Obesity, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease: A joint expert review from the Obesity Medicine Association and the National Lipid Association 2024.

Background: This joint expert review by the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) and National Lipid Association (NLA) provides clinicians an overview of the pathophysiologic and clinical considerations regarding obesity, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods: This joint expert review is based upon scientific evidence, clinical perspectives of the authors, and peer review by the OMA and NLA leadership. Results: Among individuals with obesity, adipose tissue may store over 50% of the total body free cholesterol. Triglycerides may represent up to 99% of lipid species in adipose tissue. The potential for adipose tissue expansion accounts for the greatest weight variance among most individuals, with percent body fat ranging from less than 5% to over 60%. While population studies suggest a modest increase in blood low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with excess adiposity, the adiposopathic dyslipidemia pattern most often described with an increase in adiposity includes elevated triglycerides, reduced high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), increased non-HDL-C, elevated apolipoprotein B, increased LDL particle concentration, and increased small, dense LDL particles. Conclusions: Obesity increases CVD risk, at least partially due to promotion of an adiposopathic, atherogenic lipid profile. Obesity also worsens other cardiometabolic risk factors. Among patients with obesity, interventions that reduce body weight and improve CVD outcomes are generally associated with improved lipid levels. Given the modest improvement in blood LDL-C with weight reduction in patients with overweight or obesity, early interventions to treat both excess adiposity and elevated atherogenic cholesterol (LDL-C and/or non-HDL-C) levels represent priorities in reducing the risk of CVD.

A focused update to the 2019 NLA scientific statement on use of lipoprotein(a) in clinical practice.

Since the 2019 National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Statement on Use of Lipoprotein(a) in Clinical Practice was issued, accumulating epidemiological data have clarified the relationship between lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] level and cardiovascular disease risk and risk reduction. Therefore, the NLA developed this focused update to guide clinicians in applying this emerging evidence in clinical practice. We now have sufficient evidence to support the recommendation to measure Lp(a) levels at least once in every adult for risk stratification. Individuals with Lp(a) levels <75 nmol/L (30 mg/dL) are considered low risk, individuals with Lp(a) levels ≥125 nmol/L (50 mg/dL) are considered high risk, and individuals with Lp(a) levels between 75 and 125 nmol/L (30-50 mg/dL) are at intermediate risk. Cascade screening of first-degree relatives of patients with elevated Lp(a) can identify additional individuals at risk who require intervention. Patients with elevated Lp(a) should receive early, more-intensive risk factor management, including lifestyle modification and lipid-lowering drug therapy in high-risk individuals, primarily to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an indication for lipoprotein apheresis (which reduces both Lp(a) and LDL-C) in high-risk patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and documented coronary or peripheral artery disease whose Lp(a) level remains ≥60 mg/dL [∼150 nmol/L)] and LDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL on maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. Although Lp(a) is an established independent causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and despite the high prevalence of Lp(a) elevation (∼1 of 5 individuals), measurement rates are low, warranting improved screening strategies for cardiovascular disease prevention.

Obesity, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease: A joint expert review from the Obesity Medicine Association and the National Lipid Association 2024.

BACKGROUND: This joint expert review by the Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) and National Lipid Association (NLA) provides clinicians an overview of the pathophysiologic and clinical considerations regarding obesity, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: This joint expert review is based upon scientific evidence, clinical perspectives of the authors, and peer review by the OMA and NLA leadership. RESULTS: Among individuals with obesity, adipose tissue may store over 50% of the total body free cholesterol. Triglycerides may represent up to 99% of lipid species in adipose tissue. The potential for adipose tissue expansion accounts for the greatest weight variance among most individuals, with percent body fat ranging from less than 5% to over 60%. While population studies suggest a modest increase in blood low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels with excess adiposity, the adiposopathic dyslipidemia pattern most often described with an increase in adiposity includes elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), increased non-HDL-C, elevated apolipoprotein B, increased LDL particle concentration, and increased small, dense LDL particles. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity increases CVD risk, at least partially due to promotion of an adiposopathic, atherogenic lipid profile. Obesity also worsens other cardiometabolic risk factors. Among patients with obesity, interventions that reduce body weight and improve CVD outcomes are generally associated with improved lipid levels. Given the modest improvement in blood LDL-C with weight reduction in patients with overweight or obesity, early interventions to treat both excess adiposity and elevated atherogenic cholesterol (LDL-C and/or non-HDL-C) levels represent priorities in reducing the risk of CVD.

Lipoprotein(a) Blood Levels and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction With Icosapent Ethyl.

BACKGROUND: Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations are associated with increased cardiovascular event risk even in the presence of well-controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, but few treatments are documented to reduce this residual risk. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this post hoc analysis of REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was to explore the cardiovascular benefit of icosapent ethyl (IPE) across a range of Lp(a) levels. METHODS: A total of 8,179 participants receiving statin therapy with established cardiovascular disease or age ≥50 years with diabetes and ≥1 additional risk factor, fasting triglyceride 1.69 to 5.63 mmol/L, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1.06 to 2.59 mmol/L were randomized to receive 2 g twice daily of IPE or matching placebo. Relationships between continuous baseline Lp(a) mass concentration and risk for first and total (first and subsequent) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed, along with the effects of IPE on first MACE among those with Lp(a) concentrations ≥50 or <50 mg/dL. RESULTS: Among 7,026 participants (86% of those randomized) with baseline Lp(a) assessments, the median concentration was 11.6 mg/dL (Q1-Q3: 5.0-37.4 mg/dL). Lp(a) had significant relationships with first and total MACE (P < 0.0001), while event reductions with IPE did not vary across the range of Lp(a) (interaction P > 0.10). IPE significantly reduced first MACE in subgroups with concentrations ≥50 and <50 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline Lp(a) concentration was prognostic for MACE among participants with elevated triglyceride levels receiving statin therapy. Importantly, IPE consistently reduced MACE across a range of Lp(a) levels, including among those with clinically relevant elevations.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.