Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Training Opportunities, the Challenges, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, necessitating major efforts in prevention. This review summarizes the currently available training opportunities in CVD prevention for fellows-in-training (FITs) and residents. We also highlight the challenges and future directions for CVD prevention as a field and propose a structure for an inclusive CVD prevention training program. RECENT FINDINGS: At present, there is a lack of centralized training resources for FITs and residents interested in pursuing a career in CVD prevention. Training in CVD prevention is not an accredited subspecialty fellowship by the American Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Although there are several independent training programs under the broad umbrella of CVD prevention focusing on different aspects of prevention, there is no unified curriculum or training. More collaborative efforts are needed to identify CVD prevention as an ACGME-accredited subspecialty fellowship. Providing more resources can encourage and produce more leaders in this essential field.

Correction to: Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Training Opportunities, the Challenges, and Future Directions.

The original version of this article contains errors in Table 3. "At least 1 project/publication in the year" and "> 1 publication per year" have been switched under the titles of "Clinical Track" and "Physician-Scientist track".

LPL gene variants affect apoC-III response to combination therapy of statins and fenofibric acid in a randomized clinical trial of individuals with mixed dyslipidemia.

ApoC-III is a proatherogenic protein associated with elevated triglycerides; its deficiency is associated with reduced atherosclerosis. Mixed dyslipidemia, characterized by elevated triglyceride and apoC-III levels and low HDL cholesterol level, with or without elevated LDL cholesterol, increases cardiovascular disease risk and is commonly treated with combined statin and fibrate therapy. We sought to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with apoC-III level response to combination therapy with statins and fenofibric acid (FA) in individuals with mixed dyslipidemia. Participants (n = 1,250) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study examining response to FA alone and in combination with statin were genotyped for candidate SNPs. Multivariate linear regression and two-way ANOVA for percent change in apoC-III level were performed. SNPs in the lipoprotein lipase (LPL) gene region, rs1801177 (P = 4.7 × 10(-8)), rs7016529 (P = 1.2 × 10(-6)), and rs249 (P = 4.1 × 10(-5)), were associated with apoC-III response to combination therapy. A haplotype composed of the minor alleles of these SNPs, with 2% population frequency, was associated with an unexpected apoC-III increase in response to statins and FA. This is the first report to show that genetic variation within the LPL gene region can affect the response of apoC-III levels to combined statin and FA therapy.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A biomarker whose time has come. A scientific statement from the National Lipid Association.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with elevated levels estimated to be prevalent in 20% of the population. Observational and genetic evidence strongly support a causal relationship between high plasma concentrations of Lp(a) and increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, and valvular aortic stenosis. In this scientific statement, we review an array of evidence-based considerations for testing of Lp(a) in clinical practice and the utilization of Lp(a) levels to inform treatment strategies in primary and secondary prevention.

CD11c expression in adipose tissue and blood and its role in diet-induced obesity.

OBJECTIVE: To examine CD11c, a beta(2)-integrin, on adipose tissue (AT) leukocytes and blood monocytes and its role in diet-induced obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS: High-fat diet-induced obese C57BL/6 mice, CD11c-deficient mice, and obese humans were studied. CD11c, leukocytes, and chemokines/cytokines were examined in AT and/or blood by flow cytometry, RNase protection assay, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Obese C57BL/6 mice had increased CD11c in AT and blood compared with lean controls. CD11c messenger RNA positively correlated with monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 in human visceral AT. Obese humans with metabolic syndrome had a higher CD11c level on blood monocytes compared with lean humans. Low-fat diet-induced weight loss reduced blood monocyte CD11c in obese mice and humans. Mouse and human monocyte CD11c levels and mouse AT CD11c messenger RNA correlated with insulin resistance. CD11c deficiency in mice did not alter weight gain but decreased inflammation, evidenced by a lower T-cell number and reduced levels of major histocompatibility complex class II, C-C chemokine ligand 2 (CCL5), CCL4, and interferon gamma in AT, and ameliorated insulin resistance and glucose intolerance associated with diet-induced obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Diet-induced obesity increased CD11c in both AT and blood in mice and humans. CD11c plays an important role in T-cell accumulation and activation in AT, and contributes to insulin resistance associated with obesity.

Long-term efficacy of adding fenofibric acid to moderate-dose statin therapy in patients with persistent elevated triglycerides.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of adding fenofibric acid to moderate-dose statin therapy in patients at goal for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) but with persistent hypertriglyceridemia. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a subset of patients (N = 92) with mixed dyslipidemia treated with moderate-dose statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, or atorvastatin 40 mg) for 12 weeks in three controlled trials who had achieved LDL-C <100 mg/dL but whose triglycerides remained >200 mg/dL, and had fenofibric acid 135 mg added to the moderate-dose statin in a 52-week open-label extension study. Lipid and apolipoprotein (Apo) values and the proportion of patients meeting individual and combined treatment targets with combination therapy were determined at scheduled visits during the 52-week study and compared with baseline (start of extension study). RESULTS: Addition of fenofibric acid to moderate-dose statin for 52 weeks resulted in significant (P < 0.001) improvements in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C; -9.0%), ApoB (-9.8%), HDL-C (14.9%), and triglycerides (-37.6%) compared with baseline. At final visit, greater proportions of patients achieved optimal levels of individual parameters as well as combined targets of LDL-C + non-HDL-C (60.0% vs 52.2%), LDL-C + non-HDL-C + ApoB (53.3% vs 37.8%, P = 0.007), and LDL-C + non-HDL-C + ApoB + HDL-C + triglycerides (25.6% vs 0.0%) than at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of fenofibric acid to moderate-dose statin in patients whose LDL-C was optimal but whose triglycerides remained >200 mg/dL led to additional improvements in non-HDL-C, ApoB, HDL-C, and triglycerides that resulted in greater proportions of patients attaining optimal levels of the individual parameters as well as simultaneously achieving optimal levels of these parameters and LDL-C.

Greater than expected reduction in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) with bempedoic acid in a patient with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH).

Bempedoic acid is an adenosine triphosphate-citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor that reduces levels of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in the plasma by inhibition of cholesterol synthesis in hepatic cells, which leads to up-regulation of hepatic LDL receptors. Bempedoic acid is approved as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) who require additional lowering of LDL-C. In this case study, we describe a patient with HeFH who had a prior excellent response to statin but unable to take the same, and a less than expected response to PCSK9i, in whom initiation of bempedoic acid led to a substantial reduction of LDL-C. Our findings suggest that patients who are quite responsive to statins may also be quite responsive to bempedoic acid, a medication that works in the same biochemical pathway as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Additionally, this medication may be particularly effective at lowering LDL-C among individuals not on background statin therapy.

Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid in combination with atorvastatin and ezetimibe in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Statin and ezetimibe combination therapy may be insufficient to improve lipid and nonlipid parameters beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind study, a total of 543 patients with triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL and <400 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <40 mg/dL (<50 mg/dL for women), and LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with fenofibric acid 135 mg (FA) or placebo, each coadministered with atorvastatin 40 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (Atorva/Eze). RESULTS: Both treatment regimens lowered LDL-C by >50%; however, FA + Atorva/Eze resulted in significantly (P < .001) greater improvements in HDL-C (13.0% vs 4.2%), triglycerides (-57.3% vs -39.7%), non-HDL-C (-55.6% vs -51.0%), and apoprotein B (-49.1% vs -44.7%) compared with Atorva/Eze. Overall, adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. No unexpected muscle, hepatic, or renal safety signals were identified with either treatment combination. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mixed dyslipidemia, the combination of FA + Atorva/Eze significantly improved lipid and nonlipid parameters compared with Atorva/Eze and was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid combination therapy versus simvastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia: a randomized, double-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid (rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid) compared with simvastatin in patients with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG). BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with a statin and a fibrate is one of the treatment options to manage multiple lipid abnormalities in patients with hypercholesterolemia and elevated TGs. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients (n = 474) with LDL-C > or =160 mg/dL and < or =240 mg/dL and TG > or =150 mg/dL and <400 mg/dL were treated for 8 weeks with simvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg, rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg, or rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg. Primary and secondary variables were mean percent changes in LDL-C comparing rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg with simvastatin 40 mg and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg with simvastatin 40 mg, respectively. Additional efficacy variables included non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, HDL-C, TG, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). Safety was evaluated based on data collected for adverse events (AEs), physical and electrocardiographic examinations, vital sign measurements, and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Significantly greater reductions in LDL-C levels from baseline values were observed with the combination of rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg (-47.2%, p < 0.001), rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg (-46.0%, p < 0.001), and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg (-38.9%, p = 0.007) than with simvastatin 40 mg (-32.8%). Significant (p < or = 0.04 for all comparisons) improvements in non-HDL-C, ApoB, HDL-C, TG, and hsCRP levels were also observed with each of the rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid doses as compared with simvastatin 40 mg. Treatment-related AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups. The incidence of serious AEs was 0% with simvastatin 40 mg, 3.4% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg, 0.8% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg, and 2.5% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg. No cases of rhabdomyolysis or drug-related myopathy were reported. CONCLUSION: In patients with high LDL-C and TG levels, combination treatment with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid was well tolerated, and each of the rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid doses produced greater reductions in LDL-C and improvements in other efficacy parameters, compared with simvastatin 40 mg. [Clinical trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00812955.].

Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid co-administered with low- or moderate-dose statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus: results of a pooled subgroup analysis from three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials.

BACKGROUND: Monotherapy with lipid-modifying medication is frequently insufficient to normalize lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in this population. STUDY DESIGN: A pooled, subgroup analysis of three randomized, controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials. SETTING: Multiple clinical research facilities in the US and Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes (n = 586). INTERVENTION: Fenofibric acid (Trilipix) 135 mg monotherapy; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin [Crestor] 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin [Zocor] 20, 40, or 80 mg; or atorvastatin [Lipitor] 20, 40, or 80 mg); or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean percentage changes in lipid parameters, percentages of patients achieving optimal serum lipid/apolipoprotein levels, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Fenofibric acid + low-dose statin resulted in significantly (p < 0.001) greater mean percentage changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [16.8%] and triglycerides (-43.9%) than low-dose statin monotherapy (4.7% and -18.1%, respectively) and significantly (p < 0.001) greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [-34.0%] than fenofibric acid monotherapy (-5.3%). Similarly, fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin resulted in significantly (p < or = 0.011) greater mean percentage changes in HDL-C (16.3%) and triglycerides (-43.4%) than moderate-dose statin monotherapy (8.7% and -24.2%, respectively) and significantly (p < 0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C (-32.6%) than fenofibric acid monotherapy (-5.3%). Compared with low- or moderate-dose statin, fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin resulted in over 5-fold higher percentages of patients achieving optimal levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, HDL-C, and triglycerides simultaneously. Incidence of adverse events was generally similar among treatments. CONCLUSION: Fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes was well tolerated and resulted in more comprehensive improvement in the lipid/apolipoprotein profile than either monotherapy. [Clinical trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00300482, NCT00300456, and NCT00300469].

A Comparison of Ezetimibe and Evolocumab for Atherogenic Lipid Reduction in Four Patient Populations: A Pooled Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Three Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians, payers, guideline committees, and policymakers support the use of high-intensity statins in patients at high risk for complications of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Guidelines and recommendations provide guidance on next steps for patients with inadequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control on maximally tolerated statin or for those who are statin-intolerant. Ezetimibe and evolocumab improve CV outcomes when added to statins in high-CV-risk populations. The aim of the study was to compare evolocumab and ezetimibe for lipid-lowering efficacy and safety. METHODS: We summarized data from 1427 patients from three phase 3 evolocumab studies comparing double-blinded evolocumab vs. ezetimibe. These studies evaluated four distinct populations: those free of CVD receiving each agent as monotherapy, patients with CVD receiving add-on therapy to low- or high-intensity statin, and statin-intolerant patients. Lipid efficacy and safety were reported at week 12. RESULTS: Across the studies, evolocumab reduced LDL-C by a mean 55-61% from baseline to week 12; ezetimibe lowered LDL-C by 18-20% from baseline (mean difference = 38-43% favoring evolocumab; p < 0.0001). This corresponded to absolute reductions in LDL-C of 60-104 mg/dL with evolocumab vs. 17-35 mg/dL with ezetimibe. Evolocumab also significantly improved other lipids and led to a higher percentage of patients achieving LDL-C goals vs. ezetimibe. Adverse events and discontinuation rates (oral and parenteral therapy) were balanced across groups, suggesting good tolerance and acceptance of both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Evolocumab outperformed ezetimibe in efficacy and lipid goal attainment. Both products demonstrated good safety/tolerability. These data may help guide access decisions for high-risk patients with inadequate treatment response or intolerance to statin therapy.

The STatin Adverse Treatment Experience Survey: Experience of patients reporting side effects of statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand patients' experiences of statin-associated adverse effects to potentially identify those at risk for stopping treatment. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the STatin Adverse Treatment Experience survey was to describe patients' experiences after reporting ≥1 recent statin-associated adverse event and identify opportunities to improve adherence and outcomes. METHODS: The survey was developed in 3 stages: qualitative item development, pilot evaluation of initial item performance, and quantitative evaluation using a large commercial sample. Respondents with self-reported high cholesterol who had taken a statin in the past 2 years and experienced ≥1 statin-associated symptom in the past 6 months were included (N = 1500). RESULTS: Mean age was 58 years, 40.3% were men, and 43.2% had tried ≥2 statins. Many had clinical comorbidities associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, 22.5%; diabetes, 25.8%; hypertension, 56.0%). The most important patient-reported reasons for continuing current statin therapy (n = 1168; 77.9%) were avoiding a heart attack or stroke, lowering cholesterol, and doctor recommendation. Being bothered by and not being able to tolerate side effects were the main reasons respondents discontinued statins (n = 332; 22.1%). Respondents who discontinued statins reported significantly higher mean Symptom Severity (10.6 vs 8.7, P < .001) and Impact Severity scores (11.8 vs 9.8, P < .001) compared with those who continued. CONCLUSION: The STatin Adverse Treatment Experience survey highlights the importance of patients' adverse experiences with statins and how symptom and impact scores affect decisions to continue or discontinue therapy. These data provide a foundation to increase providers' awareness of statin tolerability from the patient's perspective and encourage benefit-risk discussions.

Lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of cardiovascular disease events in individuals with diabetes mellitus or prediabetes: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Diabetes increases risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Current guidelines do not recommend measuring lipoprotein(a), another ASCVD risk factor, in these individuals. We examined the association of lipoprotein(a) levels with incident ASCVD events in persons with and without diabetes or prediabetes. METHODS: Lipoprotein(a) and other ASCVD risk factors were measured at baseline (1996-1998) in the biracial Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study; participants without prevalent ASCVD (coronary heart disease or stroke) were monitored ∼15 years for incident ASCVD events. RESULTS: Of 9871 eligible participants (mean age 63 years; 5816 women; 2155 African Americans), 1543 had diabetes and 3615 had prediabetes. Cumulative ASCVD incidence rates (event/1000-person years) were higher in participants with diabetes (26%) or prediabetes (13%) than in nondiabetic individuals (10%, p < 0.001). When comparing highest to lowest lipoprotein(a) categories (≥50 mg/dL vs. ≤10 mg/dL), increasing lipoprotein(a) levels were significantly associated with increasing incident ASCVD events in Caucasian participants with prediabetes (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.69); p = 0.03) and diabetes (HR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.10-1.84; p < 0.01), but not those with normal fasting blood glucose. Adding lipoprotein(a) to Pooled Cohort Equation variables improved risk prediction in persons with diabetes (Δ in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.0087, net reclassification index [NRI] 0.1761) and prediabetes (ΔAUC 0.0025, NRI 0.0938). CONCLUSIONS: In this biracial cohort, elevated lipoprotein(a) levels in Caucasian individuals with diabetes or prediabetes were associated with further increased ASCVD risk. Adding lipoprotein(a) to traditional risk factors improved ASCVD risk prediction.

Use of Lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice: A biomarker whose time has come. A scientific statement from the National Lipid Association.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a well-recognized, independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with elevated levels estimated to be prevalent in 20% of the population. Observational and genetic evidence strongly support a causal relationship between high plasma concentrations of Lp(a) and increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease-related events, such as myocardial infarction and stroke, and valvular aortic stenosis. In this scientific statement, we review an array of evidence-based considerations for testing of Lp(a) in clinical practice and the utilization of Lp(a) levels to inform treatment strategies in primary and secondary prevention.

Review of the evidence for the clinical utility of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 as a cardiovascular risk marker.

A substantial body of peer-reviewed studies has been published validating the role of inflammation in atherogenesis and supporting lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)) as a cardiovascular risk marker independent of and additive to traditional risk factors. As with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, an elevated Lp-PLA(2) level approximately doubles the risk for primary and secondary cardiovascular events. Interestingly, when both inflammatory markers are increased together, they provide an even greater predictive capability to help identify very-high-risk individuals who would benefit most from aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. High levels of Lp-PLA(2) are present in inflamed, rupture-prone plaques, and it appears that Lp-PLA(2) is released from these plaques into the circulation. Over 25 prospective epidemiologic studies have demonstrated the association of elevated Lp-PLA(2) levels with future coronary events and stroke-11 of 12 prospective studies have shown a statistically significant association between elevated Lp-PLA(2) and primary coronary or cardiovascular events, 12 of 13 have shown a statistically significant association with recurrent coronary or cardiovascular events, and 6 studies have shown a positive association with stroke. Lp-PLA(2) should be viewed today as an important cardiovascular risk marker whose utility is as an adjunct to the major risk factors to adjust absolute risk status and thereby modify low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. The low biologic fluctuation and high vascular specificity of Lp-PLA(2) makes it possible to use a single measurement in clinical decision making, and it also permits clinicians to follow the Lp-PLA(2) marker serially. Ultimately, Lp-PLA(2) may also be classified as a risk factor, but this should not detract from its utility today as a risk marker.

Effects of maximal doses of atorvastatin versus rosuvastatin on small dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Maximal doses of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are highly effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglyceride levels; however, rosuvastatin has been shown to be significantly more effective than atorvastatin in lowering LDL cholesterol and in increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and its subclasses. Our purpose in this post hoc subanalysis of an open-label study was to compare the effects of daily oral doses of rosuvastatin 40 mg with atorvastatin 80 mg over a 6-week period on direct LDL cholesterol and small dense LDL (sdLDL) cholesterol in 271 hyperlipidemic men and women versus baseline values. Rosuvastatin was significantly (p<0.01) more effective than atorvastatin in decreasing sdLDL cholesterol (-53% vs -46%), direct LDL cholesterol (-52% vs -50%), total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio (-46% vs -39%), and non-HDL cholesterol (-51% vs -48%), The magnitude of these differences was modest, and the 2 statins caused similar decreases in triglyceride levels (-24% and -26%). In conclusion, our data indicate that the 2 statins, given at their maximal doses, significantly and beneficially alter the entire spectrum of lipoprotein particles, but that rosuvastatin is significantly more effective than atorvastatin in lowering direct LDL cholesterol and sdLDL cholesterol.

Consensus panel recommendation for incorporating lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 testing into cardiovascular disease risk assessment guidelines.

A consensus panel was formed to review the rapidly emerging literature on the vascular-specific inflammatory marker lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)) and to update recommendations for the appropriate use of this novel biomarker in clinical practice. The recommendations of the panel build on guidelines of the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) and the American Heart Association/Centers for Disease Control (AHA/CDC) for cardiovascular risk assessment. Consistent with the ATP III guideline recommendations for the use of inflammatory markers, Lp-PLA(2) is recommended as an adjunct to traditional risk assessment in patients at moderate and high 10-year risk. A simplified framework for traditional Framingham risk factor assessment is proposed. As a highly specific biomarker for vascular inflammation, elevated Lp-PLA(2) levels should prompt consideration of increasing the cardiovascular risk category from moderate to high or high to very high risk, respectively. Because intensification of lifestyle changes and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering is beneficial in high-risk patients, regardless of baseline LDL cholesterol levels, consideration should be given to lowering the LDL cholesterol target by 30 mg/dL (1 mg/dL = 0.02586 mmol/L) in patients with high levels of Lp-PLA(2). Lp-PLA(2) is recommended as a diagnostic test for vascular inflammation to better identify patients at high or very high risk who will benefit from intensification of lipid-modifying therapies. However, at this time Lp-PLA(2) cannot be recommended as a target of therapy.

Adjunctive interventions in myocardial infarction: the role of statin therapy.

Statin therapy has reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality across the spectrum of atherosclerosis. The administration of statins has been demonstrated to be effective in primary and secondary prevention clinical trials evaluating patients with high and low risk-factor profiles. The presumed mechanism of benefit of hypolipidemic therapy in the prevention of atherosclerotic disease was a reduction in the deposition of atherogenic lipoproteins in vulnerable areas of the coronary vasculature. Subsequent experimental studies with statins demonstrated a variety of potentially beneficial effects that would extend clinical benefit beyond lipid-lowering per se. Statin therapy beneficially alters inflammation, coagulation and fibrinolytic parameters, endothelial function, vasoreactivity, and platelet function. The demonstration of the non-lipid or pleiotropic effects provided the theoretical basis for a possible role as an adjunctive therapy in acute coronary syndromes. Retrospective analysis of a variety of early trials indicated a potential benefit of statins during acute ischemic syndromes. Recent clinical trials have addressed this important clinical question in a prospective controlled manner. The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) and the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)-22 studies present strong clinical evidence in favor of the administration of statins as adjunctive therapy in acute ischemic syndromes.

Retrospective comparison of the effectiveness of a fenofibrate 145 mg formulation compared with the standard 160 mg tablet.

OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in lipid levels (total cholesterol [total-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], triglycerides [TG], and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) for patients who switched from standard fenofibrate 160 mg (requiring dosing with food) to fenofibrate 145 mg with no food effect (NFE). METHODS: The analyses were performed using an electronic medical records dataset from 1 January 2003 to 31 July 2005. Patients were eligible for the analysis if they had a diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes mellitus, were written a prescription for standard fenofibrate 160 mg during the period 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005, and were written a subsequent prescription for fenofibrate 145 mg NFE at least 60 days after first receiving the 160 mg dose. The outcomes measured were lipid levels: total-C, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG. RESULTS: 491 patients who switched from standard fenofibrate 160 mg to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE met all of the inclusion criteria. Patients who changed therapy to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE from standard fenofibrate 160 mg showed a beneficial response in lipid levels. Statistically significant patient-specific changes in lipid levels were observed for the change from baseline to standard fenofibrate 160 mg for three lipid levels (total-C, HDL-C and TG). Statistically significant changes were observed for the switch to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE for three lipid levels (total-C, LDL-C and TG). CONCLUSIONS: More patients treated in an outpatient clinical practice had better lipid results when prescribed fenofibrate 145 mg NFE than those prescribed standard fenofibrate 160 mg, suggesting that a less restrictive dosing regimen improves lipid outcomes.

Evaluation of a new formulation of fenofibric acid, ABT-335, co-administered with statins : study design and rationale of a phase III clinical programme.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Atherogenic lipid parameters in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia have been demonstrated to increase atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Clinical studies have shown that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) and fibric acid derivative (fibrate) combination therapy is effective at improving multiple lipid abnormalities in different patient populations at increased risk of CHD. However, inconsistencies with respect to trial designs and safety issues have limited the clinical use of this combination therapy. A comprehensive, controlled clinical trial programme was thus designed to evaluate three separate statins in combination with ABT-335, a new formulation of fenofibric acid. METHODS: Three separate 22-week, phase III, double-blind, active-controlled trials will evaluate combination therapy with ABT-335 135 mg/day and either rosuvastatin (10 mg/day and 20 mg/day), atorvastatin (20 mg/day and 40 mg/day) or simvastatin (20 mg/day and 40 mg/day) in comparison to either ABT-335 or the corresponding statin monotherapy. An approximate total of 2400 patients with elevated triglycerides (TG) [> or =150 mg/dL], reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [<40 mg/dL for men and <50 mg/dL for women], and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [> or =130 mg/dL] will be randomized to one of six intervention arms per trial (two combination therapy and four monotherapy groups). The pre-specified primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of the mean percent changes in HDL-C and TG (comparing each combination therapy with the corresponding statin monotherapy dose) and LDL-C (comparing each combination therapy with ABT-335 monotherapy). Secondary endpoints include mean percent changes in non-HDL-C, very LDL-C, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. At study end, patients may enroll in a 12-month open-label extension study that will evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of combination therapy. CONCLUSION: This is the largest phase III randomized, controlled clinical programme to date evaluating the efficacy and safety of the combined use of a new formulation of fenofibric acid (ABT-335) with three commonly prescribed statins in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia.