Statins as Potential Chemoprevention or Therapeutic Agents in Cancer: a Model for Evaluating Repurposed Drugs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. RECENT FINDINGS: In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with "target" trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer.

Sex differences in cardiovascular morbidity associated with familial hypercholesterolaemia: A retrospective cohort study of the UK Simon Broome register linked to national hospital records.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The UK Simon Broome (SB) familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) register previously reported 3-fold higher standardised mortality ratio for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in women compared to men from 2009 to 2015. Here we examined sex differences in CVD morbidity in FH by national linkage of the SB register with Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). METHODS: Of 3553 FH individuals in the SB register (aged 20-79 years at registration), 2988 (52.5% women) had linked HES records. Standardised Morbidity Ratios (SMbR) compared to an age and sex-matched UK general practice population were calculated [95% confidence intervals] for first CVD hospitalisation in HES (a composite of coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction (MI), stable or unstable angina, stroke, TIA, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), heart failure, coronary revascularisation interventions). RESULTS: At registration, men had significantly (p < 0.001) higher prevalence of previous CHD (24.8% vs 17.6%), previous MI (13.2% vs 6.3%), and were commenced on lipid-lowering treatment at a younger age than women (37.5 years vs 42.3 years). The SMbR for composite CVD was 6.83 (6.33-7.37) in men and 7.55 (6.99-8.15) in women. In individuals aged 30-50 years, SMbR in women was 50% higher than in men (15.04 [12.98-17.42] vs 10.03 [9.01-11.17]). In individuals >50 years, SMbR was 33% higher in women than men (6.11 [5.57-6.70] vs 4.59 [4.08-5.15]). CONCLUSIONS: Excess CVD morbidity due to FH remains markedly elevated in women at all ages, but especially those aged 30-50 years. This highlights the need for earlier diagnosis and optimisation of lipid-lowering risk factor management for all FH patients, with particular attention to young women with FH.

Managing hyperlipidaemia in patients with COVID-19 and during its pandemic: An expert panel position statement from HEART UK.

The emergence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in a pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious and its severity highly variable. The fatality rate is unpredictable but is amplified by several factors including advancing age, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and obesity. A large proportion of patients with these conditions are treated with lipid lowering medication and questions regarding the safety of continuing lipid-lowering medication in patients infected with COVID-19 have arisen. Some have suggested they may exacerbate their condition. It is important to consider known interactions with lipid-lowering agents and with specific therapies for COVID-19. This statement aims to collate current evidence surrounding the safety of lipid-lowering medications in patients who have COVID-19. We offer a consensus view based on current knowledge and we rated the strength and level of evidence for these recommendations. Pubmed, Google scholar and Web of Science were searched extensively for articles using search terms: SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, coronavirus, Lipids, Statin, Fibrates, Ezetimibe, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, nicotinic acid, bile acid sequestrants, nutraceuticals, red yeast rice, Omega-3-Fatty acids, Lomitapide, hypercholesterolaemia, dyslipidaemia and Volanesorsen. There is no evidence currently that lipid lowering therapy is unsafe in patients with COVID-19 infection. Lipid-lowering therapy should not be interrupted because of the pandemic or in patients at increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In patients with confirmed COVID-19, care should be taken to avoid drug interactions, between lipid-lowering medications and drugs that may be used to treat COVID-19, especially in patients with abnormalities in liver function tests.

Non-HDL or LDL cholesterol in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: findings of the Simon Broome Register.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The role of non-HDL-C in the identification and management of lipid disorders is not clearly defined, although UK guidelines recommend its wider use in assessing the need for lipid-lowering therapy and as a treatment target. RECENT FINDINGS: We examined the implications of the use of non-HDL-C as opposed to LDL-C in 253 people with hypercholesterolaemia before treatment and 573 after treatment in whom fasting total serum cholesterol, HDL-C and LDL-C had been recorded and the diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (heFH) was investigated by genetic testing. The difference and the limits of agreement between non-HDL-C and LDL-C calculated using the Friedewald formula were assessed in those with and without heFH-causing mutations. SUMMARY: There were 147 mutation-positive and 106 mutation-negative pretreatment participants and 395 mutation-positive and 178 mutation-negative patients receiving treatment. The difference between non-HDL-C and LDL-C pretreatment in mutation-positive people (mean LDL-C 7.73 mmol/l) was 0.67 mmol/l (95% CI 0.62-0.73) and posttreatment (mean LDL-C 4.71 mmol/l) was 0.62 mmol/l (95% CI 0.59-0.65) with wide limits of agreement of -0.02 to 1.37 and 0.07-1.18 mmol/l, respectively. Among patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, use of estimated LDL-C derived from non-HDL-C in place of calculated LDL-C may result in diagnostic misclassification and difficulty in assessing the true reduction in LDL-C with treatment, because of the wide inter-individual limits of agreement around the mean difference between non-HDL-C and LDL-C.

HEART UK consensus statement on Lipoprotein(a): A call to action.

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is a modified atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particle that contains apolipoprotein(a). Its levels are highly heritable and variable in the population. This consensus statement by HEART UK is based on the evidence that Lp(a) is an independent cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, provides recommendations for its measurement in clinical practice and reviews current and emerging therapeutic strategies to reduce CVD risk. Ten statements summarise the most salient points for practitioners and patients with high Lp(a). HEART UK recommends that Lp(a) is measured in adults as follows: 1) those with a personal or family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD; 2) those with first-degree relatives who have Lp(a) levels >200 nmol/l; 3) patients with familial hypercholesterolemia; 4) patients with calcific aortic valve stenosis and 5) those with borderline (but <15%) 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event. The management of patients with raised Lp(a) levels should include: 1) reducing overall atherosclerotic risk; 2) controlling dyslipidemia with a desirable non-HDL-cholesterol level of <100 mg/dl (2.5 mmol/l) and 3) consideration of lipoprotein apheresis.

Current management of children and young people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia - HEART UK statement of care.

This consensus statement on the management of children and young people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) addresses management of paediatric FH in the UK, identified by cascade testing when a parent is diagnosed with FH and for those diagnosed following incidental lipid tests. Lifestyle and dietary advice appropriate for children with FH; suggested low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets and the most appropriate lipid-lowering therapies to achieve these are discussed in this statement of care. Based on the population prevalence of FH as ~1/250 and the UK paediatric population, there are approximately 50,000 FH children under 18 years. Currently only about 550 of these children and young people have been identified and are under paediatric care.

Coronary heart disease mortality in severe vs. non-severe familial hypercholesterolaemia in the Simon Broome Register.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The International Atherosclerosis Society (IAS) has proposed that patients with "severe" FH (SFH) would warrant early and more aggressive cholesterol-lowering treatment such as with PCSK9 inhibitors. SFH is diagnosed if LDL-cholesterol (LDLC) > 10 mmol/L, or LDLC >8.0 mmol/L plus one high-risk feature, or LDLC >5 mmol/L plus two high-risk features. Here we compare CHD mortality in SFH and non-SFH (NSFH) patients in the UK prospective Simon Broome Register since 1991, when statin use became routine. METHODS: 2929 definite or possible PFH patients (51% women) aged 20-79 years were recruited from 21 UK lipid clinics and followed prospectively between 1992 and 2016. The excess CHD standardised mortality ratio (SMR) compared to the England and Wales population was calculated (with 95% confidence intervals). RESULTS: 1982 (67.7%) patients met the SFH definition. Compared to the non-SFH, significantly (p < 0.001) more SFH patients had diagnosed CHD at baseline (24.6% vs. 17.5%), were current smokers (21.9% vs 10.2%) and had a BMI > 30 kg/m2 (14.9% vs. 7.8%). The SMR for CHD mortality was significantly (p = 0.007) higher for SFH (220 (184-261) (34,134 person years, 129 deaths observed, vs. 59 expected) compared to NSFH of 144 (98-203) (15,432 person years, 32 observed vs. 22 expected). After adjustment for traditional risk factors, the Hazard Ratio for CHD mortality in SFH vs. NSFH was 1.22 (0.80-1.87) p = 0.36, indicating that the excess risk was largely accounted for by these factors. CONCLUSIONS: CHD mortality remains elevated in treated FH, especially for SFH, emphasising the importance of optimal lipid-lowering and management of other risk factors.

HEART UK statement on the management of homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia in the United Kingdom.

This consensus statement addresses the current three main modalities of treatment of homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH): pharmacotherapy, lipoprotein (Lp) apheresis and liver transplantation. HoFH may cause very premature atheromatous arterial disease and death, despite treatment with Lp apheresis combined with statin, ezetimibe and bile acid sequestrants. Two new classes of drug, effective in lowering cholesterol in HoFH, are now licensed in the United Kingdom. Lomitapide is restricted to use in HoFH but, may cause fatty liver and is very expensive. PCSK9 inhibitors are quite effective in receptor defective HoFH, are safe and are less expensive. Lower treatment targets for lipid lowering in HoFH, in line with those for the general FH population, have been proposed to improve cardiovascular outcomes. HEART UK presents a strategy combining Lp apheresis with pharmacological treatment to achieve these targets in the United Kingdom (UK). Improved provision of Lp apheresis by use of existing infrastructure for extracorporeal treatments such as renal dialysis is promoted. The clinical management of adults and children with HoFH including advice on pregnancy and contraception are addressed. A premise of the HEART UK strategy is that the risk of early use of drug treatments beyond their licensed age restriction may be balanced against risks of liver transplantation or ineffective treatment in severely affected patients. This may be of interest beyond the UK.

Knowledge gaps in the management of familial hypercholesterolaemia. A UK based survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Untreated individuals with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) are at increased risk of developing premature cardiovascular disease (CVD). Early diagnosis and treatment can result in a normal life expectancy. A recent survey commissioned by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) reported a lack of awareness of FH in the general population. We conducted a survey to assess knowledge among healthcare professionals involved in the assessment and management of cardiovascular risk and disease in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A survey designed to assess knowledge of diagnostic criteria, risk assessment, the role of cascade screening, and management options for patients with FH was distributed to 1000 healthcare professionals (response rate 44.3%). The same survey was redistributed following attendance at an educational session on FH. RESULTS: 151 respondents (40.5%) reported having patients under their care who would meet the diagnostic criteria for FH, but just 61.4% recognized that cardiovascular risk estimation tools cannot be applied in FH, and only 22.3% understood the relative risk of premature CVD compared to the general population. Similarly, just 65.9% were aware of recommendations regarding cascade screening. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence and associated risk of FH continue to be underestimated, and knowledge of diagnostic criteria and treatment options is suboptimal. These results support the recent Consensus Statement of the EAS and production of quality standards by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Further work is required to formulate interventions to improve FH awareness and knowledge, and to determine the effect these interventions have on patient outcomes.

Reductions in all-cause, cancer, and coronary mortality in statin-treated patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a prospective registry study.

AIMS: To examine the changes in coronary, all-cause, and cancer mortality in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) before and after lipid-lowering therapy with statins. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 3382 patients (1650 men) aged <80 years were recruited from 21 lipid clinics in the United Kingdom and followed prospectively between 1980 and 2006 for 46 580 person-years. There were 370 deaths, including 190 from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 90 from cancer. The standardized mortality ratio (compared with the population in England and Wales) was calculated before and from 1 January 1992. In patients aged 20-79 years, CHD mortality fell significantly by 37% (95% CI = 7-56) from 3.4- to 2.1-fold excess. Primary prevention resulted in a 48% reduction in CHD mortality from 2.0-fold excess to none, with a smaller reduction of nearly 25% in patients with established disease. Coronary mortality was reduced more in women than in men. In patients without known CHD at registration, all-cause mortality from 1992 was 33% (21-43), lower than in the general population, mainly due to a 37% (21-50) lower risk of fatal cancer. CONCLUSION: The results emphasize the importance of early identification of FH and treatment with statins.

Impact of practice size on delivery of diabetes care before and after the Quality and Outcomes Framework implementation.

General practice characteristics are important for healthcare providers to maximise outcomes. Although different aspects of general practice characteristics have been studied previously, the impact of practice size on the delivery of care has been sparsely studied, particularly in relation to diabetes care. This brief report presents a longitudinal study in Shropshire (66 practices, 16,858 patients with diabetes) to assess the impact of practice size on diabetes care before and after implementation of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Achievement of glycaemic control targets was better before the QOF for larger as compared to smaller practices (P=0.02 and P=0.003 for haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c]

Diabetes care and the new GMS contract: the evidence for a whole county.

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) of the new GP contract on diabetes care in Shropshire, which has a total population of approximately 460 000. The mean percentage of patients achieving each of the quality indicators in each practice in Shropshire, before and after the implementation of the QOF was calculated. All 16 867 patients with diabetes from all 66 Shropshire practices were included. There were significant improvements in the percentage of patients achieving targets for all quality indicators between April 2004 to March 2006 (P<0.001).

Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review systematically the evidence for an effect of long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fatty acids on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cancer. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases searched to February 2002; authors contacted and bibliographies of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) checked to locate studies. REVIEW METHODS: Review of RCTs of omega 3 intake for (3) 6 months in adults (with or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease) with data on a relevant outcome. Cohort studies that estimated omega 3 intake and related this to clinical outcome during at least 6 months were also included. Application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed independently in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 15,159 titles and abstracts assessed, 48 RCTs (36,913 participants) and 41 cohort studies were analysed. The trial results were inconsistent. The pooled estimate showed no strong evidence of reduced risk of total mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.03) or combined cardiovascular events (0.95, 0.82 to 1.12) in participants taking additional omega 3 fats. The few studies at low risk of bias were more consistent, but they showed no effect of omega 3 on total mortality (0.98, 0.70 to 1.36) or cardiovascular events (1.09, 0.87 to 1.37). When data from the subgroup of studies of long chain omega 3 fats were analysed separately, total mortality (0.86, 0.70 to 1.04; 138 events) and cardiovascular events (0.93, 0.79 to 1.11) were not clearly reduced. Neither RCTs nor cohort studies suggested increased risk of cancer with a higher intake of omega 3 (trials: 1.07, 0.88 to 1.30; cohort studies: 1.02, 0.87 to 1.19), but clinically important harm could not be excluded. CONCLUSION: Long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fats do not have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer.

Primary standardization of assays for anticonvulsant drugs: comparison of accuracy and precision.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and precision of methods for the measurement of the anticonvulsants phenytoin, phenobarbital, primidone, carbamazepine, ethosuximide, and valproate in human serum were assessed in 297 laboratories that were participants in the United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme (UKNEQAS). METHODS: We distributed lyophilized, serum-based materials containing low, medium, and high weighed-in concentrations of the drugs. The 297 participating laboratories received the materials on two occasions, 7 months apart. Expected concentrations were determined by gas chromatography or HPLC methods in five laboratories using serum-based NIST reference materials as calibrators. RESULTS: In general, bias was consistent across concentrations for a method but often differed in magnitude for different drugs. Bias ranged from -1.9% to 8.6% for phenytoin, -2.7% to 3.1% for phenobarbital, -2.7% to 0.5% for primidone, -8.6% to 0.3% for carbamazepine, -5.6% to 2.0% for ethosuximide, and -7.2% to 0.1% for valproate. Intralaboratory sources of imprecision significantly exceeded interlaboratory sources for many drug/method combinations. The mean CVs for intra- and interlaboratory errors for the different drugs were 6.3-7.8% and 3.3-4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For these long-established and relatively high-concentration analytes, the closed analytical platforms generally performed no better than open systems or chromatography, where use of calibrators prepared in house predominated. To improve the accuracy of measurements, work is required principally by the manufacturers of immunoassays to ensure minimal calibration error and to eliminate batch-to-batch variability of reagents. Individual laboratories should concentrate on minimizing dispensing errors.

Scoring and performance of analysis and interpretation of toxicologic cases assessed by external quality assurance.

Quantitative analysis of toxicology cases requires knowledgeable interpretation. We describe a scoring scheme that integrates analytical and interpretive performance for such cases using a reward/penalty scoring scheme. This scheme has been validated on cases circulated over the previous 5 years to volunteer participants in the UKNEQAS for Drug Assays Scheme. We have been able to identify a subset of poorly performing laboratories that should desist from toxicologic analysis and interpretation.