Comparison of four definitions of the metabolic syndrome in a Greek (Mediterranean) population.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to evaluate the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) diagnosed by the new Joint Interim Societies (JIS) MetS definition. The JIS definition was compared with three previous definitions to assess their ability to predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a representative sample of Greek adults (n = 9669) was performed to estimate the prevalence of MetS and CVD using the JIS vs. the three older definitions of MetS: the National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel-III (NCEP-ATP-III), the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) and the American Heart Association/National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (AHA/NHLBI) definitions. RESULTS: The age-adjusted MetS prevalence was 45.7%, 43.4%, 24.5% and 26.3% (ANOVA p < 0.001) with the JIS, IDF, NCEP and AHA/NHLBI definitions. The prevalence of CVD was 11.4% in the whole study population and 17.6%, 18.3%, 23.3%, 22.6% and in subjects with MetS according to the JIS, IDF, NCEP and AHA/NHLBI definitions (ANOVA p < 0.001). The prevalence of CVD was only 10.4% (i.e., lower than in the whole study population) in subjects with MetS according to the JIS but not according to the NCEP-ATP-III and AHA/NHLBI definitions (p < 0.001 vs. subjects with MetS as defined by NCEP-ATP-III or AHA/NHLBI). CONCLUSIONS: When diagnosed according to the new JIS definition, the prevalence of MetS was high in a Greek Mediterranean cohort (nearly half of the adult population). The NCEP-ATP-III and AHA/NHLBI definitions were more predictive of CVD risk than the new JIS definition. These findings, though limited by the cross sectional analysis, may have implications regarding the choice of the definition to diagnose MetS.

Effects of statin treatment in men and women with stable coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the GREACE Study.

BACKGROUND: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to National Cholesterol Expert Panel (NCEP) goal is recommended. However, sex-specific effects may influence benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this post hoc analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease (CHD) Evaluation [GREACE] study we investigated the extent in vascular event reduction by statin treatment according to sex. From a total of 1600 patients with stable CHD, 624/176 and 632/168 were men/women on atorvastatin or on usual care, respectively. During 3-year follow-up, comparison of atorvastatin treatment with usual care demonstrated a relative risk reduction (RRR) of the primary end point (all vascular events) of 54% in women (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.87, p=0.003) and of 50% in men (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32-0.70, p<0.001). The fall in LDL-C levels played the key role in end point reduction in both sexes. However, in men there was an additional benefit related to the atorvastatin-induced increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), while in women end points were related to a substantial triglycerides (TG) reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with atorvastatin to the NCEP LDL-C goal compared with 'usual care' significantly reduced CHD morbidity and mortality in both men and women. Both men and women benefited from statin treatment possibly with different mechanisms making a contribution over and above LDL-C reduction.

Atorvastatin decreases triacylglycerol-associated risk of vascular events in coronary heart disease patients.

High triacylglycerol (TAG) levels may predict vascular risk. The effect of a statin-induced reduction in TAG levels, irrespective of HDL-C increase, on clinical outcome has not yet been addressed by an endpoint study in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). The GREACE study compared usual with structured care aimed at achieving LDL-C = 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) by dose titration with atorvastatin. All patients had CHD and were followed for 3 years. This post hoc analysis of GREACE examines the effect of statins on TAG levels and their relation with cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in all patients and in the subgroup of patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Baseline TAG levels >150 mg/dL (1.7 mmol/L) were predictive of subsequent CVD events [cardiac mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina (UA), revascularisation, congestive heart failure (CHF), and stroke] only in statin untreated patients. Stepwise regression analysis showed that with every 20% statin-related TAG reduction there was a decrease in CVD risk by 12% (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75-0.95, P = 0.007) in the structured care group vs. the usual care group, by 8% (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-0.97, P = 0.02) in all statin treated patients vs. the untreated ones and by 15% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, P = 0.005) in those with MetS treated with a statin vs. those untreated. Using the same analysis but only taking into consideration vascular events (cardiac mortality, non-fatal MI, UA, revascularisation, and stroke) there was a 18% (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-0.96, P = 0.03) decrease in risk in the MetS (+) patients treated with a statin vs. those not on a statin, and a decrease in risk by 16% (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.53-1.07, P = 0.08), when only hard vascular endpoints (cardiac mortality, non-fatal MI, and stroke) were considered. TAG levels are predictive of subsequent CVD events in statin untreated CHD patients. Statin (mainly atorvastatin)-induced decrease in TAG levels was related to a significant reduction in subsequent CVD events. This benefit was more pronounced in CHD MetS (+) patients.

Effect of statin treatment on renal function and serum uric acid levels and their relation to vascular events in patients with coronary heart disease and metabolic syndrome: a subgroup analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with increased risk for both vascular and chronic kidney disease. Whether statins ameliorate these risks is not established. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease (CHD). Evaluation (GREACE) examines the effect of statins on estimated glomerular filtration rate (e-GFR) and serum uric acid (SUA) levels and their relation to vascular events in CHD patients with MetS. MetS patients were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 365) received lifestyle advice, target-driven treatment with statins (mainly atorvastatin) and treatment for hypertension and elevated glucose. Group B (n = 347) received the same except for statins. Patients without MetS were divided into those who received treatment similar to Group A and Group B [Groups C (n = 504) and D (n = 384), respectively]. All patients were followed for 3 years. RESULTS: A total of 12.1% of patients in Group A experienced a vascular event vs 28% in Group B; risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.64, P < 0.0001, while in those without MetS (Group C vs Group D), the respective RR was 0.59, 95% CI 0.41-0.79, P < 0.0001. In Group A, e-GFR increased by 13.7% and SUA levels fell by 8.9%, while in Group B e-GFR was reduced by 5.8% and SUA increased by 4.3% (P < 0.005). Stepwise regression analysis showed that these changes were independently related to vascular events. CONCLUSION: Among CHD patients, those with MetS benefited more from statin treatment than those without MetS. This benefit could be partially attributed to favourable changes in e-GFR and SUA levels probably induced by statin treatment.

Association of drinking pattern and alcohol beverage type with the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and peripheral arterial disease in a Mediterranean cohort.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between alcohol consumption and the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome (MetS), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a Mediterranean cohort. It consisted of a cross-sectional analysis of a representative sample of Greek adults (n = 4,153) classified as never, occasional, mild, moderate, or heavy drinkers. Cases with overt CHD, stroke, or PAD were recorded. In our population, 17% were never, 23% occasional, 27% mild, 24% moderate, and 9% heavy drinkers. Moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a lower trend for the prevalence of the MetS (P = .0001), DM (P < .0001), CHD (P = .0002), PAD (P = .005), and overall CVD (P = .001) but not stroke compared with no alcohol use. Heavy drinking was associated with an increase in the prevalence of all of these disease states. Wine consumption was associated with a slightly better effect than beer or spirits consumption on the prevalence of total CVD, and beer consumption was associated with a better effect than spirits consumption. Alcohol intake was positively related with body weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and hypertension. Moderate alcohol consumption is associated with a lower prevalence of the MetS, DM, PAD, CHD, and overall CVD but not stroke compared with no alcohol use in a Mediterranean population. Heavy drinking was associated with an increase in the prevalence of all of these disease states. Advice on alcohol consumption should probably mainly aim at reducing heavy drinking.

Statin-Induced Increase in HDL-C and Renal Function in Coronary Heart Disease Patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the potential of statin-induced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) increase to improve renal function in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In thispost hocanalysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study we investigated the effect of HDL-C increase after statin treatment on renal function. From a total of 1,600 patients, 880 were on various statins (mainly atorvastatin) and 720 were not. Other secondary prevention therapies were similar in the 2 groups. After a 3 year follow up, the lipid profile was unchanged in the statin untreated group and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was reduced by 5.1% compared with baseline (P<0.0001). In contrast, in the statin treated group non-HDL-C was reduced by 43%, HDL-C was increased by 7% and there was a significant increase in eGFR compared with baseline by 9.8% (P<0.0001). In multiple regression analysis, the mean 7% increase in HDL-C in the treated arm during the entire study was associated with a 5.6% increase in eGFR recorded after the 6(th) week of treatment. The odds ratio of eGFR increase with every 5% statin-induced rise in HDL-C was 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.19-3.34; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Statin treatment significantly improved renal function. Statin-induced HDL-C increase significantly and independently contributed to this improvement. This finding supports the concept that improving lipid variables other than low density lipoprotein cholesterol is also beneficial to preserving renal function.

Pathogenesis of osteoporosis in liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Osteoporosis has been recognized in patients with liver cirrhosis, although the prevalence and the exact mechanisms vary considerably in the literature. We have studied the prevalence of bone disease in cirrhotic patients, the pathogenesis and the relation to the etiology and the severity of liver failure. METHODOLOGY: The study included 83 hospitalized patients with various types of cirrhosis, where 25 healthy individuals served as controls. Patients were classified according to Child-Pugh's stages as follows: Child A: 49, Child B: 20, Child C: 14. Serum levels of iPTH, 250HD, LH, FSH, SHBG, testosterone, estradiol, IGF-I, osteocalcin and urine levels of cross-linked N-telopeptides of collagen type 1 (NTX) were measured in all patients. Bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by DEXA at the spine of both patients and controls. RESULTS: The prevalence of osteoporosis was higher in patients (26/83) 31.3% than in controls (4/25) 16%. Osteopenia was positively related with the elevated levels of crosslinked N-telopeptides (p=0.048). There were no differences in BMD between the types of cirrhosis. BMD was found to be significantly lower in Child B and C male patients than in Child A (p=0.043). Patients' groups B, and C had lower testosterone levels with a trend to contribute to the low BMD (p=0.15). 250HD and IGF-1 were significantly lower in decompensated cirrhosis (p<0.002), but did not correlate with BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Cirrhosis is a major cause of osteoporosis and the degree of osteopenia is related to the severity and not the etiology of the liver disease. The biochemical markers of bone remodeling suggest a high-turnover osteoporosis in cirrhosis.

Targeting vascular risk in patients with metabolic syndrome but without diabetes.

There are no prospective data on the effect of a multitargeted treatment approach on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in nondiabetic patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Furthermore, the optimal hypolipidemic drug treatment in these patients remains controversial. In this prospective, randomized, open-label, intention-to-treat, and parallel study, 300 nondiabetic patients with MetS, free of CVD at baseline, were studied for a period of 12 months. Age- and sex-matched subjects without MetS (n = 100) acted as controls. All patients received lifestyle advice and a stepwise-implemented drug treatment of hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, and obesity. For hypolipidemic treatment, the patients were randomly allocated to 3 treatment groups: atorvastatin (n = 100, 20 mg/d), micronized fenofibrate (n = 100, 200 mg/d), and both drugs (n = 100). Clinical and laboratory parameters, including the lipid profile and C-reactive protein (CRP), were assessed at the baseline and at the end of the study. The primary end point was the proportion of patients not having MetS or its component features at the end of the 12-month treatment period. The secondary end points were the difference in 10-year CVD risk (Prospective Cardiovascular Munster risk calculator) and the degree of CRP reduction. By the end of the study, 76% of the patients no longer had MetS, and 46% had only one diagnostic MetS factor. The estimated 10-year (Prospective Cardiovascular Munster) risk of all patients with MetS at baseline was 14.6%. This was reduced in the atorvastatin group to 6.4%, in the fenofibrate group to 9.2%, and in the combination group to 5.5% (P < .0001 for all vs baseline). The 10-year risks of the atorvastatin and combination groups were not different from that of the control group (5.0%). C-reactive protein was significantly reduced in all treatment groups, with the atorvastatin and combination groups having the greatest reduction (65% and 68%, respectively, P < .01 vs the fenofibrate group, 44%). Lipid values were significantly improved in all 3 treatment groups, with those on the combined treatment attaining lipid targets to a greater extent than those in the other 2 groups. A target-driven and intensified intervention aimed at multiple risk factors in nondiabetic patients with MetS substantially offsets its component factors and significantly reduces the estimated CVD risk. The atorvastatin-fenofibrate combination had the most beneficial effect on all lipid parameters and significantly improved their CVD risk status. Atorvastatin and combination treatment were more effective than fenofibrate alone in reducing CRP levels.

Effect of statins and aspirin alone and in combination on clinical outcome in dyslipidaemic patients with coronary heart disease. A subgroup analysis of the GREACE study.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The GREACE study was conducted independently; no Company or Institution has supported it financially. Some of the authors have attended conferences and participated in other trials sponsored by various pharmaceutical companies. We assessed the possible 'synergy' of statins and aspirin (ASA) in reducing vascular events in patients with coronary heart disease, in a post hoc analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study. All patients (n = 1600) were divided into four groups according to long-term treatment: Group A (n = 787; statin + ASA), B (n = 93; statin - no ASA), C (n = 599; no statin - on ASA) and D (n = 121; no statin - no ASA). From all patients 692 were either on a statin or ASA monotherapy (Groups B + C). Relative risk reductions (RRRs) in 'all events' (primary endpoint) between groups were assessed. During the 3-year follow-up there were 292 cardiovascular events; 92 (12% of patients) in Group A, 14 (15%) in group B, 144 in Group C (24%) and 42 events in Group D (35%). The total number of events in Group B + C was 158 (23%). The RRRs in the primary endpoint were: Group A versus B 24% (P = 0.1912), A versus C 51% (P < 0.0001), A versus B + C 49% (P < 0.0001) and A versus D 71% (P < 0.0001). The RRRs in Group B versus C was 36% (P = 0.0431) and B versus D 57% (P = 0.0012), while in C versus D 33% (P = 0.0084). Our findings show that statins and ASA have an additive effect in reducing cardiovascular events. Aggressive statin use in the absence of ASA also substantially reduced cardiovascular events. Treatment with ASA in the absence of statin use reduced clinical events in comparison to patients not treated with either drug.

Awareness, treatment and control of the metabolic syndrome and its components: a multicentre Greek study.

INTRODUCTION: There are no data concerning the degree of awareness, treatment and control of the metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its components or associated vascular risk in the general population. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was made of a representative sample of Greek adults (n=9669, 49% men and 51% women), living in urban, semi-urban and rural areas (55%, 23% and 22%, respectively). The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definitions for the MetS were used. RESULTS: The age-standardised prevalence of the MetS in the general population was 24.5% [95% CI 23.4-25.7%] (n=2369). This was similar in men and women and increased with age. Among subjects with the NCEP MetS the prevalence of hypertension was 71%, elevated blood glucose 55%, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 58%, high triglycerides 63% and abdominal obesity 82%. Only one third of subjects were aware of the MetS component conditions, less than one quarter were on treatment, and very few (< or =10%) were controlled for MetS components. Awareness of MetS individual component conditions (e.g. arterial hypertension), and consequently effective control, was lower than that reported in other cohorts, including subjects without MetS. Only 5% of subjects were aware of MetS as an entity, 2% were treated for all component conditions and only 1% were controlled. Using the IDF definition, the prevalence of MetS was higher (43.4%) and awareness, treatment and control of MetS and its components were significantly lower. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MetS is high in Greece but is not recognised among the general population. Therefore, treatment and control of MetS and component conditions are extremely low. If the situation does not improve soon, MetS will cause a further increase in the vascular disease epidemic in the years to come. This calls for urgent education of the public and the medical community.

Prevalence of atherosclerotic vascular disease among subjects with the metabolic syndrome with or without diabetes mellitus: the METS-GREECE Multicentre Study.

AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of vascular disease (coronary heart disease/stroke/peripheral arterial disease) in individuals with the metabolic syndrome (MetSyn) with or without diabetes mellitus (DM) when compared with subjects without the MetSyn. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of a representative sample of Greek adults (n = 4153), men and women (49% and 51%, respectively), living in urban, semi-urban and rural areas (54%, 25% and 21%, respectively). The National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III definition of the MetSyn was used. RESULTS: The age-adjusted prevalence of the MetSyn was 23.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 22.4%-25.1%]; this was similar in men and women. The fully adjusted prevalence of vascular disease in those with the MetSyn (n = 984) was 29.4%, significantly higher than in those without (n = 3169, 9.6%, p < 0.0001), while subjects without both the MetSyn and DM had the lowest vascular disease prevalence (n = 3035, 8.9%). Subjects with the MetSyn but no DM (n = 674) had a vascular disease prevalence of 24.1% (p < 0.0001 vs. those without the MetSyn), which was similar to that in subjects with DM without the MetSyn (n = 134, 25.4%), but lower than in those with both the MetSyn and DM (n = 310, 40.7%, p < 0.0001 vs. all). In comparison to those without the MetSyn [odds ratio (OR) = 1], the ORs of prevalent vascular disease, after multivariate analysis for age, sex and components of the MetSyn, and antiatherosclerotic drugs were: all MetSyn = 1.94 (95% CI = 1.35-2.47), with both MetSyn and DM = 3.04 (95% CI = 1.98-4.11) and with MetSyn but no DM = 1.48 (95% CI = 1.12-1.92). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of vascular disease was markedly increased in the presence of the MetSyn. Those with both the MetSyn and DM had the highest prevalence of vascular disease, followed by those with the MetSyn without DM. Probably MetSyn without DM should be considered as a coronary heart disease-risk equivalent in future guidelines. This initiative would reset treatment targets and potentially provide additional benefit in patients with the MetSyn.

Relationship between LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels and clinical outcome in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Although available guidelines suggest reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to below 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), the importance of target-oriented therapy remains controversial. To assess whether achieving guideline-based targets is of benefit, the relationship between clinical outcomes and lipid levels (baseline and on-study) was evaluated in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study. This study demonstrated significant reductions in morbidity and mortality associated with active dose titration of atorvastatin and structured management of dyslipidaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis (Cox proportional hazards model) was used to assess the relationship between lipid values and coronary events. Higher levels of LDL-C at baseline were associated with a greater risk of subsequent events among patients randomized to usual care. Reducing the LDL-C and the non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level to the National Cholesterol Educational Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III goals required greater doses of atorvastatin for the higher baseline quartile of LDL-C. During the study there was a greater reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events in atorvastatin-treated patients who were in the highest quartile of LDL-C at baseline, after achieving the LDL-C treatment goal, in comparison to the usual care patients in the highest baseline LDL-C quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals by titrating up the dose of atorvastatin was associated with a significant reduction in vascular events in patients with CHD. The greatest benefit was seen in those patients with the highest baseline LDL-C levels.

Effect of atorvastatin on high density lipoprotein cholesterol and its relationship with coronary events: a subgroup analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol(HDL-C) levels after statin treatment and the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD)-related events in the secondary CHD prevention GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study. These findings suggested that dose titration with atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day, mean 24 mg/day)achieves the National Cholesterol Educational Program treatment goals and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality, in comparison to usual care. METHODS: Analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of atorvastatin on HDL-C over time (up to 48 months) in 1600 CHD patients. The time-dependent multivariate Cox predictive model,involving backward stepwise logistic regression,was used to evaluate the relation between coronary events and HDL-C changes. RESULTS: The mean increase in HDL-C levels during the study was 7%. All doses of atorvastatin significantly increased HDL-C levels. Increases were greater in men (7.8 vs 6.1%; p = 0.02), in combined hyperlipidaemia (7.9 vs 6.4% for hypercholesterolaemia; p = 0.04), and in the lower baseline HDL-C quartile (9.2 vs 5.3%, 1st vs 4th quartile; p = 0.001). After adjustment for 24 predictors of coronary events, multivariate analysis revealed a Hazards Ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.94; p = 0.002) for every 4 mg/dL(0.1 mmol/L) increase in HDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant beneficial effect on HDL-C levels across the dose range of atorvastatin. Clinical outcomes in the structured care arm of GREACE were determined in part by the extent of atorvastatin-induced HDL-C increase. This effect was independent from benefit induced by low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)reduction, suggesting that the CHD risk reduction associated with a rise in a low HDL-C at baseline remains significant under aggressive (-46%) LDL-C lowering conditions. However, the relationship between HDL-C and vascular risk may be weaker when LDL-C levels are aggressively lowered.

Effect of statins versus untreated dyslipidemia on serum uric acid levels in patients with coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of dyslipidemia on serum uric acid (SUA) levels, and less is known about the effect of statin treatment on them. The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation study suggested that a mean atorvastatin dose of 24 mg/d achieves the National Cholesterol Educational Program treatment goals and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in comparison to the usual care. Here, we report the time course of SUA levels in usual-care patients undertreated for their dyslipidemia (12% were administered statins) in comparison to structured-care patients treated with atorvastatin in the vast majority (98%). METHODS: Mean on-study SUA levels (up to 48 months) were compared with those at baseline by using analyses of variance to assess differences over time within and between treatment groups. Cox multivariate analysis was used to investigate whether changes in SUA levels during the study were clinically relevant. RESULTS: All patients had normal renal function at baseline; serum creatinine (SCr) levels less than 1.3 mg/dL (<115 micromol/L) and moderately elevated SUA levels (mean, 7.1 +/- 0.9 [SD] mg/dL [425 +/- 52 micromol/L]; upper normal limit, 7.0 mg/dL [415 micromol/L]). Usual-care patients (n = 800) showed an increase in SUA levels by 3.3% ( P < 0.0001). Structured-care patients (n = 800) had an 8.2% reduction in SUA levels ( P < 0.0001). In all patients not administered diuretics (n = 1,407), SUA level changes showed a positive correlation with changes in SCr levels ( r = 0.82; P < 0.0001) and an inverse correlation with estimated glomerular filtration rate ( r = -0.77; P < 0.0001). After adjustment for 19 predictors of all CHD-related events, Cox multivariate analysis involving backward stepwise logistic regression showed a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.96; P = 0.03) with every 0.5-mg (30-micromol/L) reduction in SUA level, an HR of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P = 0.001) with every 1-mg (60-micromol/L) reduction, an HR of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27; P = 0.02) with every 0.5-mg increase, and an HR of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.43; P = 0.001) with every 1-mg increase in SUA levels. CONCLUSION: Data suggest that SUA level is an independent predictor of CHD recurrent events. Atorvastatin treatment significantly reduces SUA levels in patients with CHD, thus offsetting an additional factor associated with CHD risk.

Early benefit from structured care with atorvastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus.

This is a prospective evaluation of the effect of structured care of dyslipidemia with atorvastatin (strict implementation of guidelines) versus usual care (physician's standard of care) on morbidity and mortality of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM). From 1600 consecutive CHD patients randomized to either form of care in the GREek Atorvastatin and CHD Evaluation Study (GREACE), 313 had DM: 161 in the structured care arm and 152 in the usual care arm. All patients were followed up for a mean of 3 years. In the structured care group, patients were treated with atorvastatin to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goal of <2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL). Primary endpoints were all-cause and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity, and stroke. In the structured care group, 156 patients (97%) were taking atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day; mean, 23.7 mg/day) throughout the study; the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal was reached by 150 patients (93%). Only 17% (n=26) of the usual care patients were on long-term hypolipidemic drug treatment and 4% (n=6) reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. During the study, 46 of 152 (30.3%) CHD patients with DM on usual care experienced a major vascular event or died versus 20 of 161 (12.5%) patients on structured care; relative risk reduction (RRR) 58%, p<0.0001. RRR for all-cause mortality was 52%, p=0.049; coronary mortality 62%, p=0.042; coronary morbidity 59%, p<0.002; and stroke 68%, p=0.046. Event rate curves started deviating from the sixth treatment month and the RRR was almost 60% by the 12th month. RRRs remained at that level until the end of the study, when they became statistically significant. The cost/life-year gained with structured care was estimated at 6200 US dollars. In CHD patients with DM, structured care of dyslipidemia with atorvastatin to achieve the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal, reduces all-cause and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity, and stroke by more than one half within a 3-year period, in comparison to usual care. Clinical benefit is manifested as early as the sixth month of treatment.

Statins and renal function in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Lipids may adversely affect renal function. The recently published MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study (HPS) subgroup analysis showed that simvastatin significantly reduced the fall in glomerular filtration rate in high-risk patients with and without diabetes mellitus. These findings are in line with those of smaller earlier studies, including the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study. Lipid lowering trials need to consider that changes in renal function may occur. Renal and ischaemic heart disease may progress in parallel and statins may be beneficial to both organs.

Long-term treatment effect of atorvastatin on aortic stiffness in hypercholesterolaemic patients.

AIM: To assess the effect of atorvastatin on aortic stiffness in hypercholesterolaemic patients free of arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 36 patients (25 men and 11 women, mean age 56 +/- 12 years); 18 patients had stable coronary heart disease (CHD) and 18 were free of CHD at baseline. All patients received atorvastatin (20 mg/day) for a 2-year period. Aortic stiffness was assessed by transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and 2 years later. At baseline, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and LDL-C/high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio were positively related to aortic stiffness (p < 0.001 for all). The mean change in lipid parameters during treatment was: total cholesterol -38%, LDL-C -46%, triglycerides -29%, and HDL-C +6%, all significant (p = 0.029 to < 0.0001). After the 2-year treatment with atorvastatin, aortic stiffness was significantly reduced by 14% (p = 0.019). An improvement of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction by 13% (p < 0.001) and a reduction of LV mass index by 9% (p = 0.008) were also recorded. The change in aortic stiffness was similar in patients with or without CHD. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with atorvastatin improves aortic stiffness; this index is related to total and coronary mortality. Moreover, assessment of aortic stiffness may be useful in identifying which hypercholesterolaemic patients should be treated aggressively, regardless of CHD. The aortic stiffness effect may eventually become an index of the efficacy of lipid lowering treatment.

Treatment with atorvastatin to the National Cholesterol Educational Program goal versus 'usual' care in secondary coronary heart disease prevention. The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study.

BACKGROUND: Atorvastatin is very effective in reducing plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, there is no long-term survival study that evaluated this statin. PATIENTS-METHODS: To assess the effect of atorvastatin on morbidity and mortality (total and coronary) of patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD), 1600 consecutive patients were randomised either to atorvastatin or to 'usual' medical care. The dose of atorvastatin was titrated from 10 to 80 mg/day, in order to reach the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goal of LDL-C <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l). All patients were followed up for a mean period of 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints of the study were defined as death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, revascularisation (coronary morbidity) and stroke. Secondary endpoints were the safety and efficacy of the hypolipidaemic drugs as well as the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin. RESULTS: The mean dosage of atorvastatin was 24 mg/day. This statin reduced total chlesterol by 36%, LDL-C by 46%, triglycerides by 31%, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) by 44%, while it increased HDL-C by 7%; all these changes were significant. The NCEP LDL-C and non-HDL-C treatment goals were reached by 95% (n = 759) and 97% (n = 776), respectively, of patients on atorvastatin. Only 14% of the 'usual' care patients received any hypolipidaemic drugs throughout the study and 3% of them reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. The cost per quaility-adjusted life-year gained with atorvastatin was estimated at $US 8350. During this study 196 (24.5%) CHD patients on 'usual' care had a CHD recurrent event or died vs. 96 (12%) CHD patients on atorvastatin; risk ratio (RR) 0.49, confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.73, p < 0.0001. In detail, atorvastatin reduced, in comparison to 'usual' care, total mortality (RR 0.57, CI 0.39-0.78, p = 0.0021), coronary mortality (RR 0.53, CI 0.29-0.74, p = 0.0017), coronary morbidity (RR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.71, p < 0.0001), and stroke (RR 0.53, CI 0.30-0.82, p = 0.034). All subgroups of patients (women, those with diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, age 60 to 75 years, congestive heart failure, recent unstable angina or prior revascularisation) benefited from treatment with atorvastatin. Withdrawal of patients because of side-effects from the atorvastatin group was low (0.75%) and similar to that of the 'usual' care group (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment of CHD patients with atorvastatin to achieve NCEP lipid targets significantly reduces total and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity and stroke, in comparison to patients receiving 'usual' medical care. Treatment with atorvastatin is well tolerated and cost-effective.