Prevalence of lipid abnormalities and attainment of normal lipid levels among patients with dyslipidaemia: a pooled analysis of observational studies from five Asian countries.

AIMS: Guidelines emphasise the importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for cardiovascular risk reduction. Given the importance of association between high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) normal levels and cardiovascular risk, there is an additional need to further evaluate diverse dyslipidaemic populations. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal observational study of patients aged ≥ 35 years on lipid-modifying therapy (LMT) for ≥ 12 months was conducted from patient records pooled from five Asian countries (Malaysia, Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand and Philippines). The prevalence of lipid abnormalities and goal attainment was assessed 12 months before and after LMT initiation. RESULTS: Among 3256 patients (mean age - 58.6 years, 50.4% men), 65.4% were high-risk patients and 88% were on statin therapy. At baseline 94.7% of all patients had at least one abnormal lipid value elevated, LDL-C (86.2%) being the most prevalent. Non-smokers [OR (95% CI): 1.42 (1.08-1.87)], non-diabetics [2.35 (1.96-2.82)], non-cardiovascular disease patients [1.77 (1.42-2.21)] and those from Korea [2.56 (1.83-3.59)] were more likely to attain LDL-C goals. On the contrary, women [0.82 (0.68-0.98)], subjects with FRS > 20% [0.56 (0.41-0.77)] those from Malaysia [0.55 (0.39-0.77)] and the Philippines [0.18 (0.12-0.28)] were less likely to reach LDL-C goals. Fewer characteristics were independently associated with reaching normal levels of HDL-C and TG and attaining at least two normal lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: While current LMT reduced the prevalence of dyslipidaemia, a third of patients still failed to achieve target/normal levels. We highlight country differences and the importance of improving therapy to attain multiple lipid goals/normal levels.

Indirect treatment comparison between fixed-dose-combinations of amlodipine/losartan and amlodipine/valsartan in blood pressure control.

AIMS: This study compared blood pressure (BP) changes after 8 weeks of therapy between a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine/losartan and amlodipine/valsartan using a network meta-analysis because no trials directly compared amlodipine/losartan with other FDCs. METHODS: A systematic search identified six randomised controlled trials (amlodipine/losartan-3, amlodipine/valsartan-3) of FDCs and their component monotherapies. Conventional fixed-effects methods were used to conduct the comparisons. The primary and secondary effect measures were the changes in sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure (sitDBP, sitSBP) at 8 weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: The estimated amlodipine/valsartan - amlodipine/losartan difference (95% confidence interval) in sitDBP reduction was -1.27 mmHg, (-5.7, 2.2) for lower dosages and -0.45 mmHg, (-3.7, 2.7) for higher dosages; for sitSBP, the values were -3.74 mmHg, (-9.0, 2.9) for lower dosages and 0.2 mmHg, (-6.2, 6.0) for higher dosages. The confidence of a greater reduction in BP (fixed difference = 0) on amlodipine/losartan 5/50 than on amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 was 77% for sitDBP and 89% for sitSBP. The corresponding confidence for the higher doses was 61% for sitDBP and 48% for sitSBP. The findings support asserting with (fixed) 95% confidence that the BP reduction on amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 exceeds the amlodipine/losartan 5/50 reduction by at most 1.6 mmHg for sitDBP, and at most 1.26 mmHg for sitSBP. The corresponding upper bounds for the higher dosages were 2.31 mmHg (sitDBP) and 5.38 mmHg (sitSBP). CONCLUSIONS: The BP lowering effect with amlodipine/losartan and amlodipine/valsartan was comparable. Potential superiority of the reductions realised with amlodipine/valsartan relative to amlodipine/losartan, are unlikely to be clinically material.