LDL como objetivo terapéutico / LDL as a therapeutic target

La incidencia de las enfermedades arterioscleróticas ha aumentado en los países desarrollados. La dislipemia es un factor de riesgo cardiovascular mayor y el descenso del LDLc es el objetivo terapéutico. Hay que individualizar los objetivos en cada paciente y las estatinas han demostrado ser un tratamiento coste-efectivo tanto en prevención primaria como en secundaria. La aparición de los inhibidores de PSCK9, más potentes y por tanto consiguiendo un mayor descenso de las cifras de LDLc, son un avance en el tratamiento de la enfermedad cardiovascular. La publicación en 2019 de las Guías de Dislipemias (Sociedad Europea de Cardiología /Sociedad Europea de Arteriosclerosis) con el nivel de evidencia y fuerza de recomendación, pueden ayudar en la toma de decisiones y beneficios para nuestros pacientes en la práctica clínica diaria.(AU)

The incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovsacular disease (ASCVC) has increased in the developed countries. Dyslipidemia is a primary major risk factor for ASCVD and LDL lowering is one of the main objectives. Although treatment goals for dyslipidemias should be personalized in every patient, statins are cost-effective in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. New treatments with higher power and greater decreases in LDL, PSCK9 inhibitors, have made a new breakthrough in ASCVD treatment. The 2019 Guidelines for de Management of Dyslipidaemias: Lipid Modification to reduce Cardiovascular Risk (European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) with the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations can facilitate the best decisions and benefits to our patients in clinical practice.(AU)

LDL as a therapeutic target. / LDL como objetivo terapéutico.

The incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovsacular disease (ASCVC) has increased in the developed countries. Dyslipidemia is a primary major risk factor for ASCVD and LDL lowering is one of the main objectives. Although treatment goals for dyslipidemias should be personalized in every patient, statins are cost-effective in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. New treatments with higher power and greater decreases in LDL, PSCK9 inhibitors, have made a new breakthrough in ASCVD treatment. The 2019 Guidelines for de Management of Dyslipidaemias: Lipid Modification to reduce Cardiovascular Risk (European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) with the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations can facilitate the best decisions and benefits to our patients in clinical practice.

LDL as a therapeutic objective. / LDL como objetivo terapéutico.

The incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has increased in the developed countries. Dyslipidemia is a primary major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL lowering is one of the main objectives. Although treatment goals for dyslipidemias should be personalized in every patient, statins are cost-effective in primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. New treatments with higher power and greater decreases in LDL, PSCK9 inhibitors, have made a new breakthrough in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treatment. The 2019 guidelines for de management of dyslipidemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk (European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) with the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations can facilitate the best decisions and benefits to our patients in clinical practice.

LDL como objetivo terapéutico / LDL as a therapeutic objective

La incidencia de las enfermedades arterioscleróticas ha aumentado en los países desarrollados. La dislipemia es un factor de riesgo cardiovascular mayor y el descenso del cLDL es el objetivo terapéutico. Hay que individualizar los objetivos en cada paciente y las estatinas han demostrado ser un tratamiento coste-efectivo tanto en prevención primaria como en secundaria. La aparición de los inhibidores de PSCK9, más potentes y por tanto consiguiendo un mayor descenso de las cifras de cLDL, son un avance en el tratamiento de la enfermedad cardiovascular. La publicación en 2019 de las guías de dislipemias (Sociedad Europea de Cardiología/Sociedad Europea de Arteriosclerosis), con el nivel de evidencia y fuerza de recomendación, pueden ayudar en la toma de decisiones y beneficios para nuestros pacientes en la práctica clínica diaria

The incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has increased in the developed countries. Dyslipidemia is a primary major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL lowering is one of the main objectives. Although treatment goals for dyslipidemias should be personalized in every patient, statins are cost-effective in primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. New treatments with higher power and greater decreases in LDL, PSCK9 inhibitors, have made a new breakthrough in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease treatment. The 2019 guidelines for de management of dyslipidemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk (European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society) with the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations can facilitate the best decisions and benefits to our patients in clinical practice

Management of atherogenic dyslipidemia in the primary care setting in Spain / Manejo de la dislipemia aterogénica en el ámbito de Atención Primaria en España

Aim: To describe the management of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) in routine clinical practice in the Primary Care (PC) setting in Spain. Methods: Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study based on a structured questionnaire designed for this study and addressed to PC physicians. The questionnaire content was based on a literature review and was validated by 3 experts in AD. Results: A total of 1029 PC physicians participated in the study. 96.99% indicated that AD is determinant for cardiovascular risk, even if LDL-C levels are appropriate. 88.43% evaluated residual cardiovascular risk in their clinical practice, however, only 27.89% of them evaluated it in secondary prevention. Regarding diagnosis, 82.22% reported that TC, TG, HDL-C and non-HDL-C are essential measures when evaluating AD. Almost all physicians reported that they can request fractionated cholesterol to assess HDL-C and LDL-C, however 3.69% could not. Physicians (95.63%) considered that the first step in AD treatment should be diet, regular exercise, smoking cessation and pharmaceutical treatment, if necessary. 19.1% agreed partially or completely that gemfibrozil is the most suitable fibrate to associate with statins. 74.83% completely agreed that fenofibrate is the most suitable fibrate to combine with statins. Conclusions: Physicians have access to general Spanish guidelines and recommendations associated with AD management, however, it is necessary to continue rising awareness about the importance of early detection and optimal control of AD to reduce patients' cardiovascular risk

Objetivo: Describir el manejo de la dislipemia aterogénica (DA) en la práctica clínica, en el ámbito de la atención primaria (AP) en España. Métodos: Estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal, por medio de un cuestionario ad-hoc estructurado, dirigido a médicos de AP. El contenido del cuestionario se basó en una revisión de la literatura y fue validado por 3 expertos en DA. Resultados: Participaron en el estudio 1.029 médicos de AP. El 96,99% coincidió en que la DA constituye un factor determinante del riesgo cardiovascular aunque los niveles de cLDL sean adecuados. Un 88,43% indicó que evaluaba el riesgo residual cardiovascular en su práctica clínica habitual, aunque un 27,89% lo evaluaba solo en prevención secundaria. Un 82,22% consideró que para la valoración de un paciente con DA es imprescindible conocer el colesterol total, los triglicéridos, el cHDL, el cLDL y el no-cHDL. La mayoría indicó que podía solicitar fraccionamiento del colesterol total para valorar el cHDL y el cLDL, de forma rutinaria sin restricciones, pero el 3,69% indicó que no. Un 95,63% consideró que el primer paso en el tratamiento implica un control de la dieta, ejercicio físico, abandono del tabaco y si se precisa, tratamiento farmacológico. Un 19,1% estaba parcial o completamente de acuerdo en que el gemfibrozilo es el fibrato más adecuado para asociar con estatinas. El 74,83% estaba completamente de acuerdo en que el fenofibrato es el fibrato más apropiado para combinar con estatinas. Conclusiones: Los médicos tienen acceso a las guías y recomendaciones clínicas sobre el manejo de la DA, pero es necesario continuar concienciando de la importancia de su detección precoz y control óptimo para limitar su riesgo cardiovascular

Management of atherogenic dyslipidemia in the primary care setting in Spain.

AIM: To describe the management of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) in routine clinical practice in the Primary Care (PC) setting in Spain. METHODS: Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study based on a structured questionnaire designed for this study and addressed to PC physicians. The questionnaire content was based on a literature review and was validated by 3 experts in AD. RESULTS: A total of 1029 PC physicians participated in the study. 96.99% indicated that AD is determinant for cardiovascular risk, even if LDL-C levels are appropriate. 88.43% evaluated residual cardiovascular risk in their clinical practice, however, only 27.89% of them evaluated it in secondary prevention. Regarding diagnosis, 82.22% reported that TC, TG, HDL-C and non-HDL-C are essential measures when evaluating AD. Almost all physicians reported that they can request fractionated cholesterol to assess HDL-C and LDL-C, however 3.69% could not. Physicians (95.63%) considered that the first step in AD treatment should be diet, regular exercise, smoking cessation and pharmaceutical treatment, if necessary. 19.1% agreed partially or completely that gemfibrozil is the most suitable fibrate to associate with statins. 74.83% completely agreed that fenofibrate is the most suitable fibrate to combine with statins. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians have access to general Spanish guidelines and recommendations associated with AD management, however, it is necessary to continue rising awareness about the importance of early detection and optimal control of AD to reduce patients' cardiovascular risk.

El papel de la dislipemia aterogénica en las guías de práctica clínica / The role of atherogenic dyslipidaemia in clinical practice guidelines

Antecedentes y objetivo: La dislipemia aterogénica está frecuentemente infradiagnosticada e infratratada. El objetivo del presente estudio ha sido revisar el posicionamiento de las guías de práctica clínica con respecto a la dislipemia aterogénica. Material y método: A partir de la base de datos MEDLINE se recogieron las principales guías de práctica clínica de las sociedades científicas u organismos oficiales emitidas entre el 1 de enero de 2012 y el 31 marzo de 2015. De las 10 guías seleccionadas se identificaron los siguientes parámetros: colesterol de las lipoproteínas de alta densidad (HDL), triglicéridos, colesterol no HDL, apolipoproteína (apo) B y dislipemia aterogénica. De cada uno de ellos se valoró si eran considerados un factor de riesgo cardiovascular, si establecían algún objetivo terapéutico y si proponían algún tratamiento farmacológico específico. Resultados: Las guías americanas, excepto la National Lipid Association (NLA), no consideran el colesterol HDL y los triglicéridos en la prevención cardiovascular. La NLA resalta la relevancia de la dislipemia aterogénica. Por su parte, la guía canadiense introduce el colesterol no HDL y la apo B como objetivos alternativos y propone tratamiento con fármacos hipolipemiantes distintos de las estatinas en presencia de colesterol HDL bajo e hipertrigliceridemia. Las recomendaciones de la International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) y del National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) promueven la importancia del colesterol no HDL. Las guías europea, brasileña y japonesa ponen en valor el colesterol HDL y los triglicéridos, aunque con la limitación de que las principales evidencias proceden de subanálisis de estudios clínicos. Conclusiones: Las guías de práctica clínica analizadas o no consideran la importancia de la dislipemia aterogénica o la abordan de forma poco convincente

Background and objective: Atherogenic dyslipidaemia is underdiagnosed, undertreated, and under-controlled. The aim of the present study was to assess the positioning of clinical guidelines as regards atherogenic dyslipidaemia. Material and method: The major clinical guidelines of scientific societies or official agencies issued between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2015 were collected from the MEDLINE database. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, atherogenic dyslipidaemia, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B were gathered from the 10 selected guidelines, and it was assessed whether these parameters were considered a cardiovascular risk factor, a therapeutic target, or proposed a pharmacological strategy. Results: American guidelines, except the National Lipid Association (NLA), do not consider HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in cardiovascular prevention. The NLA emphasises the relevance of atherogenic dyslipidaemia. The Canadian guidelines introduced non-HDL cholesterol and Apo B as alternative targets, and proposes non-statin treatment in the presence of low HDL cholesterol and hypertriglyceridaemia. The International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines promote the importance of non-HDL cholesterol. European, Brazilian and Japanese guidelines highlight HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, but with the limitation that the main evidence comes from sub-analysis of clinical studies. Conclusions: The clinical guidelines analysed do not consider, or unconvincingly address, the importance of atherogenic dyslipidaemia

[The role of atherogenic dyslipidaemia in clinical practice guidelines]. / El papel de la dislipemia aterogénica en las guías de práctica clínica.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Atherogenic dyslipidaemia is underdiagnosed, undertreated, and under-controlled. The aim of the present study was to assess the positioning of clinical guidelines as regards atherogenic dyslipidaemia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The major clinical guidelines of scientific societies or official agencies issued between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2015 were collected from the MEDLINE database. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, atherogenic dyslipidaemia, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B were gathered from the 10 selected guidelines, and it was assessed whether these parameters were considered a cardiovascular risk factor, a therapeutic target, or proposed a pharmacological strategy. RESULTS: American guidelines, except the National Lipid Association (NLA), do not consider HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in cardiovascular prevention. The NLA emphasises the relevance of atherogenic dyslipidaemia. The Canadian guidelines introduced non-HDL cholesterol and ApoB as alternative targets, and proposes non-statin treatment in the presence of low HDL cholesterol and hypertriglyceridaemia. The International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines promote the importance of non-HDL cholesterol. European, Brazilian and Japanese guidelines highlight HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, but with the limitation that the main evidence comes from sub-analysis of clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical guidelines analysed do not consider, or unconvincingly address, the importance of atherogenic dyslipidaemia.

Mejorar la salud cardiovascular: estamos obligados a no perder impulso / To improve cardiovascular health: we are forced for not loosing impulse

No disponible

Cardiometabolic Risk Related to the Association of hypertriglyceridemia-Low HDLc.

AIMS: High levels of plasma triglycerides (TG) are a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases often associated with anomalies in other lipids or lipoproteins. However, results from randomized trials, suggesting that low high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) might not cause cardiovascular disease, as originally thought, have generated renewed interest in increased concentrations of TG. The objective has been to determine the prevalence and factors associated with hypertrigliceridemia (HTG) and with low HDLc. METHODS: Patients, included in the HTG Registry of the Spanish Association of Atherosclerosis, have been analyzed and anthropometric as well as metabolic data have been collected from them. RESULTS: 1349 patients have been evaluated. Low HDLc has been found in 60.86% (821). Factors significantly associated with low HDLc and HTG were the female sex, being overweight with an increase in the body mass index, using tobacco, diabetes mellitus, low-alcohol consumption and a low exercise rate. Among them, two types of association may be identified with anthropometric variables (especially in men) and metabolic variables (diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome). No significant differences have been found insofar as the prevalence of cardiovascular illness between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: HTG - low HDLc association is very frequent and it is related to overweight-obesity and other metabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus with or without metabolic syndrome. In addition, these findings underscore the intricate relationship between HDLc, TG, and glucose metabolism that need to be studied simultaneously. In this context, TG lowering treatment is suggested to be more strongly recommended to address the residual risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention

Coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en pacientes con riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto en España / Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain

Introducción y objetivos: Estimar el coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en España, de acuerdo con las guías europeas de tratamiento de las dislipidemias, en pacientes con alto y muy alto riesgo cardiovascular. Métodos: Modelo de Markov de coste-efectividad a largo plazo de rosuvastatina versus simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina, en pacientes de alto y muy alto riesgo cardiovascular definido por 5 factores (sexo, edad, hábito tabáquico, nivel de colesterol inicial, presión arterial sistólica) según el sistema SCORE. La ratio coste-efectividad incremental se expresa en euros por año de vida ajustado por calidad y se calcula desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Resultados: Los resultados indican que rosuvastatina se asocia a un beneficio mayor que las otras estatinas en todos los perfiles considerados. Rosuvastatina es más coste-efectiva con respecto a simvastatina en pacientes con riesgo SCORE ≥ 8% en mujeres y ≥ 6% en hombres, mientras que entre 5% y los valores indicados su coste-efectividad depende del nivel basal de c-LDL del paciente. Rosuvastatina resulta más coste-efectiva frente a atorvastatina a partir de un riesgo SCORE de 11% en mujeres y 10% en hombres. Rosuvastatina resulta dominante frente a pitavastatina, tanto en mujeres como en hombres con riesgo alto y muy alto en el sistema SCORE. Conclusiones: Rosuvastatina es una terapia coste-efectiva en el tratamiento de la hipercolesterolemia, frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina, especialmente en determinados perfiles de pacientes con factores de riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto según el sistema SCORE en España

Introduction and objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in Spain, according to the European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk.Methods: A Markov long-term cost-effectiveness model of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk defined according to 5 factors (sex, age, smoking habit, baseline cholesterol level, and systolic blood pressure) using the SCORE system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed in euros per quality adjusted life years and is calculated according to the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. Results: Rosuvastatin is associated with a greater health benefit than the other statins across the considered profiles. Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared to simvastatin in patients with SCORE risk ≥8% in females and ≥6% in males, while between 5% and the indicated values its cost-effectiveness is conditional to the patient baseline c-LDL level. Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective versus atorvastatin in female profiles associated with a SCORE risk≥11% and male profiles with SCORE risk ≥10%. Rosuvastatin is superior versus pitavastatin in both female and male profiles with high and very high cardiovascular risk. Conclusions: Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin, especially in specific profiles of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk factors, according to the SCORE system, in Spain

Sindrome metabólico en pacientes con fenotipo clínico de 'cintura hipertrigliceridémica' / Metabolic syndrome in patients with clinical phenotype 'hypertriglyceridemic waist'

Introducción: el fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica se ha asociado con la presencia de síndrome metabólico. Objetivo: en el presente estudio se ha planteado estudiar la relación entre el fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica y el síndrome metabólico, así como otros factores de riesgo metabólicos. Y, finalmente, valorar si se asocia a un incremento del riesgo cardiovascular. Métodos: este estudio se ha realizado reclutando a los pacientes incluidos en un registro nacional de hipertrigliceridemias de la Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis. El total de pacientes evaluables para el presente estudio ha sido de 1.369. Los criterios empleados para definir el aumento de perímetro y para el síndrome metabólico fueron en base a los establecidos por la ATPIII o por la IDF, respectivamente. Resultados: la prevalencia de cintura hipertrigliceridémica en los pacientes con hipertrigliceridemia resultó casi del 50 % y 80 % empleándose criterios antropométricos de ATPIII y de IDF, respectivamente. La prevalencia de síndrome metabólico en estos pacientes estuvo próxima al 97% (criterios ATPIII) y al 63% (criterios IDF). Asimismo, resultó significativamente elevada la prevalencia de hipertensión arterial y de diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Sin embargo, la asociación con la enfermedad cardiovascular no dependía de la existencia del fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica, sino de la existencia (o no) de síndrome metabólico. Conclusiones: la CHTG puede ser utilizada en la práctica clínica habitual como un marcador de alteraciones metabólicas (AU)

Introduction: hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype has been associated with metabolic syndrome. Objetives: in the present work has been raised to study the relationship between hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype and metabolic syndrome as well as other metabolic risk factors. And finally, assess whether it is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Methods: this study was conducted recruiting patients in a national registry of hypertriglyceridemia of the Spanish Society of Artherosclerosis. The total number of patients included in the present study was 1 369. The criteria used to define the increased waist perimeter and metabolic syndrome were based on those established by the ATPIII or IDF, respectively. Results: hypertriglyceridemic waist prevalence in patients with hypertriglyceridemia was near to 50% and 80% using ATPII and IDF anthropometric criteria, respectively. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in these patients was close to 97% (ATPIII criteria) and 63% (IDF criteria). Also was significantly higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2. However, the association with cardiovascular disease does not depend on the existence of hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype, but the existence (or not) of metabolic syndrome. Conclusions: the CHTG can be used in clinical practice routine as a marker of metabolic alterations (AU)

[METABOLIC SYNDROME IN PATIENTS WITH CLINICAL PHENOTYPE "HYPERTRIGLYCERIDEMIC WAIST"]. / SINDROME METABÓLICO EN PACIENTES CON FENOTIPO CLÍNICO DE "CINTURA HIPERTRIGLICERIDÉMICA".

INTRODUCTION: hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype has been associated with metabolic syndrome. OBJETIVES: in the present work has been raised to study the relationship between hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype and metabolic syndrome as well as other metabolic risk factors. And finally, assess whether it is associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. METHODS: this study was conducted recruiting patients in a national registry of hypertriglyceridemia of the Spanish Society of Artherosclerosis. The total number of patients included in the present study was 1 369. The criteria used to define the increased waist perimeter and metabolic syndrome were based on those established by the ATPIII or IDF, respectively. RESULTS: hypertriglyceridemic waist prevalence in patients with hypertriglyceridemia was near to 50% and 80% using ATPII and IDF anthropometric criteria, respectively. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in these patients was close to 97% (ATPIII criteria) and 63% (IDF criteria). Also was significantly higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus type 2. However, the association with cardiovascular disease does not depend on the existence of hypertriglyceridemic waist phenotype, but the existence (or not) of metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: the CHTG can be used in clinical practice routine as a marker of metabolic alterations.

Introducción: el fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica se ha asociado con la presencia de síndrome metabólico. Objetivo: en el presente estudio se ha planteado estudiar la relación entre el fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica y el síndrome metabólico, así como otros factores de riesgo metabólicos. Y, finalmente, valorar si se asocia a un incremento del riesgo cardiovascular. Métodos: este estudio se ha realizado reclutando a los pacientes incluidos en un registro nacional de hipertrigliceridemias de la Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis. El total de pacientes evaluables para el presente estudio ha sido de 1.369. Los criterios empleados para definir el aumento de perímetro y para el síndrome metabólico fueron en base a los establecidos por la ATPIII o por la IDF, respectivamente. Resultados: la prevalencia de cintura hipertrigliceridémica en los pacientes con hipertrigliceridemia resultó casi del 50 % y 80 % empleándose criterios antropométricos de ATPIII y de IDF, respectivamente. La prevalencia de síndrome metabólico en estos pacientes estuvo próxima al 97% (criterios ATPIII) y al 63% (criterios IDF). Asimismo, resultó significativamente elevada la prevalencia de hipertensión arterial y de diabetes mellitus tipo 2. Sin embargo, la asociación con la enfermedad cardiovascular no dependía de la existencia del fenotipo de cintura hipertrigliceridémica, sino de la existencia (o no) de síndrome metabólico. Conclusiones: la CHTG puede ser utilizada en la práctica clínica habitual como un marcador de alteraciones metabólicas.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias.El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management: differences between the European and American Guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria (AU)

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention (AU)

[Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de rosuvastatina frente a simvastatina, atorvastatina y pitavastatina en pacientes con riesgo cardiovascular alto y muy alto en España.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in Spain, according to the European guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: A Markov long-term cost-effectiveness model of rosuvastatin versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin in patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk defined according to 5 factors (sex, age, smoking habit, baseline cholesterol level, and systolic blood pressure) using the SCORE system. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is expressed in euros per quality adjusted life years and is calculated according to the perspective of the Spanish National Health System. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin is associated with a greater health benefit than the other statins across the considered profiles. Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared to simvastatin in patients with SCORE risk ≥8% in females and ≥6% in males, while between 5% and the indicated values its cost-effectiveness is conditional to the patient baseline c-LDL level. Rosuvastatin is more cost-effective versus atorvastatin in female profiles associated with a SCORE risk≥11% and male profiles with SCORE risk ≥10%. Rosuvastatin is superior versus pitavastatin in both female and male profiles with high and very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin is a cost-effective therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia versus simvastatin, atorvastatin and pitavastatin, especially in specific profiles of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk factors, according to the SCORE system, in Spain.