The effect of lipid-lowering therapy on lipid-related residual risk factors: a prospective study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Remnant cholesterol (RC) and nonhigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol (nonHDL-C) are key risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with apolipoprotein B (apoB) and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] also contributing to its residual risk. However, real-world population-based evidence regarding the impact of current clinical LDL-C-centric lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) on achieving RC and nonHDL-C goals, as well as on modifying residual CVD risk factors is limited. METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled 897 CVD patients from September, 2020 to July, 2021. All participants had previously received low-/moderate-intensity LLT and were discharged with either low-/moderate-intensity LLT or high-intensity LLT. After a median follow-up of 3 months, changes in RC, nonHDL-C, and other biomarkers were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the impact of the LLT on goal attainment. RESULTS: Among all patients, 83.50% transitioned to high-intensity LLT from low or moderate. After follow-up, the high-intensity group saw significantly greater reductions in RC (-20.51% vs. -3.90%, P = 0.025), nonHDL-C (-25.12% vs. 0.00%, P < 0.001), apoB (-19.35% vs. -3.17%, P < 0.001), triglycerides (-17.82% vs. -6.62%, P < 0.001), and LDL-C and total cholesterol. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that LDL-C reduction from current LLT was strongly correlated with nonHDL-C reduction (r = 0.87, P < 0.001). Patients who received high-intensity LLT had significant improvements in attainment of RC (from 44.2% to 60.7%, χ² = 39.23, P < 0.001) and nonHDL-C (from 19.4% to 56.9%, χ² = 226.06, P < 0.001) goals. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression showed that high-intensity LLT was a protective factor for RC [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.45-0.97; P = 0.033] and nonHDL-C goal attainment (OR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P < 0.001), without a significant increase of adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: Current levels of clinically prescribed LDL-C-centric treatment can reduce RC and other lipid-related residual risk factors, but high-intensity LLT is better at achieving nonHDL-C and RC goals than low-/moderate-intensity LLT, with a good safety profile. More targeted RC treatments are still needed to reduce residual lipid risk further.