Does Adopting Western Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Targets Expose Indians to a Higher Risk of Cardiovascular Events? Expert Opinion From the Lipid Association of India.

Adverse cardiovascular (CV) events have declined in Western countries due at least in part to aggressive risk factor control, including dyslipidemia management. The American and European (Western) dyslipidemia treatment guidelines have contributed significantly to the reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) incidence in the respective populations. However, their direct extrapolation to Indian patients does not seem appropriate for the reasons described below. In the US, mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels have markedly declined over the last 2 decades, correlating with a proportional reduction in CV events. Conversely, poor risk factor control and dyslipidemia management have led to increased CV and coronary artery disease (CAD) mortality rates in India. The population-attributable risk of dyslipidemia is about 50% for myocardial infarction, signifying its major role in CV events. In addition, the pattern of dyslipidemia in Indians differs considerably from that in Western populations, requiring unique strategies for lipid management in Indians and modified treatment targets. The Lipid Association of India (LAI) recognized the need for tailored LDL-C targets for Indians and recommended lower targets compared to Western guidelines. For individuals with established ASCVD or diabetes with additional risk factors, an LDL-C target of <50 mg/dL was recommended, with an optional target of ≤30 mg/dL for individuals at extremely high risk. There are several reasons that necessitate these lower targets. In Indian subjects, CAD develops 10 years earlier than in Western populations and is more malignant. Additionally, Indians experience higher CAD mortality despite having lower basal LDL-C levels, requiring greater LDL-C reduction to achieve a comparable CV event reduction. The Indian Council for Medical Research-India Diabetes study described a high prevalence of dyslipidemia among Indians, characterized by relatively lower LDL-C levels, higher triglyceride levels, and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels compared to Western populations. About 30% of Indians have hypertriglyceridemia, aggravating ASCVD risk and complicating dyslipidemia management. The levels of atherogenic triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, including remnant lipoproteins, are increased in hypertriglyceridemia and are predictive of CV events. Hypertriglyceridemia is also associated with higher levels of small, dense LDL particles, which are more atherogenic, and higher levels of apolipoprotein B (Apo B), reflecting a higher burden of circulating atherogenic lipoprotein particles. A high prevalence of low HDL-C, which is often dysfunctional, and elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels further contribute to the heightened atherogenicity and premature CAD in Indians. Considering the unique characteristics of atherogenic dyslipidemia in Indians, lower LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and Apo B goals compared to Western guidelines are required for effective control of ASCVD risk in Indians. South Asian ancestry is identified as a risk enhancer in the American lipid management guidelines, highlighting the elevated ASCVD risk of Indian and other South Asian individuals, suggesting a need for more aggressive LDL-C lowering in such individuals. Hence, the LDL-C goals recommended by the Western guidelines may be excessively high for Indians and could result in significant residual ASCVD risk attributable to inadequate LDL-C lowering. Further, the results of Mendelian randomization studies have shown that lowering LDL-C by 5-10 mg/dL reduces CV risk by 8-18%. The lower LDL-C targets proposed by LAI can yield these incremental benefits. In conclusion, Western LDL-C targets may not be suitable for Indian subjects, given the earlier presentation of ASCVD at lower LDL-C levels. They may result in greater CV events that could otherwise be prevented with lower LDL-C targets. The atherogenic dyslipidemia in Indian individuals necessitates more aggressive LDL-C and non-HDL-C lowering, as recommended by the LAI, in order to stem the epidemic of ASCVD in India.

Unmet Need for Further LDL-C Lowering in India despite Statin Therapy: Lipid Association of India Recommendations for the Use of Bempedoic Acid.

Lipid-lowering therapy plays a crucial role in reducing adverse cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and familial hypercholesterolemia. Lifestyle interventions along with high-intensity statin therapy are the first-line management strategy followed by ezetimibe. Only about 20-30% of patients who are on maximally tolerated statins reach recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Several factors contribute to the problem, including adherence issues, prescription of less than high-intensity statin therapy, and de-escalation of statin dosages, but in patients with very high baseline LDL-C levels, including those with familial hypercholesterolemia and those who are intolerant to statins, it is critical to expand our arsenal of LDL-C-lowering medications. Moreover, in the extreme risk group of patients with an LDL-C goal of ≤30 mg/dL according to the Lipid Association of India (LAI) risk stratification algorithm, there is a significant residual risk requiring the addition of non-statin drugs to achieve LAI recommended targets. This makes bempedoic acid a welcome addition to the existing non-statin therapies such as ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants, and PCSK9 inhibitors. A low frequency of muscle-related side effects, minimal drug interactions, a significant reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and a lower incidence of new-onset or worsening diabetes make it a useful adjunct for LDL-C lowering. However, the CV outcomes trial results are still pending. In this LAI consensus document, we discuss the pharmacology, indications, contraindications, advantages, and evidence-based recommendations for the use of bempedoic acid in clinical practice.

Clinical relevance of double-arm blood pressure measurement and prevalence of clinically important inter-arm blood pressure differences in Indian Primary Care.

Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms at least once. However, this is seldom done due to uncertainties regarding measurement procedure and the implications of finding a clinically important inter-arm BP difference (IAD). This study aimed to provide insight into the prevalence of clinically important IADs in a large Indian primary care cohort. A number of 134678 (37% female) unselected Indian primary care participants, mean age 45.2 (SD 11.9) years, had BP measured in both arms using a standardized, triplicate, automated simultaneous measurement method (Microlife WatchBP Office Afib). On average, there were clinically minor differences in right and left arm BP values: systolic BP 134.4 vs. 134.2 mmHg (p<0.01) and diastolic BP 82.7 vs. 82.6 mmHg (p<0.01), respectively. Prevalence of significant mean systolic IAD between 10 and 15 mmHg was 7813 (5.8%). Systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg 2980 (2.2%) and diastolic IAD ≥ 10 mmHg 7151 (5.3%). In total, there were 7595 (5.6%) and 8548 (6.3%) participants with BP above the 140/90 mmHg threshold in only the left or right arm, respectively. Prevalence of participants with elevated BP on one arm only was highest in patients with a systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg; 19.1% and 13.7%, for left and right arm, respectively. This study shows that a substantial prevalence of IAD exist in Indian primary care patients. BP is above the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in one arm only for 6% of participants. These findings emphasise the importance of undertaking bilateral BP measurement in routine clinical practice. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Clinical relevance of double-arm blood pressure measurement and prevalence of clinically important inter-arm blood pressure differences in Indian primary care.

Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms at least once. However, this is seldom done due to uncertainties regarding measurement procedure and the implications of finding a clinically important inter-arm BP difference (IAD). This study aimed to provide insight into the prevalence of clinically important IADs in a large Indian primary care cohort. A number of 134 678 (37% female) unselected Indian primary care participants, mean age 45.2 (SD 11.9) years, had BP measured in both arms using a standardized, triplicate, automated simultaneous measurement method (Microlife WatchBP Office Afib). On average, there were clinically minor differences in right and left arm BP values: systolic BP 134.4 vs 134.2 mmHg (p < .01) and diastolic BP 82.7 vs 82.6 mmHg (p < .01), respectively. Prevalence of significant mean systolic IAD between 10 and 15 mmHg was 7,813 (5.8%). Systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg 2,980 (2.2%) and diastolic IAD ≥ 10 mmHg 7,151 (5.3%). In total, there were 7,595 (5.6%) and 8,548 (6.3%) participants with BP above the 140/90 mmHg threshold in only the left or right arm, respectively. Prevalence of participants with elevated BP on one arm only was highest in patients with a systolic IAD ≥ 15 mmHg; 19.1% and 13.7%, for left and right arm, respectively. This study shows that a substantial prevalence of IAD exists in Indian primary care patients. BP is above the diagnostic threshold for hypertension in one arm only for 6% of participants. These findings emphasize the importance of undertaking bilateral BP measurement in routine clinical practice.