HEART UK consensus statement on Lipoprotein(a): A call to action.

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is a modified atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particle that contains apolipoprotein(a). Its levels are highly heritable and variable in the population. This consensus statement by HEART UK is based on the evidence that Lp(a) is an independent cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, provides recommendations for its measurement in clinical practice and reviews current and emerging therapeutic strategies to reduce CVD risk. Ten statements summarise the most salient points for practitioners and patients with high Lp(a). HEART UK recommends that Lp(a) is measured in adults as follows: 1) those with a personal or family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD; 2) those with first-degree relatives who have Lp(a) levels >200 nmol/l; 3) patients with familial hypercholesterolemia; 4) patients with calcific aortic valve stenosis and 5) those with borderline (but <15%) 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event. The management of patients with raised Lp(a) levels should include: 1) reducing overall atherosclerotic risk; 2) controlling dyslipidemia with a desirable non-HDL-cholesterol level of <100 mg/dl (2.5 mmol/l) and 3) consideration of lipoprotein apheresis.

Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Nonobese Subjects of African Origin Has Atypical Metabolic Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Nonobese nonalcoholic fatty liver disease is reported in several populations. However, because persons of African origin display unique fat accumulation, insulin resistance, and lipid profiles, we investigated fatty liver in nonobese persons of African origin. METHOD: We recruited 78 urban Jamaican volunteers. CT was used to estimate liver and abdominal fat and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to measure body composition. Fasting blood was collected for lipids, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), adiponectin, and fetuin-A. Homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), whole-body insulin sensitivity index (WBISI), insulinogenic index (IGI), and oral disposition index (oDI) were calculated after a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of participants were male; mean (±SD) age was 28.5 ± 7.8 years, and body mass index was 22.4 ± 3.0 kg/m2. Mean liver attenuation (MLA) and liver/spleen (LS) ratio, both inversely correlated to liver fat, were 62.8 ± 4.3 HU and 1.2 ± 0.1, respectively; 3.8% of participants had liver fat >30% (LS ratio < 1). In age, sex, and BMI-adjusted correlations, MLA was negatively associated with weight (r = -0.30; P = 0.009) and height (r = -0.28; P = 0.017) and was associated with fasting glucose (r = 0.23; P = 0.05), fasting insulin (r = 0.42; P ≤ 0.001) and HOMA-IR (r = 0.35; P = 0.004). Serum lipids, ALT, adiponectin, fetuin-A, WBISI, IGI, and oDI were not associated with liver fat. CONCLUSIONS: In nonobese Afro-Caribbean participants, greater liver fat was associated with weight and height and lower fasting insulin and hyperinsulinemia appears to be influential in the reduction of NAFLD. These findings may be influenced by ethnicity, body size, and method of estimating liver fat.

An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The obesity epidemic has major public health consequences. Expert dietetic and behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up is effective, but resource requirements severely restrict widespread implementation in primary care, where most patients are managed. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention (POWeR+) combined with brief practice nurse support in primary care. METHODS: We did this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at 56 primary care practices in central and south England. Eligible adults aged 18 years or older with a BMI of 30 kg/m(2) or more (or ≥28 kg/m(2) with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, or diabetes) registered online with POWeR+-a 24 session, web-based, weight management intervention lasting 6 months. After registration, the website automatically randomly assigned patients (1:1:1), via computer-generated random numbers, to receive evidence-based dietetic advice to swap foods for similar, but healthier, choices and increase fruit and vegetable intake, in addition to 6 monthly nurse follow-up (control group); web-based intervention and face-to-face nurse support (POWeR+Face-to-face [POWeR+F]; up to seven nurse contacts over 6 months); or web-based intervention and remote nurse support (POWeR+Remote [POWeR+R]; up to five emails or brief phone calls over 6 months). Participants and investigators were masked to group allocation at the point of randomisation; masking of participants was not possible after randomisation. The primary outcome was weight loss averaged over 12 months. We did a secondary analysis of weight to measure maintenance of 5% weight loss at months 6 and 12. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. We did analysis by intention to treat, with multiple imputation for missing data. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN21244703. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2013, and March 20, 2014, 818 participants were randomly assigned to the control group (n=279), the POWeR+F group (n=269), or the POWeR+R group (n=270). Weight loss averaged over 12 months was recorded in 666 (81%) participants. The control group lost almost 3 kg over 12 months (crude mean weight: baseline 104·38 kg [SD 21·11; n=279], 6 months 101·91 kg [19·35; n=136], 12 months 101·74 kg [19·57; n=227]). The primary imputed analysis showed that compared with the control group, patients in the POWeR+F group achieved an additional weight reduction of 1·5 kg (95% CI 0·6-2·4; p=0·001) averaged over 12 months, and patients in the POWeR+R group achieved an additional 1·3 kg (0·34-2·2; p=0·007). 21% of patients in the control group had maintained a clinically important 5% weight reduction at month 12, compared with 29% of patients in the POWeR+F group (risk ratio 1·56, 0·96-2·51; p=0·070) and 32% of patients in the POWeR+R group (1·82, 1·31-2·74; p=0·004). The incremental overall cost to the health service per kg weight lost with the POWeR+ interventions versus the control strategy was £18 (95% CI -129 to 195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (-268 to 157) for POWeR+R; the probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kg lost was 88% and 98%, respectively. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Weight loss can be maintained in some individuals by use of novel written material with occasional brief nurse follow-up. However, more people can maintain clinically important weight reductions with a web-based behavioural program and brief remote follow-up, with no increase in health service costs. Future research should assess the extent to which clinically important weight loss can be maintained beyond 1 year. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of a web-based weight management intervention with nurse support for obese patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for cost-effective weight management interventions that primary care can deliver to reduce the morbidity caused by obesity. Automated web-based interventions might provide a solution, but evidence suggests that they may be ineffective without additional human support. The main aim of this study was to carry out a feasibility trial of a web-based weight management intervention in primary care, comparing different levels of nurse support, to determine the optimal combination of web-based and personal support to be tested in a full trial. METHODS: This was an individually randomised four arm parallel non-blinded trial, recruiting obese patients in primary care. Following online registration, patients were randomly allocated by the automated intervention to either usual care, the web-based intervention only, or the web-based intervention with either basic nurse support (3 sessions in 3 months) or regular nurse support (7 sessions in 6 months). The main outcome measure (intended as the primary outcome for the main trial) was weight loss in kg at 12 months. As this was a feasibility trial no statistical analyses were carried out, but we present means, confidence intervals and effect sizes for weight loss in each group, uptake and retention, and completion of intervention components and outcome measures. RESULTS: All randomised patients were included in the weight loss analyses (using Last Observation Carried Forward). At 12 months mean weight loss was: usual care group (n = 43) 2.44 kg; web-based only group (n = 45) 2.30 kg; basic nurse support group (n = 44) 4.31 kg; regular nurse support group (n = 47) 2.50 kg. Intervention effect sizes compared with usual care were: d = 0.01 web-based; d = 0.34 basic nurse support; d = 0.02 regular nurse support. Two practices deviated from protocol by providing considerable weight management support to their usual care patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a web-based weight management intervention supported by practice nurses in primary care, and suggests that the combination of the web-based intervention with basic nurse support could provide an effective solution to weight management support in a primary care context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31685626.