Mortality reduction in patients treated with long-term intensive lipid therapy: 25-year follow-up of the Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study-Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) begins early in life and is associated with both the number of risk factors present and length of exposure to these risk factors including hyperlipidemia. OBJECTIVES: The clinical benefit of intensive lipid therapy over 25 years was investigated in the Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study-Observational Study. METHODS: Of 175 coronary artery disease subjects with mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 191 mg/dL and mean age of 50 years, who completed the randomized and placebo-controlled Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study, 100 chose receiving lipid management by their physicians (usual care [UC]) and 75 elected to receive an intensive treatment [IT] for lipid management with lovastatin (40 mg/d), niacin (2.5 g/d), and colestipol (20 g/d) from 1989 to 2004, followed by double therapy with simvastatin (40-80 mg/d) and niacin from 2005 to 2006 and by triple therapy of ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 40 to 80 mg/d plus niacin during 2007 to 2012. Deaths from CVD, non-CVD, and any cause were compared between UC and IT using Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: UC and IT groups were similar in risk factors with the exception that IT had more severe coronary artery disease. Mean LDL-C levels were 167 mg/dL from 1988 to 2004, 97 from 2005 to 2006, and 96 from 2007 to 2012 in surviving subjects receiving UC. IT lowered LDL-C to 119, 97, and 83 mg/dL in the 3 periods, respectively. Compared with UC, IT significantly reduced total mortality (11.1 vs 26.3 per 1000 person years [PY], hazard ratio [HR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26-0.77, P = .003) and CVD mortality (10.6 vs 27.7 per 1000 PY, HR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.15-0.80, P = .009). The non-CVD mortality was also reduced but was not of statistical significance (6.8 vs 12.7 per 1000 PY, HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.27-1.14, P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term intensive lipid therapy significantly reduced total and cardiovascular mortality in Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study-Observational Study. These results support the importance of lifetime risk management to improve long-term outcome.

The SLIM Study: Slo-Niacin® and Atorvastatin Treatment of Lipoproteins and Inflammatory Markers in Combined Hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: The combination of niacin and statin has proven value in hyperlipidemia management and heart disease prevention. However, the efficacy of the non-prescription time-release niacin, Slo-Niacin®, is little studied alone and not at all with atorvastatin. We gave Slo-Niacin® and atorvastatin, singly and together to determine efficacy on the combined abnormalities of triglyceride, LDL and HDL. METHODS: 42 men and women with LDL-C>130mg/dL HDL-C <45 (men or 55mg/dL (women) were randomized to 3 months of atorvastatin 10 mg/day or incremental doses of Slo-Niacin® to 1500 mg/day. The alternate drug was added in the next 3-month segment. Lipid profiles and transaminases were measured monthly and other measures at baseline and the end of each treatment sequence. RESULTS: Mean entry lipids (mg/dL) were: TG 187, LDL-C 171, and HDL-C 39. Mean BMI was 32.6 Kg/m(2). Monotherapy with Slo-Niacin® decreased median triglyceride 15%, mean LDL-C 12% and non-HDL-C 15% and increased HDL-C 8%. Atorvastatin decreased median triglyceride 26%, and mean LDL-C 36%, non-HDL-C 36% and increased HDL-C 6%. Combined therapy decreased median triglyceride 33% and mean LDL-C and non-HDL-C each 43%. HDL-C increased 10% (all p<0.001). Median remnant-like lipoprotein-C decreased 55%, mean apo-B 40%, median hsCRP 23% (all p<0.05), TNFa 12% and no change in IL-6. Mean LDL buoyancy increased 15%, apo-A-I 5% and median HDL(2)-C 20% (all p<0.05). ALT declined with Slo-Niacin® treatment alone compared to atorvastatin and also decreased when Slo-Niacin® was added to atorvastatin. Six subjects dropped out, 3 for niacin related symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Slo-Niacin® 1.5g/day with atorvastatin 10 mg/day improved lipoprotein lipids, apoproteins and inflammation markers without hepatotoxicity. Slo-Niacin® deserves further study as a cost-effective treatment of hyperlipidemia.

Comprehensive lipid management versus aggressive low-density lipoprotein lowering to reduce cardiovascular risk.

Five lines of evidence justify comprehensive lipoprotein management over aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) lowering alone in most cases of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. First, lipoprotein lipid transport consists of a single, recycling system involving very-low-density lipoprotein, LDL, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Single lipid interventions affect all lipoprotein classes to varying degrees. These effects can be expanded by using different drug classes in combination. Second, observational studies support the unitary nature of lipoprotein risk. A family of curves describes increasing CVD risk from increasing LDL as other risk factors are present. Conversely, a family of curves describes increasing CVD risk from decreasing levels of HDL in mirror image to LDL. The LDL and HDL risks are additive. Third, clinical trials that raise HDL and lower triglyceride ameliorate CVD, as does lowering LDL. Lowering LDL prevents heart disease, but by only 22%-36% with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor therapy. Studies indicate that better CVD prevention is obtained when drugs for triglyceride and HDL reduction are combined with LDL reduction. Fourth, HDL and its apolipoprotein (apo), apo A-I, as well as apo A-I analogues, decrease atherosclerosis. Each modality decreases atherosclerosis in animal models, and apo A-I Milano acutely decreases human coronary luminal stenosis. Apo A-I analogues have similar promise. Fifth, combined hyperlipidemia is the most common lipid disorder, has the strongest risk for CVD, and combines elevated LDL, hypertriglyceridemia, and low HDL. This condition requires the comprehensive treatment approach described above. In conclusion, 5 lines of evidence justify comprehensive diet and drug treatment for combined hyperlipidemia and, at lesser LDL elevations, the atherogenic dyslipidemias of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and the metabolic syndrome.

Sex differences in lipoprotein metabolism and dietary response: basis in hormonal differences and implications for cardiovascular disease.

The transport of fat in the blood stream is approximately twice as fast in women as men. Disease states such as obesity and diabetes are associated with greater lipoprotein abnormalities in women compared with men. A greater increment in cardiovascular disease risk in women is linked to these abnormalities. A greater change in triglyceride level and a lesser change in low-density lipoprotein are observed in women than men with high-carbohydrate or high-fat feeding. Most consistent are greater changes in high-density lipoprotein (HDL), HDL(2), and apolipoprotein A-I levels in women compared with men with high-carbohydrate or high-fat feeding. Dietary fat restriction in women appears to have a less beneficial lipoprotein effect than in men. Dietary fat restriction for heart disease prevention may be less ideal in women than in men.

A moderate-fat diet for combined hyperlipidemia and metabolic syndrome.

A low-fat diet is recommended for hyperlipidemia. However, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) responses depend on the type of hyperlipidemia (ie, simple hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia). In combined hyperlipidemia, which is typical of patients with metabolic syndrome, LDL levels are only one third as responsive to fat and cholesterol as simple hypercholesterolemia. The diminished dietary sensitivity of combined hyperlipidemia is explained by diminished intestinal absorption of cholesterol, a feature of metabolic syndrome. In turn, combined hyperlipidemia is caused by heightened lipid secretion by the liver. A moderate-fat, moderate-carbohydrate diet employing allowable fats has the promise of reducing endogenous lipoprotein production in combined hyperlipidemia. Triglyceride, LDL, and small-dense LDL should be lower, and high-density lipoprotein, apoprotein A-I, and buoyant LDL should be higher. A test of this dietary strategy on lipoproteins and downstream benefits on inflammatory mediators, oxidative stress, and vascular reactivity is now underway.

Gender differences in lipoprotein metabolism and dietary response: basis in hormonal differences and implications for cardiovascular disease.

The transport of fat in the blood stream is approximately twice as fast in women as men. Disease states such as obesity and diabetes are associated with greater lipoprotein abnormalities in women compared with men. A greater increment in cardiovascular disease risk in women is linked to these abnormalities. A greater change in triglyceride level and a lesser change in low-density lipoprotein are observed in women than men with high-carbohydrate or high-fat feeding. Most consistent are greater changes in high-density lipoprotein (HDL), HDL2, and apolipoprotein A-I levels in women compared with men with high-carbohydrate or high-fat feeding. Dietary fat restriction in women appears to have a less beneficial lipoprotein effect than in men. Dietary fat restriction for heart disease prevention may be less ideal in women than in men.

Safety and tolerability of simvastatin plus niacin in patients with coronary artery disease and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (The HDL Atherosclerosis Treatment Study).

The high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study showed that simvastatin plus niacin (mean daily dose 13 mg and 2.4 g, respectively) halt angiographic atherosclerosis progression and reduce major clinical events by 60% in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who have low HDL, in comparison with placebos, over 3 years. How safe and well-tolerated is this combination? One hundred sixty patients with CAD, including 25 with diabetes mellitus, with mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 128 mg/dl, HDL cholesterol of < or =35 mg/dl (mean 31), and mean triglycerides of 217 mg/dl were randomized to 4 factorial combinations of antioxidant vitamins or their placebos and simvastatin plus niacin or their placebos. Patients were examined monthly or bimonthly for 38 months; side effects (gastrointestinal upset, nausea, anorexia, vision, skin, and energy problems, or muscle aches) were directly queried and recorded. Aspartate aminotransferase, creatine phosphokinase (CPK), uric acid, homocysteine, and fasting glucose levels were regularly monitored. A safety monitor reviewed all side effects and adjusted drug dosages accordingly. Patients who received simvastatin plus niacin and those on placebo had similar frequencies of clinical or laboratory side effects: any degree of flushing (30% vs 23%, p = NS), symptoms of fatigue, nausea, and/or muscle aches (9% vs 5%, p = NS), aspartate aminotransferase (SGOT) > or =3 times upper limit of normal (3% vs 1%, p = NS), CPK > or =2 times upper limit of normal (3% vs 4%, p = NS), CPK > or =5 times upper limit of normal, new onset of uric acid > or =7.5 mg/dl (18% vs 15%, p = NS), and homocysteine > or =15 micromol/L (9% vs 4%, p = NS). Glycemic control among diabetics declined mildly in the simvastatin-niacin group but returned to pretreatment levels at 8 months and remained stable for rest of the study. This combination regimen was repeatedly described by 91% of treated patients and 86% of placebo subjects as "very easy" or "fairly easy" to take. Thus, the simvastatin plus niacin regimen is effective, safe, and well tolerated in patients with or without diabetes mellitus.