gene approach. An estimation of the proportions performed with the HOMOG3R program showed that an LDLR gene defect was involved in approximately 50% of the families (P = 0.001). On the other hand, the estimated contribution of an APOB gene defect was only 15%. This low estimation of ADH due to an APOB gene defect is further strengthened by the existence of only two probands carrying the APOB (R3500Q) mutation in the sample. More importantly and surprisingly, 35% of the families in the sample were estimated to be linked to neither LDLR nor APOB genes. These data were confirmed by the exclusion of both genes through direct haplotyping in three families. Our results demonstrate that the relative contributions of LDLR and APOB gene defects to the disease are very different. Furthermore, our results also show that genetic heterogeneity is, generally, underestimated in ADH, and that at least three major groups of defects are involved. At this point, the contribution of the recently mapped FH3 gene to ADH cannot be assessed nor its importance in the group of 'non LDLR/non APOB' families.

Efficacy and safety of micronised fenofibrate in a randomised double-blind study comparing four doses from 200 mg to 400 mg daily with placebo in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy on LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) of micronised fenofibrate given for three months at doses ranging from 200 to 400 mg once daily, compared with placebo. A double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multi-centre trial was performed in four centers of France in 340 hypercholesterolemic patients (163M, 177F) aged 18-75 years. After a 2-3 month single-blind run-in period on placebo and diet, patients with LDL-C greater than or equal to 4.65 mmol/l (180 mg/dl) maintained on the same diet throughout the study were randomly allocated to placebo or to 200, 267, 340 or 400 mg micronised fenofibrate, given once daily with the evening meal for 3 months. LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), total triglycerides (TG) and apolipoprotein B (Apo B) significantly decreased compared with placebo in all four fenofibrate groups. For all randomised patients, the decrease in the fenofibrate groups ranged from 31.6-38.8% for LDL-C, 24.5-31.9% for TC, 26.7-40.8% for TG, and 27.3-35.0% for Apo B. An increase in HDL-cholesterol of 4.1-8.2% was observed in the fenofibrate groups, but did not reach statistical significance. Lipid values in the placebo group remained unchanged. The therapeutic goal of LDL-C<3.36 mmol/l (130 mg/dl) was reached in 27% in the 200 mg group and increased to 56% in the 300 mg group. There were no major clinical or biological adverse events in the dose interval from 200 mg to 400 mg of micronised fenofibrate per day. This study showed treatment for 3 months with micronised fenofibrate at doses up to 400 mg per day is effective and can reduce LDL-cholesterol up to 30% allowing further evaluation of these doses on longer trials.