Long-term cardiovascular risks and the impact of statin treatment on socioeconomic inequalities: a microsimulation model.

BACKGROUND: UK cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and mortality have declined in recent decades but socioeconomic inequalities persist. AIM: To present a new CVD model, and project health outcomes and the impact of guideline-recommended statin treatment across quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation in the UK. DESIGN AND SETTING: A lifetime microsimulation model was developed using 117 896 participants in 16 statin trials, 501 854 UK Biobank (UKB) participants, and quality-of-life data from national health surveys. METHOD: A CVD microsimulation model was developed using risk equations for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularisation, cancer, and vascular and non-vascular death, estimated using trial data. The authors calibrated and further developed this model in the UKB cohort, including further characteristics and a diabetes risk equation, and validated the model in UKB and Whitehall II cohorts. The model was used to predict CVD incidence, life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the impact of UK guideline-recommended statin treatment across socioeconomic deprivation quintiles. RESULTS: Age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular events were key CVD risk determinants. Model-predicted event rates corresponded well to observed rates across participant categories. The model projected strong gradients in remaining life expectancy, with 4-5-year (5-8 QALYs) gaps between the least and most socioeconomically deprived quintiles. Guideline-recommended statin treatment was projected to increase QALYs, with larger gains in quintiles of higher deprivation. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated the potential of guideline-recommended statin treatment to reduce socioeconomic inequalities. This CVD model is a novel resource for individualised long-term projections of health outcomes of CVD treatments.

LDL-cholesterol lowering and clinical outcomes in hypercholesterolemic subjects with and without a familial hypercholesterolemia phenotype: Analysis from the secondary prevention 4S trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Trial evidence for the benefits of cholesterol-lowering is limited for familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) patients, since they have not been the focus of large outcome trials. We assess statin use in coronary artery disease (CAD) subjects with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥4.9 mmol/L with or without an FH phenotype. METHODS: The 4S trial randomized hypercholesterolemic CAD patients to simvastatin or placebo. We first stratified participants into baseline LDL-C <4.9 and ≥ 4.9 mmol/L; next, based on the DLCN criteria for FH, the latter group was stratified into four subgroups by presence of none, one or both of "premature CAD" and "family history of CAD". Participants having both are defined as having an FH phenotype. RESULTS: 2267 and 2164 participants had LDL-C <4.9 and ≥ 4.9 mmol/L, respectively. Mortality endpoints and major coronary events (MCE) were significantly reduced with simvastatin versus placebo in both groups over 5.4 years, but the latter derived greater absolute risk reductions (ARR) (4.1-4.3% for mortality endpoints, versus 2.5-2.8%). LDL-C reductions were similar among the 4 subgroups with levels ≥4.9 mmol/L. Participants with FH phenotype (n = 152) appeared to derive greater relative benefits with simvastatin than the other three subgroups (all-cause death: 84% relative risk reduction, p = 0.046; MCE: 55% reduction, p = 0.0297); statistical interaction was non-significant. Participants with FH phenotype derived greater ARR than any other group with simvastatin versus placebo (all-cause mortality: 6.6% ARR; MCE 13.2%; versus 3.8% and 8.3%, respectively, among participants with LDL-C ≥4.9 mmol/L but without features suggestive of FH). CONCLUSIONS: The FH phenotype appeared to be associated with greater clinical benefits from a given magnitude of LDL-C reduction as compared to individuals without FH phenotype.

An Exploratory Analysis of Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9 Inhibition and Aortic Stenosis in the FOURIER Trial.

Importance: Despite recent advances in treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis (AS), AS remains a life-threatening condition with no proven disease-modifying therapy. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) have been implicated in the pathobiology of AS. The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor evolocumab reduces circulating LDL-C concentrations by 50% to 60% and Lp(a) by 20% to 30%. Objective: To determine whether evolocumab reduces the risk of AS events in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to evolocumab or placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of the FOURIER trial, which enrolled 27 564 patients with stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who were taking statin therapy at 1242 sites in 49 countries from February 2013 to November 2016. Patients were randomized to evolocumab or placebo and followed up for a median (interquartile range) of 2.2 (1.8-2.5) years. This post hoc analysis was performed from September 2019 to February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Site-reported adverse events of new or worsening AS or aortic valve replacement (termed AS events). The adjusted risk of AS events was calculated with a multivariable model including concentrations of Lp(a) and LDL-C corrected for Lp(a) content, plus age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Evolocumab efficacy was tested using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Aortic stenosis events occurred in 63 patients (48 men [76%]; mean [SD] age, 69 [9] years) over a median of 2.2 years. Elevated Lp(a) concentration was associated with higher rates of AS events (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.17-2.05] per SD; P = .002), including aortic valve replacement (aHR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.38-3.58] per SD; P = .001), after multivariable adjustment. The corrected LDL-C concentration was not significantly associated with AS events (aHR, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.93-1.61] per SD; P = .14). The overall HR for AS events with evolocumab was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40-1.09), with no apparent association in the first year (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.48-2.47]) but an HR of 0.48 (95% CI, 0.25-0.93) after the first year of treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this exploratory analysis of the FOURIER trial, higher Lp(a) levels, but not Lp(a)-corrected LDL-C levels, were associated with a higher risk of subsequent AS events, including aortic valve replacement. Long-term therapy with evolocumab may reduce AS events, and this raises the possibility that specific pharmacologic lipid-lowering therapy could offer a means to prevent or slow the progression of AS. These exploratory findings merit further investigation with a dedicated randomized clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01764633.

Predicting Benefit From Evolocumab Therapy in Patients With Atherosclerotic Disease Using a Genetic Risk Score: Results From the FOURIER Trial.

BACKGROUND: The ability of a genetic risk score to predict risk in established cardiovascular disease and identify individuals who derive greater benefit from PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibition has not been established. METHODS: We studied 14 298 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease from the FOURIER trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Researh With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk). A 27-single-nucleotide polymorphism genetic risk score defined low (quintile 1), intermediate (quintiles 2-4), and high (quintile 5) genetic risk. Patients were also categorized by major atherosclerotic risk factors including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl, and smoking; multiple (≥2) risk factors was considered high clinical risk. Outcomes consisted of major coronary events (coronary heart death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) and major vascular events (major coronary events and ischemic stroke). Median follow-up was 2.3 years. RESULTS: After we adjusted for clinical factors, the genetic risk score was associated with risk for both major vascular events (Ptrend=0.005) and major coronary events (Ptrend<0.0001). Individuals with intermediate and high genetic risk scores had 1.23- and 1.65-fold increased hazard for major coronary events, respectively. Elevated genetic risk was additive to major atherosclerotic risk factors and identified patients more likely to benefit from evolocumab. There was no benefit for major vascular events in patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; absolute risk reduction [ARR], -0.2%, P=0.86). In contrast, there was a 13% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.87 [0.75-0.998], P=0.047) and a 1.4% ARR in patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk and a 31% relative risk reduction (HR, 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P=0.0012), and 4.0% ARR in patients with high genetic risk, irrespective of clinical risk (Ptrend for HR=0.017, ARR Ptrend=0.004). Patients with high genetic risk who received evolocumab had event rates similar to patients with a low burden of both genetic and clinical risk. CONCLUSION: Patients without multiple clinical risk factors or high genetic risk had a low event rate and did not appear to derive benefit from evolocumab over 2.3 years. Conversely, patients with multiple clinical risk factors but without high genetic risk had intermediate risk and intermediate risk reduction. Patients with high genetic risk, regardless of clinical risk, had a high event rate and derived the greatest relative and absolute benefit from evolocumab, which mitigated this risk.

Baseline and on-statin treatment lipoprotein(a) levels for prediction of cardiovascular events: individual patient-data meta-analysis of statin outcome trials.

BACKGROUND: Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease in general population studies. However, its contribution to risk for cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease or on statin therapy is uncertain. METHODS: Patient-level data from seven randomised, placebo-controlled, statin outcomes trials were collated and harmonised to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular events, defined as fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease, stroke, or revascularisation procedures. HRs for cardiovascular events were estimated within each trial across predefined lipoprotein(a) groups (15 to <30 mg/dL, 30 to <50 mg/dL, and ≥50 mg/dL, vs <15 mg/dL), before pooling estimates using multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Analyses included data for 29 069 patients with repeat lipoprotein(a) measurements (mean age 62 years [SD 8]; 8064 [28%] women; 5751 events during 95 576 person-years at risk). Initiation of statin therapy reduced LDL cholesterol (mean change -39% [95% CI -43 to -35]) without a significant change in lipoprotein(a). Associations of baseline and on-statin treatment lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular disease risk were approximately linear, with increased risk at lipoprotein(a) values of 30 mg/dL or greater for baseline lipoprotein(a) and 50 mg/dL or greater for on-statin lipoprotein(a). For baseline lipoprotein(a), HRs adjusted for age and sex (vs <15 mg/dL) were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·18) for 15 mg/dL to less than 30 mg/dL, 1·11 (1·00-1·22) for 30 mg/dL to less than 50 mg/dL, and 1·31 (1·08-1·58) for 50 mg/dL or higher; respective HRs for on-statin lipoprotein(a) were 0·94 (0·81-1·10), 1·06 (0·94-1·21), and 1·43 (1·15-1·76). HRs were almost identical after further adjustment for previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes, smoking, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. The association of on-statin lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular disease risk was stronger than for on-placebo lipoprotein(a) (interaction p=0·010) and was more pronounced at younger ages (interaction p=0·008) without effect-modification by any other patient-level or study-level characteristics. INTERPRETATION: In this individual-patient data meta-analysis of statin-treated patients, elevated baseline and on-statin lipoprotein(a) showed an independent approximately linear relation with cardiovascular disease risk. This study provides a rationale for testing the lipoprotein(a) lowering hypothesis in cardiovascular disease outcomes trials. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

The Success Story of LDL Cholesterol Lowering.

We can look back at >100 years of cholesterol research that has brought medicine to a stage where people at risk of severe or fatal coronary heart disease have a much better prognosis than before. This progress has not come about without resistance. Perhaps one of the most debated topics in medicine, the cholesterol controversy, could only be brought to rest through the development of new clinical research methods that were capable of taking advantage of the amazing achievements in basic and pharmacological science after the second World War. It was only after understanding the biochemistry and physiology of cholesterol synthesis, transport and clearance from the blood that medicine could take advantage of drugs and diets to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic diseases. This review points to the highlights of the history of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol lowering, with the discovery of the low-density lipoprotein receptor and its physiology and not only the development of statins as the stellar moments but also the development of clinical trial methodology as an effective tool to provide scientifically convincing evidence.

Ranibizumab or Bevacizumab for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration According to the Lucentis Compared to Avastin Study Treat-and-Extend Protocol: Two-Year Results.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (Avastin; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) versus ranibizumab (Lucentis; Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) after 2 years when using a treat-and-extend protocol. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial with a noninferiority limit of 5 letters. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 50 years of age or older with previously untreated nAMD in 1 eye and best-corrected visual acuity 20/25 to 20/320. METHODS: Patients were assigned randomly to receive intravitreal injections with either ranibizumab 0.5 mg or bevacizumab 1.25 mg. Injections were given every 4 weeks until inactive disease was achieved. The treatment interval then was extended by 2 weeks at a time up to a maximum of 12 weeks. In the event of a recurrence, the treatment interval was shortened by 2 weeks at a time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean change in visual acuity at 2 years. RESULTS: Of a total of 441 randomized patients, 339 patients (79%) completed the 2-year visit. According to per-protocol analysis at 2 years, bevacizumab was equivalent to ranibizumab, with 7.4 and 6.6 letters gained, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] of mean difference, -4.1 to 2.5; P = 0.634). Intention-to-treat analysis was concordant, with a gain of 7.8 letters for bevacizumab and 7.5 letters for ranibizumab (95% CI of mean difference, -3.2 to 2.7; P = 0.873). The 2-year results did not show any significant difference in mean central retinal thickness, with a decrease of -113 µm for bevacizumab and -122 µm for ranibizumab (95% CI of mean difference, -32 to 15; P = 0.476). There was a statistically significant difference between the drugs regarding the number of treatments given, with 18.2 injections for bevacizumab and 16.0 injections for ranibizumab (95% CI of mean difference, -3.4 to -1.0; P ≤ 0.001). The number of serious adverse events was similar between the groups over the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years, bevacizumab and ranibizumab had an equivalent effect on visual acuity and reduction of central retinal thickness when administered according to a treat-and-extend protocol for nAMD. There was no significant difference in the number of serious adverse events between the treatment groups.

Comparison of ranibizumab and bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration according to LUCAS treat-and-extend protocol.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab when administered according to a treat-and-extend protocol for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial with a noninferiority limit of 5 letters. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 50 years with previously untreated neovascular AMD in 1 eye and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between 20/25 and 20/320. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive ranibizumab 0.5 mg or bevacizumab 1.25 mg intravitreal injections. Monthly injections were given until inactive disease was achieved. The patients were then followed with a gradual extension of treatment interval by 2 weeks at a time up to a maximum of 12 weeks. If signs of recurrent disease appeared, the treatment interval was shortened by 2 weeks at a time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in visual acuity at 1 year. RESULTS: Between March 2009 and July 2012, 441 patients were randomized at 10 ophthalmological centers in Norway. The 1-year visit was completed by 371 patients. In the per protocol analysis at 1 year, bevacizumab was equivalent to ranibizumab, with 7.9 and 8.2 mean letters gained, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI] of mean difference, -2.4 to 2.9; P = 0.845). The intention-to-treat analysis was concordant. There was no significant difference in measured central retinal thickness (CRT), with a mean decrease of -112 µm for bevacizumab and -120 µm for ranibizumab (95% CI of mean difference, -13 to 28; P = 0.460). There was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.001) between the drugs regarding the number of treatments: 8.9 for bevacizumab and 8.0 for ranibizumab. There were fewer arteriothrombotic events in the bevacizumab group (1.4%) than in the ranibizumab group (4.5%) (P = 0.050) and significantly more cardiac events in the ranibizumab group (P = 0.036). However, patients treated with ranibizumab more often had a history of myocardial infarction (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab and ranibizumab had equivalent effects on visual acuity at 1 year when administered according to a treat-and-extend protocol. The visual acuity results at 1 year were comparable to those of other clinical trials with monthly treatment. The numbers of serious adverse events were small.

Incidence of cancer and mortality in patients from the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) trial.

The Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) clinical trial, including 1,873 patients found an increased risk for cancer with lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day, relative to placebo. In a registry-based follow-up study over 21 months from the conclusion of the SEAS trial, new incident cancer and total mortality were investigated in the SEAS study cohort from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Among 1,359 subjects eligible for follow-up (73% of the original total cohort), 1,194 had no history of cancer (primary follow-up cohort). New cancers and deaths were identified in the national cancer and mortality registries and classified by an Expert Review Committee. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional-hazards models of new cancers and mortality during follow-up according to treatment group assigned in the SEAS base study and with age, gender, smoking history, and previous cancers as covariates. The primary follow-up cohort had 12 patients with new cancers in the ezetimibe/simvastatin group and 22 in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 1.11), indicating no significant difference between the treatment groups. During follow-up, 43 patients assigned to ezetimibe/simvastatin and 33 assigned to placebo died (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 2.03). In conclusion, in this registry-based observational follow-up study of the original SEAS study patient population, treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin was not associated with an increased risk for cancer or mortality in the 21-month period after the completion of the original SEAS study.

Natural history of mild and of moderate aortic stenosis-new insights from a large prospective European study.

Increased life expectancy has led to a higher prevalence of calcific aortic valve disease. Both ends of the disease spectrum-sclerosis of the aortic valve without hemodynamic obstruction and the late stage of aortic valve stenosis (AS)-have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This raises the question of the prognostic contribution of atherosclerotic diseases and other comorbidities as opposed to the hemodynamic effect of obstructive AS. Hence, the evaluation of asymptomatic patients with mild or moderate AS without comorbidities is of major interest. In the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis study, with the exception of hypertension, comorbidities were excluded, thus allowing an analysis of the effect of pure AS as well as the effect of hypertension on the progression and outcome of AS. We discuss the results that emerged from this large European prospective study and relate these to the published literature.

High-dose statin therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease: treating the right patients based on individualized prediction of treatment effect.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians need to identify coronary artery disease patients for whom the benefits of high-dose versus usual-dose statin therapy outweigh potential harm. We therefore aimed to develop and validate a model for prediction of the incremental treatment effect of high-dose statins for individual patients in terms of reduction of 5-year absolute risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary death, or cardiac resuscitation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Based on data from the Treating to New Targets trial (TNT; n=10 001), a Cox proportional hazards model was developed comprising 13 easy-to-measure clinical predictors: age, sex, smoking, diabetes mellitus, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, history of myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, congestive heart failure or abdominal aortic aneurysm, glomerular filtration rate, and treatment status (ie, atorvastatin 80 mg or 10 mg). External validation in the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering trial (IDEAL; n=8888) confirmed adequate goodness-of-fit and calibration, but moderate discrimination (C-statistic, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.65). Still, among participants of both trials combined, the model identified a group of 11.7% whose predicted 5-year number needed to treat was ≤25 and a group of 41.9% whose predicted needed to treat was ≥50. A decision curve shows that making treatment decisions on the basis of predictions using our model may improve net benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of the incremental treatment effect of high-dose versus usual-dose statin therapy in individual coronary artery disease patients enables selection of high-risk patients that benefit most from more aggressive therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00327691 and NCT00159835.

Safety and effect of very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on cardiovascular events.

Based on the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes data derived predominantly from 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) trials, guidelines have set low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets at successively lower levels over time. Recent data have demonstrated that more-intensive statin therapy (and, consequently, lower LDL cholesterol level) is more effective at reducing CV events than less-intensive statin therapy. Although the average LDL cholesterol level for a United States adult is 119 mg/dl, within the "normal" range (90 to 130 mg/dl) per the United States National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, data from fetal studies, diet studies, contemporary hunter-gatherer populations, and other mammals have suggested that the "normal" physiologic range for LDL cholesterol in humans is likely 50 to 70 mg/dl. Low LDL cholesterol levels have been sporadically associated with an increased risk of cancer, hemorrhagic stroke, and other complications in population studies and clinical trials. However, statin clinical trials have generally not demonstrated correlations between on-treatment LDL cholesterol levels and safety. Clinical data have suggested a linear relation between LDL cholesterol lowering and CV risk reduction, supporting a favorable risk/benefit ratio for attaining very low levels of LDL cholesterol to minimize the risk of CV events. In conclusion, clinical trial evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of LDL cholesterol lowering to a very low level is essential to ascertain the benefits and risks in reducing the residual risk of vascular disease.

Treatment to lipid targets in patients with inflammatory joint diseases in a preventive cardio-rheuma clinic.

OBJECTIVES: To perform cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD) and treat to lipid targets according to recommendations. METHODS: We initiated a preventive cardio-rheuma clinic based on the unmet need of adequate cardiovascular prevention in IJD patients. A full cardiovascular risk stratification was performed at the first consultation (history of conventional risk factors and of cardiovascular disease, lipid measurement, blood pressure and ultrasound examination of both carotid arteries), and the patient was classified to either a primary or secondary cardiovascular prevention regime, or to have a low risk (no intervention). Lipid-lowering treatment was adjusted until at least two lipid targets were achieved. RESULTS: Of the 426 patients referred, 36.6% had a systematic coronary risk evaluation less than 5% (no lipid-lowering intervention). The remaining 270 patients ((rheumatoid arthritis (RA), n=165; ankylosing spondylitis (AS), n=70; and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), n=35) were assigned to either primary (n=63) or secondary prevention (n=207). There were significant differences between the patient groups regarding age (p<0.001), sex (p<0.001) and disease duration (p<0.001). Lipid changes in IJD patients were: total cholesterol -1.86±1.20 mmol/l (p<0.001); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -1.74±1.11 (p<0.001); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 0.01±0.30 (p=0.61); triglycerides -0.28±0.72 (p<0.001). The proportions of patients reaching at least two lipid targets were for RA 92.1%, AS 90.0% and PsA 82.9%. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: There was indication for cardiovascular prevention in a high proportion of IJD patients referred for cardiovascular risk stratification. Treatment to lipid targets was successful in approximately 90% of patients with IJD.

Prediction of cardiovascular events in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: role of lipoproteins in a high-risk population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate lipids and apolipoproteins as predictors of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity (CVD) in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: In the pooled cohort of participants in the IDEAL, TNT, and CARDS trials, 50 had ankylosing spondylitis (AS), 36 had psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and 21,641 did not have AS or PsA (non-SpA). We compared lipid levels at baseline between AS or PsA and non-SpA, and hazard ratios (HR) for CVD were calculated in a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Atherogenic lipids were lower in samples from AS, but not in PsA, compared to non-SpA. The HR for 1 SD increase in baseline lipids for future CVD was for total cholesterol 1.39 (95% CI 0.82, 2.36) in AS, 1.01 (95% CI 0.44, 2.31) in PsA, and 1.10 (95% CI 1.07, 1.14) in non-SpA. Both high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein (ApoA-1) were significantly associated with CVD in AS (HR 3.67, 95% CI 1.47, 9.06, and HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.02, 3.54, respectively), in contrast to PsA (HDL: HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.49, 2.15; ApoA-1: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.34, 1.89) and non-SpA (HDL: HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.84, 0.89; ApoA-1: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.85, 0.91). CONCLUSION: HDL and ApoA-1 were surprisingly associated with increased risk of future CVD in patients with AS, whereas these lipids were protective in non-SpA.

Effect of intensive lipid-lowering therapy on cardiovascular outcome in patients with and those without inflammatory joint disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of intensive lipid-lowering therapy on a composite cardiovascular outcome (cardiovascular disease [CVD]), consisting of mortality and morbidity end points, in patients with inflammatory joint disease (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], ankylosing spondylitis [AS], or psoriatic arthritis [PsA]) by post hoc analysis of 2 prospective trials of statins with a secondary end point of CVD outcome (the Treating to New Targets [TNT] and Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering [IDEAL] studies). METHODS: Of the 18,889 patients participating in the 2 trials, 199 had RA, 46 had AS, and 35 had PsA. Lipid-lowering therapy consisted of an intensive regimen of atorvastatin 80 mg or a conventional/low-dose regimen of atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20-40 mg. The median duration of followup was nearly 5 years. Changes in lipid levels were examined by analyses of covariance. The effect on CVD was examined by Cox regression analyses, and heterogeneity tests were performed. RESULTS: Patients with RA and those with AS had lower baseline cholesterol levels than patients without inflammatory joint disease (least squares mean ± SEM 180.7 ± 2.3 mg/dl and 176.5 ± 4.7 mg/dl, respectively, versus 185.6 ± 0.2 mg/dl; P = 0.03 and P = 0.05, respectively). Statin treatment led to a comparable decrease in lipid levels and a 20% reduction in overall risk of CVD in both patients with and those without inflammatory joint disease. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that patients with and those without inflammatory joint disease experience comparable lipid-lowering effects and CVD risk reduction after intensive treatment with statins.

HDL-cholesterol and prediction of coronary heart disease: modified by physical fitness? A 28-year follow-up of apparently healthy men.

OBJECTIVE: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) and physical fitness (PF) have both been shown to predict cardiovascular disease (CVD), particularly coronary heart disease (CHD). Increased PF is associated with increased HDL and may partly explain the benefit of HDL. We tested the hypothesis that PF influences the prognostic impact of HDL for CHD and also for CHD-, CVD- and all-cause death. METHODS: HDL was measured 1979-1982 in 1357 healthy men aged 44-69 years followed up to 28 years. PF was measured using bicycle exercise test. Hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, smoking, systolic blood pressure, and total cholesterol and further for PF between HDL quartiles were calculated using Cox proportional survival model. RESULTS: The highest HDL quartile was associated with lower risk of CHD (HR: 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43-0.74), fatal CHD (HR: 0.56, CI: 0.36-0.86), fatal CVD (HR: 0.64, CI: 0.46-0.88) and all-cause death (HR: 0.80, CI: 0.65-0.99) compared to the lowest quartile. Adjustments for PF or changes in PF over 8.6 years did not change the results except for all-cause death, which was not significantly different between HDL quartiles. We found no interaction between HDL and PF. CONCLUSIONS: HDL is a strong predictor of long term risk of CHD, fatal CHD and fatal CVD in healthy middle-aged men. Physical fitness or its changes had no impact on the ability of HDL to predict CHD.

A risk score for predicting mortality in patients with asymptomatic mild to moderate aortic stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information for asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis (AS) from prospective studies is scarce and there is no risk score available to assess mortality. OBJECTIVES: To develop an easily calculable score, from which clinicians could stratify patients into high and lower risk of mortality, using data from the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. METHOD: A search for significant prognostic factors (p<0.01) among SEAS patients was made by a combined judgemental and statistical elimination procedure to derive a set of three factors (age, gender and smoking) that were forced into the model, and four additional factors captured by the data: left-ventricular mass index, bilirubin, heart rate and natural logarithm of C reactive protein. Calibration was done by comparing observed with calculated number of deaths by tenths of calculated risk using coefficients from the simvastatin + ezetimibe group on placebo group patients. RESULTS: Discrimination was good with ROC area of 0.76 for all patients. Estimated probabilities of death were categorised into thirds. An optimised split point of estimated 5-year risk was about 15% (close to the upper 14% tertile split point), with risk 4 times as high in the upper compared to the two lower thirds. The SEAS score performed better than another established high risk score developed for other purposes. CONCLUSION: A new seven factor model for risk stratification of patients with mild to moderate asymptomatic AS identified a high risk group for total mortality with good discrimination properties. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00092677.

Outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies have suggested that patients with a low transvalvular gradient in the presence of an aortic valve area < 1.0 cm² and normal ejection fraction may represent a subgroup with an advanced stage of aortic valve disease, reduced stroke volume, and poor prognosis requiring early surgery. We therefore evaluated the outcome of patients with low-gradient "severe" stenosis (defined as aortic valve area < 1.0 cm² and mean gradient ≤ 40 mm Hg) in the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Outcome in patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis was compared with outcome in patients with moderate stenosis (aortic valve area 1.0 to 1.5 cm²; mean gradient 25 to 40 mm Hg). The primary end point of aortic valve events included death from cardiovascular causes, aortic valve replacement, and heart failure due to aortic stenosis. Secondary end points were major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. In 1525 asymptomatic patients (mean age, 67 ± 10 years; ejection fraction, ≥ 55%), baseline echocardiography revealed low-gradient severe stenosis in 435 patients (29%) and moderate stenosis in 184 (12%). Left ventricular mass was lower in patients with low-gradient severe stenosis than in those with moderate stenosis (182 ± 64 versus 212 ± 68 g; P < 0.01). During 46 months of follow-up, aortic valve events occurred in 48.5% versus 44.6%, respectively (P = 0.37; major cardiovascular events, 50.9% versus 48.5%, P = 0.58; cardiovascular death, 7.8% versus 4.9%, P = 0.19). Low-gradient severe stenosis patients with reduced stroke volume index (≤ 35 mL/m²; n = 223) had aortic valve events comparable to those in patients with normal stroke volume index (46.2% versus 50.9%; P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low-gradient "severe" aortic stenosis and normal ejection fraction have an outcome similar to that in patients with moderate stenosis.

Lipid-lowering drugs and risk for cancer.

The suspicion that lipid-lowering drugs might increase the risk for cancer has been present for three decades and has been the reason for intense debate and several attempts to reanalyze data from clinical trials. Recently, the results of the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis study sparked new interest in this problem, as the intense lipid-lowering therapy seems to have increased the number of cancers compared with the control group. This article gives an overview of the clinical evidence from trials and observational studies. As of now, the evidence is inconclusive, but there does not appear to be a reason for serious concern with short-term therapy. Whether statins and other lipid-lowering drugs will increase the risk of cancer when used over several decades is at present unknown.