Upload
voanh
View
228
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Lipid Management GuidelinesLipid Management Guidelines
Beyond LDL: HDL and Triglycerides
DOS CME Course 20111 Oxtober 20101Confidential
Michael B. Rocco, M.D.Medical Director, Stress Testing and Cardiac Rehab
Sections of Preventive Cardiology and Clinical Cardiology Cardiovascular Medicine
Heart and Vascular Institute
• Dyslipidemia is common
– 98,800,000 over 18 with Elevated Cholesterol > 200 mg/dL (~45%)
– 32% have LDL > 130 mg/dl (71 million adults)
– 42 million (18 9%) adults with HDL <40 mg/dL
Why Focus on Aggressive Treatment of Dyslipidemia
42 million (18.9%) adults with HDL <40 mg/dL
– 10% of adolescents 12 to 19 have cholesterol > 200 mg/dl
• Inadequate control of dyslipidemia is responsible for 4 million yearly deaths worldwide and 350,000 in the US– WHO estimates that dyslipidemia accounts for 39% of the
worldwide burden of CVD
• There is a known relationship between dyslipidemia and systemic vascular inflammation and atherogenesis
• Treatment strategies for cholesterol have been shown to substantially reduce CV events
American Heart Association. 2011 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update.
2 DOS CME Course 2011
2
Evolution of the Treatment Approach
NCEPNCEPATP IATP IG id liG id li
NCEPNCEPATP IIATP IIG id liG id li
NCEPNCEPATP IIIATP IIIG id liG id li
NCEPNCEPATP IIIATP IIIU d tU d t
AHA/ACCAHA/ACCUpdateUpdate
Framingham
MRFIT
LRC-CPPT
Coronary Drug
Angiographic Trials (FATS, POSCH, SCOR, STARS, Ornish, MARS) Meta Analyses
4S, WOSCOPS, CARE, LIPID, AFCAPS/TexCAP, VAHIT, others
GuidelinesGuidelines19881988
GuidelinesGuidelines19931993
GuidelinesGuidelines20012001
UpdateUpdate20042004
HPSPROVE-ITASCOT-LLAPROSPER
TNTIDEALCARDSA to Z
pp20062006
Coronary Drug Project
Helsinki Heart
CLAS (angio)
Meta-Analyses(Holme,Rossouw)
•Written by the 27 lipid experts of the Adult Treatment Panel III•1600 primary references reviewed for scientific evidence
•Evidence statements graded as to type and strength of evidence•Recommendations emanated from evidence statements
ALLHAT-LLT ALLIANCE
3 DOS CME Course 2011
NCEP-ATP III: Risk Assessment—CHD Risk Categories
10-year CHD risk (%)
0 10 20
0-1 RF
Low Intermediate High
2 RFs (calculate Framingham risk)
CHD, Diabetes Atherosclerotic disease
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486.
• For persons without known CHD, other forms of atherosclerotic disease, or diabetes:– Count the number of risk factors.– Use Framingham scoring for persons with 2 risk factors* to determine the absolute
10-year CHD risk.
4 DOS CME Course 2011
3
Framingham Heart Study Cumulative Point Scale for Estimating 10-Year CHD Risk (Men/Women)
Age
20 – 34 = -9/-7
35 – 39 = -4/-3
40 – 44 = 0/0
45 49 = 3/3
Total CholesterolAge Age Age Age Age
20–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79<160 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 160 – 199 4/4 3/3 2/2 1/1 0/1200 239 7/8 5/6 3/4 1/2 0/1
HDL-C> 60 = -1/-1
50 – 59 = 0/040 – 49 = 1/1
<40 = 2/245 – 49 = 3/3
50 – 54 = 6/ 6
55 – 59 = 8/8
60 – 64 = 10/10
65 – 69 = 11/12
70 – 74 = 12/14
75 – 79 = 13/16
200 – 239 7/8 5/6 3/4 1/2 0/1240 – 279 9/11 6/8 4/5 2/3 1/2280 11/13 8/10 5/7 3/4 1/2
Systolic Blood PressureIf Untreated If Treated
<120 0/0 0/0120 – 129 0/1 1/3130 – 139 1/2 2/4140 – 159 1/3 2/5160 2/4 3/6
SmokerAge Age Age Age Age
20–39 40–49 50–59 60–6970–79No 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0Yes 8/9 5/7 3/4 1/2 1/1
Total points: <0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >1710-year CHD risk (%) for men: <1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 16 20 25 >30
Total points: <9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >2510-year CHD risk (%) for women: <1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 11 14 17 22 27 >30
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486–2497
5 DOS CME Course 2011
ATP III: LDL-C Goals of Treatment in Different Risk Categories
TLC When LDL C
Consider Drug Th Wh LDL
LDL-C G l LDL-C
(mg/dL)Therapy When LDL-C (mg/dL)
Goal (mg/dL)Risk Category
>160
>130
>100
>190<1600 1 risk factor
10-year risk 10%–20%: >130 10-year risk <10%: >160
<1302+ risk factors(10-year risk <20%)
>130(100–129: drug optional)
<100CHD/CHD risk equivalents(10-year risk >20%)
>160 >190 (160–189: drug optional)
<1600–1 risk factor
TLC = therapeutic lifestyle changes
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486–2497.
6 DOS CME Course 2011
4
NCEP-ATP III: Treatment
• Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes
• Pharmacologic Treatment
–Improve diet
–Weight reduction
–Physical activity
• Exclude Secondary Causes
–HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins)
–Bile acid sequestrants
–Cholesterol absorption inhibitor
–Fibric acidCauses –Nicotinic acid
–Fish Oil
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486. US Department of Health and Human Services. At: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atglance.pdf. Accessed
June 21, 2004.
7 DOS CME Course 2011
Therapeutic Lifestyle Changes• Diet
– Reduce intake of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol
–Total fat range should be 25%-30% of total calories
–Saturated fat <7% of calories
–Reduce intake of trans fatty acids
–<200 mg/day of cholesterol
– Carbohydrates: 50 -60% of total calories
– Increase intake of
–Plant stanols/sterols: 2 g/d
–Viscous (soluble) fiber: 10-25 g/d
–Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acidsOmega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids
–Soy protein25–40 g/day when replacing animal food products
• Regular physical activity: > 30 minutes 5 to 7 times/week
• Weight loss to maintain BMI <25Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of
High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497.
8 DOS CME Course 2011
5
Consideration of Secondary Causes of Hyperlipidemia
• Other Conditions
– Diabetes
H th idi
• Drugs
– Estrogen/progestins
P t i hibit– Hypothyroidism
– Obstructive liver disease/biliary cirrhosis
– Transplantation
– Renal disorders
–Nephrotic syndrome
–Chronic renal failure
– Protease inhibitors
– Anabolic steroids
– Corticosteroids
– Isotretinoin (Accutane®)
– Cyclosporine
Chronic renal failure
–Hemodialysis patients
Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Final Report. At:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3full.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2004.
9 DOS CME Course 2011
Drug Therapy for Lipid AbnormalitiesContraindiContraindi--cationscations
Side EffectsSide EffectsTRIG TRIG ↓↓HDL HDL ↑↑LDL LDL ↓↓DrugDrug
Liver diseaseMyopathy, ↑ liver enzymes
7-30%5-15%18-55%Statins
Very elevated triglycerides
GI distress, constipation, ↓drug absorption
May ↑3-5%15-30%Bile Acid
Sequestrants
Liver disease, severe gout, peptic ulcer disease
Flushing, GI distress, liver toxicity, ↑ glucose and uric acid
20-50%15-35%5-25%Nicotinic Acid
Severe kidney or liver disease
GI distress, gallstones, myopathy
20-50%10-20%5-20% May ↑
Fibric Acids
Liver diseaseGI distress, ↑ liver enzymes with statins
5-14%1-3%15-25%Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitor
liver diseasemyopathyMay ↑
Fish AllergyGI distress20-50%10%May ↑Fish Oil
10 DOS CME Course 2011
6
Overview of Statin Trials:Major Coronary Events
AF/TexCAPS6605
4S 4444
LIPID 9014
CARE4159
WOS 6595
Trial N
Secondary Primary
HPS20,536
High Risk
150-27%
188 -36%
150 -25%
139-28%
192 -26%
LDLLDL
,131 -29%
-20
0
25* 25†
% R
edu
ctio
n
HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22; LaRosa et al. JAMA. 1999;282:2340-2346.
-40-38*
-25* -25†
-31*
-38*
-27‡
*P<0.001; †P=0.002. ‡P<0.0001.
11 DOS CME Course 2011
Residual Cardiovascular Risk in Major Statin Trials
30
40
ien
cin
g
ven
ts,
%
PlaceboStatin
28.0
CHD events occur in patients treated with statins
0
10
20
Pat
ien
ts E
xper
iM
ajo
r C
HD
E
v
4S1 LIPID2 CARE3 HPS4 WOSCOPS5 AFCAPS/
Statin19.4
12.310.2 8.7
5.5 6.8
15.913.2
11.8
7.910.9
4HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22. 5Shepherd J, et al. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1301-1307.
6 Downs JR, et al. JAMA. 1998;279:1615-1622.
14S Group. Lancet. 1994;344:1383-1389.2LIPID Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1349-1357.
3Sacks FM, et al. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1001-1009.
LDLN 4444 4159 20 536 6595 66059014
-35% -28% -29% -26% -25%-25%
Secondary High Risk Primary
4S LIPID CARE HPS WOSCOPS AFCAPS/TexCAPS6
12 DOS CME Course 2011
7
Primary Prevention TrialsPrimary Prevention Trials Secondary Prevention TrialsSecondary Prevention Trials
s (%
)
20
25
30
4S-Py = 0.1629x - 4.6776R2 = 0.9029p < 0.0001
LIPID-PHPSHPS--PP
4S S(%)
y = 0.0599x - 3.3952R2 = 0.9305p < 0.0019
6
8
7
10
9
WOSCOPS-SWOSCOPS-P
Summary of Lipid Lowering Trials
Angiographic (“Regression”) TrialsAngiographic (“Regression”) Trials
LCAS-PREGRESS-P
PLAC-1-Py = 0.0004x - 0.0267R2 = 0.6116
0 04
0.05
LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)
50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210
CH
D E
ven
ts
5
10
15
LIPID P
CARE-PLIPID-S
4S-SHPSHPS--SS
CARE-SPROVEPROVE--ITIT--ATAT
PROVEPROVE--ITIT--PRPR
3055
0
LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)
CH
D E
ven
ts (
75 95 115 135 155 175 195-1
2
1
4
3
6
5
ASCOTASCOT--SS
ASCOTASCOT--PP
AFCAPS-PAFCAPS-S
CARDSCARDS--SS
TNT 80 mgTNT 80 mgTNT 10 mgTNT 10 mg
CARDSCARDS--PP
70
LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)
ML
D D
ecre
ase
(mm
/yea
r)
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
LCAS-SMAAS-S
REGRESS-S
CCAIT-S
MAR-S
PLAC-1-S
LCAS P
MARS-P MAAS-P
CCAIT-Pp = 0.001
-0.010
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
REVERSALREVERSAL
13 DOS CME Course 2011
Recent Coronary IVUS Progression Trials
1 2
1.8
REVERSALpravastatin
CAMELOTplacebo
Relationship between LDLRelationship between LDL--C and Progression RateC and Progression Rate
0
0.6
1.2
MedianMedianChangeChange
In PercentIn PercentAtheromaAtheromaVolumeVolume(%)(%)
pravastatin
REVERSALatorvastatin
A‐Plusplacebo
ACTIVATEplacebo
‐1.2
‐0.6
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Mean LowMean Low‐‐Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (mg/dL)Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (mg/dL)
ASTEROIDrosuvastatin
8
26 327
Aggressive LDL Lowering in CHD
*Death, MI, UA, revascularization
4162 pts post ACS for 2 years
Atorva 10 mg (n = 5006)0.15
CHD death, MI, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, fatal/nonfatal stroke
Treating to New TargetsPROVE-IT
26.3
22.4
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Pravastatin40mg (n=1973)
Atorvastatin80mg (n=2003)*P=0.005
te
16% reduction
Maj
or
CV
eve
nts
(%
)
g ( )
Atorva 80 mg (n = 4995)
0.05
0.10
22% Risk reductionHR = 0.78 (0.69–0.89)P < 0.001
N = 10,001
20
21
Cannon et al. N Engl J Med ;2004
Eve
nt
Rat
Mean LDL-C on therapy 95 mg/dL vs. 62 mg/dL
LaRosa JC et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1425-35.
Follow-up (years)65421 30
0.00
Mean LDL-C on therapy 101 mg/dL vs. 77 mg/dL
15 DOS CME Course 2011
Placebo (10 267)
Statin (10 269)
Baseline LDL ( /dl)
HPS: Statin Benefit isIndependent of Baseline LDL
Risk ratio and 95% CI
Statinb tt
Statin worse
20,536 Patients
358282<100 (n=3,421)
871668100–129 (n=7,068)
13561083130 (n=10,047)
(10,267)(10,269)(mg/dl)
24% SE 3d ti
better worse
2585(25.2%)
2033(19.8%)
All patients reduction(2P<0.00001)
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. Lancet 2002;360:7–22.
16 DOS CME Course 2011
9
ASCOT-LLA Primary End Point: Nonfatal MI and Fatal CHD
n# of
Events
End of Treatment Mean LDL
Lipitor 10 mg 5,168 100 90 mg/dL
3e (%
)
36%R l ti Ri k
4Baseline LDL = 130 mg/dL
Placebo 5,137 154 126 mg/dL
1
2
3
Cu
mu
lati
ve I
nci
den
ce Relative Risk
Reduction(P=.0005)
HR=0.64 (0.50–0.83)
0
Placebo
Lipitor 10 mg
5.0
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Years
• In a post-hoc analysis, a significant difference at 90 days was observed between treatment groups
Sever PS, et al. Lancet. 2003;361:1149-1158. HR = hazard ratio
26% Stroke Relative Risk Reduction, P=.0332
45% Non-fatal MI Relative Risk Reduction, P=.00017
17 DOS CME Course 2011
P=0.21P<0.00180
Conventional therapy
Steno-2: Multifactorial Intervention and CVD in Type 2 DM
Intensive therapy
P=0.001
40
P=0.19
20
60
P=0.06
Pat
ien
ts (
%)
0A1C
<6.5%Cholesterol<175 mg/dL
Triglycerides<150 mg/dL
Systolic BP<130 mm Hg
Diastolic BP<80 mm Hg
Gaede P et al. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:383-393.
18 DOS CME Course 2011
10
Benefits of Aggressive LDL-C Lowering in Diabetes
Difference in LDL-C
(mg/dL)
Aggressive lipid-lowering
better
Aggressive lipid-loweringworse
Primary event rate (%)
ControlTreatment P
ASCOT LLA0.036
0.001
<0.0001
0.0003
11.9
9.0
12.6
13.5
9.2
5.8
9.4
9.3
0.63
0.67
0.73
ASCOT-LLADiabetes, HTN
CARDSDiabetes, no CVD
HPSAll diabetes
Diabetes, no CVD
0.7735†
46†
39†
39†
Shepherd J et al. Diabetes Care 2006. Sever PS et al. Diabetes Care 2005. HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet 2003. Colhoun HM et al. Lancet 2004.
0.02617.913.8TNTDiabetes, CHD
*Atorvastatin 10 vs 80 mg/day†Statin vs placebo Relative risk
0.7 0.9 10.5 1.7
22*0.75
19 DOS CME Course 2011
Modifications to NCEP-ATP III Based on Recent Clinical Evidence
• LDL-C goal <70 mg/dL is therapeutic option for very high-risk patients– Extends to patients at very high risk with baseline LDL-C <100
mg/dLmg/dL
• Factors that favor the optional goal of <70 mg/dL include CVD plus– Multiple major risk factors (especially diabetes)– Severe and poorly controlled risk factors (especially smoking)– Metabolic syndrome– Acute coronary syndromes
• For moderately high risk patients LDL-C <100 mg/dL is an optionFor moderately high risk patients, LDL C <100 mg/dL is an option
• In patients with elevated LDL-C at baseline (≥160 mg/dL)– Standard statin doses not sufficient for optimal LDL-C reduction– Consider high dose statins and/or combination therapy
Grundy et al. Circulation.2004;110:227.
20 DOS CME Course 2011
11
Lessons from Recent Clinical Trials
• LDL-C remains the primary goal of therapy
• Statins are the first line therapy
• Statin therapy should be added to lifestyle therapy, dl f b li li id l l f di b ti ti tregardless of baseline lipid levels, for diabetic patients:
–with overt CVD–without CVD who are over the age of 40 years and
have one or more other CVD risk factors
• Treat to achieve at least a 30 to 40% reduction in LDL-C
• Optimize statin therapy to highest tolerated dose to• Optimize statin therapy to highest tolerated dose to achieve goal before adding additional therapies
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2010. Diabetes Care 2010;29:s11‐s61.
21 DOS CME Course 2011
26.330
40
Residual CVD Risk in Patients Treated With Intensive Statin Therapy
cin
g
s, %
Standard statin therapyIntensive high-dose statin therapy
Statistically significant, but clinically inadequate CVD reduction1
13.710.9
8.7
22.4
12.0
0
10
20
Pat
ien
ts E
xper
ien
cM
ajo
r C
VD
E
ven
ts Intensive high dose statin therapy
0PROVE IT-TIMI 222 IDEAL3 TNT4
N
LDL-C,*mg/dL
1Superko HR. Br J Cardiol. 2006;13:131-136. 2Cannon CP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1495-1504.
3Pedersen TR, et al. JAMA. 2005;294:2437-2445. 4LaRosa JC, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1425-1435.
4162 8888 10 001
95
*Mean or median LDL-C after treatment
62 104 81 101 77
22 DOS CME Course 2011
12
Diabetic Patients Have Particularly High Residual CVD Risk After Statin Treatment
Event Rate (No Diabetes)
Event Rate (Diabetes)
On Statin On Placebo On Statin On Placebo
HPS1* (CHD patients) 19.8% 25.7% 33.4% 37.8%
CARE2† 19.4% 24.6% 28.7% 36.8%
LIPID3‡ 11.7% 15.2% 19.2% 22.8%
PROSPER4§ 13.1% 16.0% 23.1% 18.4%
ASCOT-LLA5‡ 4.9% 8.7% 9.6% 11.4%
TNT6║ 7 8% 9 7% 13 8% 17 9%TNT6║ 7.8% 9.7% 13.8% 17.9%
*CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularizations†CHD death, nonfatal MI, CABG, PTCA‡CHD death and nonfatal MI§CHD death, nonfatal MI, stroke║CHD death, nonfatal MI, resuscitated cardiac arrest, stroke (80 mg versus 10mg atorvastatin)
1HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2003;361:2005-2016. 2Sacks FM, et al. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1001-1009. 3LIPID Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1349-1357. 4Shepherd J, et al. Lancet. 2002;360:1623-1630. 5Sever PS, et al. Lancet. 2003;361:1149-1158. 6Shepherd J, et al. Diabetes Care. 2006;29:1220-1226.
23 DOS CME Course 2011
Lipids in Subjects with and without Diabetes
300 DiabetesdL
)
Recommended ADA cut points
NHANES IIIN = 2844
100
150
200
250
Diabetes
No Diabetes
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/d
216
131
245
215
51
137 143
0
50
Total-C LDL-C HDL-C TG
Ser
um
C 41
Resnick HE et al. Diabetes Care. 2000;23:176-180.American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care. 2006;29(suppl 1):S4-S42.
51
24 DOS CME Course 2011
13
CHD Risk: HDL-C and Triglycerides as Predictor
3 0 %
Meta-analysis of 17 population-based prospective studies
1.0
2.0
3.0
25
RR
of
CH
D A
fter
4 y
r
32
14
76
37
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ease
in D
isea
se R
isk
*, %
MenWomen
0.0100 160 220 85
6545
LDL-C (mg/dL)
Castelli WP. Can J Cardiol. 1988;4(suppl A):5A-10A.
0
10
Nonadjusted Adjusted for HDL
Incr
e
Austin MA, et al. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81(41)7B-12B.
25 DOS CME Course 2011
Non–HDL-C Is Superior to LDL-C in Predicting CHD Risk
2.52693 Men
(Non-HDL-C =TC-HDL-C)
0 5
1
1.5
2
elat
ive
CH
D R
isk
3101 Women
0
0.5
Liu J et al. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:1363-1368.
LDL-C (mg/dL)
Non–HDL-C (mg/dL)
Re
<130 130–159 ≥160
≥190160–189
<160
26 DOS CME Course 2011
14
• Cardiovascular events occur in individuals with low LDL-C
– Still occur in treatment groups after LDL lowering with statins
– In statin/placebo clinical trials, when patients with diabetes are treated with statins their CVD event rates were higher than the CVD
Why Look Beyond LDL Lowering with Statin Therapy
treated with statins, their CVD event rates were higher than the CVD event rates of those patients without diabetes on placebo.
– IVUS: LDL <70 mg/dL, 20% with progression associated with DM, increased BP, less increase in HDL, less decrease in Apo-B
• Impact of other atherogenic particles including low or abnormally functioning HDL, VLDL remnants, triglycerides, small dense LDL– Non-HDL-C associated with increase riskNon HDL C associated with increase risk– Independent risk of low HDL, elevated triglycerides– Apo B and apo B/Apo A1 ratio better predictor of risk
• Epidemic of obesity metabolic syndrome and diabetes – high-risk patients seen more frequently
27 DOS CME Course 2011
Triglyceride Level Remains CVD Risk Factor in Patients Treated With Statins
CARE and LIPID N = 13 173
30PlaceboSlope=.018
P= 02
20
25
CV
D E
vent
Rat
e*
Pravastatin
P=.02
Slope= 029
*CHD death, nonfatal MI, CABG, PTCA Sacks FM et al. Circulation. 2000;102:1893-1900.
15<98 99-126 127-158 159-207 >207
Triglyceride Level, mg/dL
Slope=.029P<.001
28 DOS CME Course 2011
15
Major Cardiovascular Events According to On-treatment HDL-C: Treating to New Targets
At 5 Years, a 39% Lower Risk of Major Events in Those
With Highest HDL-C vs Those With Lowest HDL-C Levels
Barter PJ et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:49-499.Waters DD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:179-1799.
29 DOS CME Course 2011
0.0
2.5
Benefit of Combination HDL Raising and LDL Lowering with Statins
e (m
m3)
-7 5
-5.0
-2.5
0.0
hang
e A
ther
oma
Vol
um
P<0.001 for trend
-10.0
7.5
Ch
LDL-C (mg/dL) % Change HDL-C
<87.5 >7.5
<87.5 <7.5
>87.5 <7.5
>87.5 >7.5
Nicholls JAMA. 2007;297:499-508.
16
Management of Dyslipidemia beyond LDL
• Lifestyle changes and secondary causes
• Pharmacologic therapy– Fibrate– Niacin– Niacin– Omega-3 fatty acids– PPAR- or - agonists
• Combination therapy
• Secondary causes of Hypertriglceridemia– Nephrotic syndrome– Diabetes mellitus– Hypothyroidism– Medications (Estrogens. Tamoxifen, Beta-blocker, Cyclosporin,
asparaginase, accutane)
31 DOS CME Course 2011
HHS 4081 Gemfibrozil 5.4 y -10% -43% +>10% 34% fatal/nonfatal CHD (P<0 02)
N Drug Duration LDL TG HDL Results
Fibrate Trials
CHD (P<0.02)
BIP 3122 Bezafibrate 6.2 y -6.5% -21% +18% 9.4% nonfatal eventsP=0.26
VA-HIT 2531 Gemfibrozil 5.1 y 0% -31% +6% 22% fatal/nonfatal CHDP=0.006
FIELD 9795 Fenofibrate 5 y -6% -22% +1% 11% CHD(P 16)
Haffner. Circulation. 2000;102:2-4.
(P=.16)
32 DOS CME Course 2011
17
Outcomes in Fibrate Trials: Diabetic or Metabolic Syndrome Patients
PControl
Primary Prevention
RRRDrugNTrial
Major CVDEvent Rate
.00419%8.9%10.8%7664FIELD2†
.03
<.005
18.4%
13.0%
25%14.1%1470BIP3‡
Secondary Prevention
71%3.9%292HHS1*
Primary Prevention
.00429.4% 32%21.2%769VA-HIT4§
1Manninen V, et al. Circulation. 1992;85:37-45.2Keech A, et al. Lancet. 2005;366:1849-1861.3Tenenbaum A, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1154-1160.4Rubins HB, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:2597-2604.
*Patients with TG >204 mg/dL and an LDL/HDL >5 (may or may not have had DM or the MS)†
Patients with diabetes and no prior CVD‡
Patients with the metabolic syndrome§
Patients with diabetes
RRR, relative risk reduction
33 DOS CME Course 2011
Efficacy of Niacin:Combined Data from Pivotal Studies with Niacin ER
HDL-C
(%)
Lp(a)
LDL-C
Ch
ang
e fr
om
Bas
elin
e
*Greater than recommended daily doses
TG
34 DOS CME Course 2011
18
Coronary Drug Project: Macrovascular Outcomes*
30
35 Placebo (n = 2789)
Niacin (n = 1119)
15% ReductionP<.05
5
10
15
20
25
Eve
nt
Rat
e, % 26% Reduction
P<.05 24% ReductionP<.05
47% ReductionP<.05
CDP Research Group. JAMA. 1975;231:360-381.
0
5
Nonfatal MICHD Death/Nonfatal MI
Stroke/TIA CV Surgery†
*Total follow-up experience (mean, 6.2 yrs) †5-year incidence TIA, transient ischemic attack
35 DOS CME Course 2011
CDP: Reduction in Recurrence of MI* By Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose
20
25 Placebo
Niacin
, %
30% R d ti 57% Reduction
*6-year follow-up
Interactive P-value = NS
5
10
15
20
fata
l MI E
ven
t R
ate 30% Reduction
24% Reduction25% Reduction
57% Reduction
Canner PL, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:254-257.
0
5
No
n
<95 95-104 105-125 ≥126†
Baseline Fasting Plasma Glucose, mg/dL
36 DOS CME Course 2011
19
(%)
The ACCORD Trial: Lipid StudyStatin + Fenofibrate
100
8020
Placebo
N=5518Mean Age: 62 yrMean f/u: 4.7 yr
Pro
port
ion
with
Eve
nt
Prim
ary
Out
com
e
60
40
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Fenofibrate
P=0.32
The ACCORD Study Group. N Engl J Med 362(17):1563-74, 2010.
00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Annual rate of primary outcome was not significantly different: - 2.2% in fenofibrate group vs. 2.4 in placebo group - Death: 1.5% vs 1.6%
37 DOS CME Course 2011
ACCORD Lipid: Primary Outcome By Treatment Group and Baseline Subgroups
The ACCORD Study Group. N Engl J Med 362(17):1563‐74, 2010.
Primary outcome: 12.4% vs. 17.3% compared with10.1 % in both groups in all patients
38 DOS CME Course 2011
20
ARBITER 3: 24 Months
0 05
0.075Statin (n = 61)12 months Statin + Niacin ER (n = 125)
m24 months Statin + Niacin ER (n = 57)
-0 027-0.025
0
0.025
0.05
ng
e in
CIM
T, m
m
Diabetes/Met-S 12-24 months(n = 62)
-0.046
Taylor AJ, et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:2243-2250.* P<.001 versus statin monotherapy
0.027-0.041
-0.075
-0.05
Ch
an
** *
39 DOS CME Course 2011
ARBITER 6-HALTS: Treatment effects on carotid intima-media thickness
0.006
0.0020.004
P = 0.003
Change frombaseline in meancarotid IMT (mm)
0.0020.000
-0.002-0.004-0.006-0.008-0.010
-0.012-0.014-0.016
Taylor AJ et al N Engl J Med 2009:361
Niacin Ezetimibe
Months80 14
-0.018-0.020
40 DOS CME Course 2011
21
AIM HIGH: Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes
1
• ER niacin plus simvastatin vs simvastatin alone at comparable
Ongoing “Events” Trials of Combined LDL-C Lowering and HDL-C Raising
p plevels of on-treatment LDL-C
• n = 3,300 /Completion Q3, 2010
HPS2-THRIVE: A Randomized Trial of the Long-Term Clinical Effects of Raising HDL Cholesterol With Extended Release Niacin/Laropiprant
2
• Participants have established CVD and receive LDL lowering th (40 f i t ti 10/40 ti ib / i t ti )therapy (40 mg of simvastatin or 10/40 mg ezetimibe/simvastatin)
• Laropiprant - selective prostaglandin D2 receptor-1 (DP1) antagonist -reduces frequency and intensity of niacin-induced flushing
• n = 20,000/Completion Q4, 2011
41 DOS CME Course 2011
>100(<100: drug optional)
>100Optional <70Very high riskCHD/CHD risk equivalents
NCEP-ATP III and 2004 Modifications
Consider Drug Therapy When LDL-C (mg/dL)
TLC When LDL-C (mg/dL)
LDL-C Goal (mg/dL)Risk LevelRisk Category
(<100: drug optional)>130 (100–129: drug optional)
<100Highequivalents (10-year risk >20%)
(100-129: drug optional)>130
>160
>130Optional <100<130
<130
High intermediate (10 year risk 10 to 20%)
Intermediate(10 year risk <10%
2+ risk factors (10-year risk <20%
>190 (160–189: drug optional)
>160<160Low0–1 risk factor
NCEP Report. Circulation. 2004;110:227-239.
Intensity of therapy should be selected to achieve a 30 to 40% LDL reduction
TLC = therapeutic lifestyle changes
42 DOS CME Course 2011
22
NCEP ATP III Current Guidelines Provide Direction on How to Treat Patients With Dyslipidemia– The first priority of treatment is to lower LDL-C
–The first line of drug therapy to manage LDL-C is statins
– If TG are ≥500 mg/dL, lowering TG is primary target, options to prevent pancreatitis are fibrate or niacin before LDL lowering therapy; than treatpancreatitis are fibrate or niacin before LDL-lowering therapy; than treat LDL-C to goal
– If LDL-C at goal but TG ≥200 mg/dL–Non-HDL-C (TC-HDL-C) is a second target of therapy –Combining a fibrate or nicotinic acid with an LDL-C-lowering drug can be
considered –Non-HDL-C goal = LDL-C goal + 30 mg/dL
– TG ≥150 mg/dL is defined as borderline high and should be addressed
– A specific goal for HDL-C is not specified–HDL-C <40 mg/dL is defined as low–Treatment of low HDL-C should be considered for high-risk patients
43 DOS CME Course 2011
Suggested Treatment Goal in Patients With Cardiometabolic Risk (CMR) and Lipoprotein
Abnormalities
Goals
LDL-C1
(mg/dL)Non-HDL-C1
(mg/dL)apo B1
(mg/dL)
Highest-risk patients:
ADA Consensus Statements for Patients With Diabetes Mellitus or Cardiometabolic Risks
1) Known CVD or
2) Diabetes plus one or more additional CVD risk factor(s)
<70 <100 <80
High-risk patients:
1) No diabetes or known CVD but 2 or more major CVD risk factors or
2) Diabetes but no other CVD risk factors
<100 <130 <90
Statin with CV history or age >40 yr (regardless of LDL) to lower LDL 30–40%
In addition to LDL-C goal, for patients with diabetes, the ADA suggests:
– Lowering TG to <150 mg/dL and
– Raising HDL-C to >40 mg/dL in men and >50 mg/dL in women
Combination therapy of LDL-cholesterol lowering drugs (statins) with fibrates or niacin may be necessary to achieve lipid targets
Statin with CV history or age >40 yr (regardless of LDL) to lower LDL 30 40%
44 DOS CME Course 2011
23
2008 AAP Recommendations• Emphasis on overweight, high TG and low HDL:
– Lifestyle management, weight management
• Screen– FHx of CVD or dyslipidemia (parents or grandparents <55)– FHx not known and other RF’s (overweight, obese, HPB, smoking, DM)– 1st between 2 and 10 years with fasting lipid profile– Retest 3 to 5 years if normal range
• For individuals over 8 years of age, pharmacologic therapy considered– Fiber up to 20 gm/day– Plant stanols/sterols – Statins as first line treatment
CharacteristicsCharacteristics LDL Cut PointsLDL Cut Points
No other RF’s >190
FHx or other RF’s >160
Diabetes >130
• Risk factors defined as obese, overweight, hypertension, cigarette smoking
45 DOS CME Course 2011
Pediatric Lipid Clinic
309350
Value (mg/dL)
54
236
12997
77
309
197
100
150
200
250
300
DOS CME Course 2011
54 46
0
50
HDL LDL Triglycerides Total Cholesterol
Baseline Visit After 2nd Follow-up Visit
46 DOS CME Course 2011
24
Conclusions• Strong relationship between lipid abnormalities and CVD risk
• Identification of the high risk patient and early aggressive treatment
– LDL-C target goals are set by the 10-year CHD risk
– Non-HDL-C is a secondary target for therapyNon HDL C is a secondary target for therapy
• Life habit risk factors (smoking, physical inactivity, obesity)
– Targets for CVD prevention and should be included in evaluation
– Metabolic syndrome is a target for extensive TLC
• More aggressive LDL-C reduction provides greater CHD event reduction in high-risk patients and a greater rationale for lower-target LDL-C levels and more intensive LDL-C lowering therapy– Modifications to NCEP and AHA/ACC/ADA guidelines suggest goal of
<70 mg/dL in the highest-risk, <100 mg/dL in high intermediate risk and initiation of medical therapy at lower LDL-C thresholds
– Statins are primary treatment in all high risk patients
– More aggressive goals will require use of higher dose statins + combo Rx
47 DOS CME Course 2011
• Combination therapies have intuitive interest and appeal– Limits to what can be achieved with statins
– Atherogenic properties of other lipoproteins
– ENHANCE and ILLUSTRATE raise awareness that the way we treat lipids
Conclusions (cont’d)
remains important
– Limited data on benefits of therapies added to statins
– Await clinical trials
–Aim High, HPS2
–IMPROVE-IT
• Novel risk markers and measures of pre-clinical atherosclerosis– Additive with Framingham assessmentg– May help guide treatment decisions, particularly in intermediate-risk patients – May broaden the population for drug therapy
• Other high risk groups such as RA, SLE, high risk children should be targeted for earlier statin therapy
48 DOS CME Course 2011
25
Every Life Deserves World Class CareEvery Life Deserves World Class Care
DOS CME Course 201149
Hyperlipidemia Case PresentationsHyperlipidemia Case Presentations
Michael B. Rocco, M.D.Medical Director, Stress Testing and Cardiac Rehab
Sections of Preventive Cardiology and Clinical Cardiology
DOS CME Course 201150 Oxtober 201050Confidential
gy gyCardiovascular Medicine
Heart and Vascular Medicine
© Cleveland Clinic 201150 DOS CME Course 2011
26
• 5´10˝, 225 lb• BMI=32 3; waist 40˝
Mr. SmithHistory and Physical Exam
• 49-year-old African-American male recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes
• Past medical history of hypertension on medications
• BMI=32.3; waist 40• BP: 142/90 mm Hg
• Normal S1, S2, no murmurs, rubs or gallops
• Chest clear• No JVD• Carotids normal without
bruit
• Admits to sedentary lifestyle and no time for exercise. When he tries to walk briskly uphill, he develops a cramp in the left calf.
• Denies any other history of previous cardiovascular symptoms or previous cardiovascular testing
• Smokes 1ppd, drinks alcohol occasionally
• No complaint of EDbruit
• Left femoral bruit• No edema
• Family Hx: Father RCA stent age 54, died age 62 of MI: Mother and aunt have diabetes
• Medications• Metformin 500 mg bid• Amlodipine 10 mg qd
51 DOS CME Course 2011
• CBC normal
• Creatinine: 1 32 Complete
Baseline (fasting levels)
Total C 232 mg/dL
LDL C 140 /dL
Mr. SmithLaboratory Data
• Creatinine: 1.32, Complete metabolic panel otherwise normal
• Albumin/creatinine ratio of 56 mcg/mg
• Ankle brachial index (ABI) of 0.81 on left (normal >0.90)
• EKG: normal sinus rhythm,
LDL-C 140 mg/dL(calculated)
HDL-C 36 mg/dL
TG 278 mg/dL
Glucose 156 mg/dL
HbA1C 7.6% (nl: 4–6)
TSH 1 2 U/Ly ,
LVH by voltage criteria
• ABI was 0.84 on the left and 1.12 on the right
C=cholesterol; TG=triglycerides; HbA1c=hemoglobin A1c;
TSH=thyroid-stimulating hormone.
TSH 1.2 mU/L
52 DOS CME Course 2011
27
Question
Mr. Smith’s CVD Risk (annual CVD event rate) is1) Low (< 1%)
2) Intermediate (1 to 1.5%)
3)
Intensive Review of Cardiology
3) High intermediate (1.5 to 2%)
4) High (> 2%)
High risk features include:
• Multiple CV risk factors• Clinical symptoms ABI’s consistent with PAD• LVH on EKG• Microalbuminuria• Metabolic pattern• Family history
53 DOS CME Course 2011
Question
Initial management proven to reduce cardiovascular events should consist of all of the following EXCEPT:
1)
Intensive Review of Cardiology
1) Aggressive management of lipids
2) Reduction of A1C to <6.0%
3) Aspirin
4) Change amlodipine to an ACE inhibitor
5) Exercise program and weight reduction
6) Discontinue cigarette smoking
54 DOS CME Course 2011
28
Question
What would be his target for therapy1) LDL <70 mg/dL and non-HDL <100/Apo-B <80 mg/dL
2) LDL <100 mg/dL and non HDL <130/Apo B <90 mg/dL
Intensive Review of Cardiology
2) LDL <100 mg/dL and non-HDL <130/Apo-B <90 mg/dL
3) LDL <130 mg/dL and non-HDL <160/Apo-B <100 mg/dL
55 DOS CME Course 2011
Question
How would you initially treat this patient’s lipids?1) Fibrate
2) Statin
3) Niacin
Intensive Review of Cardiology
3) Niacin
4) Resin
5) Cholesterol absorption inhibitors
6) Omega 3 Fish oil
56 DOS CME Course 2011
29
Mr. Smith Follow-up Visit 1
Total C 232 164
Intensive Review of Cardiology
Baseline 4 Months* Rosuvastatin 20 mg
LDL-C 140 80
HDL-C 36 38
TG 278 229
Non–HDL-C 196 126
Glucose 136 110
Goal: <150 mg/dL
Goal: <70 mg/dL
Goal: <100 mg/dL
A1C 7.6 6.8
LFT WNL WNL
Weight (lbs) 230 221
57 DOS CME Course 2011
Question
Reasonable further options for management include all except:
Intensive Review of Cardiology
1) Continue present statin dose and work at weight reduction and glucose control
2) Add niacin
3) Add a fibrate
4) Increase the statin dose)5) Add fish oil
58 DOS CME Course 2011
30
Total C 232 164 149
LDL C 140 80 0
Mr. Smith Follow-up Visit 2
Baseline 4 Months 8 Months Niacin ER 1000 mg
LDL-C 140 80 70
HDL-C 36 38 46
TG 278 229 165
Non–HDL-C 196 126 103
Glucose 136 110 103
A1C 7.6 6.8 6.9
LFT WNL WNL WNL
Goal: <150 mg/dL
Goal: <70 mg/dL
Goal: <100 mg/dL
LFT WNL WNL WNL
Weight 230 lb 221 lb 215 lb
59 DOS CME Course 2011
• TC 280 mg/dl
Mrs. HartHistory and Physical Exam
• 70 yo female with DM, HTN, Hyperlipidemia
• CAD: history of BMS to Circ in 2004 and DES to RCA in 2008
g
• HDL 30 mg/dL
• TG 300 mg/dL
• LDL 190 mg/dL
• Non-HDL 250 mg/dL
• She has been tried on Simvastatin, Lovastatin and Lipitor in the past with complaints of muscle aches.
• Welchol stopped in the past due to GI distress
• She is sent to lipid clinic for further management
• Medications• ASA, clopidogrel, metoprolol,
lisinopril• OTC fish oil, red yeast rice, no-flush
niacin
60 DOS CME Course 2011
31
Followup Labs: 3 months
TC 157 /dl
Mrs. Jones History and Labs
• 54 yo obese female with HTN, Hyperlipidemia, impaired fasting glucose
• Presented with unstable angina and underwent BMS to circumflex
• TC: 157 mg/dl
• HDL: 42 mg/dL
• TG: 186 mg/dL
• LDL: 78 mg/dL
• Non-HDL 250 mg/dL
• ALT: 92 U/L
AST 42 U/L
• Started on atorvastatin 80 mg/day
• Other medications:
• ASA, clopidogrel for 30 days, ramapril
• OTC: tylenol for headaches, fish oil
• Baseline CMP was normal except for fasting glucose of 116 mg/dL • AST: 42 U/Lfasting glucose of 116 mg/dL
• LDL: 158 mg/dL• HDL: 39 mg/dL• TG: 235 mg/dL• ALT: 46 U/L (ULN 50)• AST: 32 U/L (ULN 40)
61 DOS CME Course 2011
Reasons for Stopping Statins
• Myalgias
• LFT abnormalities
G /• GI intolerance/headache
• Memory loss
• Bad press/misconceptions/drug resistant patient– e.g. renal failure
• Cost
62 DOS CME Course 2011
32
Headache, dyspepsia
Evaluate baseline symptoms, 6–8 wk after initiating therapy, then at each follow-up visit
Statin Advisory: MonitoringParameters, Follow-Up Schedule
Muscle soreness,tenderness, or pain
Evaluate baseline muscle symptoms and CK levels; muscle symptoms 6–12 wk after initiating therapy and at each follow-up visit; CK measurement when muscle soreness, tenderness, or pain present
ALT, AST Evaluate baseline ALT/AST, 12 wk after initiating therapy, then annually or as indicated
ALT=alanine transferase; AST=aspartate transferase.Pasternak RC et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:568-573.
Pasternak RC et al. Circulation. 2002;106:1024-1028.
63 DOS CME Course 2011
Terminology to Describe Muscle Injury
Condition DefinitionMyalgia muscle ache or weakness
ith t ti ki (CK)
Myopathy
Rhabdomyolysis muscle symptoms with marked CK elevation (typically >10 x
without creatine kinase (CK) elevation1
muscle symptoms with increased CK levels >10 x ULN2
1.Pasternak et al. Circulation. 2002;106:1024-1028. 2.Evans et al. Drug Saf. 2002;25:649-663.
CK elevation (typically >10 x ULN) and with creatinine elevation (usually with brown urine and urinary myoglobin)1
64 DOS CME Course 2011
33
Incidence of Myopathy and Rhabdomyolysis With Statins• Dose-related myopathy occurs in approximately 0.1% to 0.5% of
patients on statin monotherapy1
• The incidence of statin-associated rhabdomyolysis across large, randomized, controlled statin trials is <0.1%2*
• The reported incidence of fatal rhabdomyolysis with statins is p y yextremely rare: – 0.15 death per 1 million prescriptions3**
• 0.44 per 10,000 person years with statin– 2.82 per 10,000 person years with fibrates– 5.98 per 10,000 person years with statin + fibrates
– Gemfibrozil 7:10,614 with Fenofibrate 1:3,434
• A review of 5 large-scale controlled clinical trials of statin safety reported the following2:reported the following :– Rate of myopathy ranged from 0.1% to 0.6%– Rate of rhabdomyolysis ranged from 0.03% to 0.05%
• Myalgias reported in prescribing info: 1.2 to 3.2%– Up to 11% in registries *Based on clinical trials published between 1990 and 2003.
**Based on FDA reports of rhabdomyolysis from 1-1990, to 3 -2002.1. Omar et al. Ann Pharmacother. 2002;36:288-295.
2. Thompson et al. JAMA. 2003;289:1681-1690.3. Staffa et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:539-540.
65 DOS CME Course 2011
Statin Advisory: Risk Factors for Statin-Associated Myopathy
Concomitant meds or consumption of: Other considerations:
• Myopathy more likely to occur at higher doses•Attention should be paid to factors that may increase risk for myopathy
p Fibrates: gemfibrozil Nicotinic acid (rarely) Cyclosporine Azole antifungals
Itraconazole, ketoconazole Macrolide antibiotics
Erythromycin, clarithromycin HIV protease inhibitors
N f d ( tid t)
Advanced age (especially 80 yr; women > men)
Genetics Small body frame, frailty Multisystem disease
(eg, chronic renal insufficiency, especially in DM)
Multiple medicationsP i ti i d
Pasternak RC et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:568-573.Pasternak RC et al. Circulation. 2002;106:1024-1028.
Nefazodone (antidepressant) Verapamil Amiodarone Large quantities of grapefruit
juice (1 qt/d) Alcohol abuse
Perioperative periods Obstructive liver disease Hypothyroid Transplant patients
66 DOS CME Course 2011
34
Statin Intolerance
• Search for other causes
• Trial of different statin or stop and rechallenge at lower dose– Will try multiple statins
• Trial of low dose reduced frequency of potent statin• Trial of low dose, reduced frequency of potent statin
• Trial of Co Enzyme Q10 for myalgias
• Non-statin drug therapies– Niacin with ezetimibe– Niacin with Resin
• Emphasis on TLC– Nutrition consultation
–Plant stanols and sterols–Soluble fiber: dietary, supplemental
– Exercise Rx
67 DOS CME Course 2011
Red Rice Yeast• Product of yeast on red rice
• Monacolins
• Potent HMG-Coa Reductase inhibitorinhibitor
• Mevinolin (AKA Lovastatin (Mevacor)
68 DOS CME Course 2011
35
No Flush Niacin
• No Flush– Most expensive ($21/month) p ( )– Contains no free nicotinic acid– Ineffective treatment
• Sustained-release– Less expensive ($10/month) – Full amount of free nicotinic acid– Hepatotoxicity frequent with some
brands
• Immediate release
Ann Inter Med 2003;139:996-1002
69 DOS CME Course 2011
Immediate release– Least expensive ($8/month)– Full amount of free nicotinic acid– Used safely for 50 years – Effective treatment
Statins and the Incidence of Clinically Significant Transaminase Elevations
Statin Dose (mg)Serum Transaminase
Elevations* (%)
Crestor® (rosuvastatin calcium)
51020
0.40.00.020
400.00.1
Lipitor ® (atorvastatin calcium)
10204080
0.20.20.62.3
Pravachol® (pravastatin sodium) 2040
1.2
Vytorin™(ezetimibe/simvastatin)
All Doses10/80
1.83.6(ezetimibe/simvastatin)
Zocor® (simvastatin)204080
~1.0
• The data in the above analysis were derived from prescribing information and not from comparative trials
70 DOS CME Course 2011
*Clinically significant elevations in transaminase levels were defined as the following:Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin: >3 x ULN occurring on 2 or more occasions; simvastatin and ezetimibe/simvastatin: persistent elevations >3 x ULN; pravastatin: >3 x ULN in pts with normal baseline liver function, and >4 x ULN in pts with baseline transaminase levels above ULN but <1.5 x ULN. Based on prescribing information for the individual statins.
36
Statin-Associated Transaminase Elevations
• Progression to liver failure due to statins is exceedingly rare – Acute liver failure (0.02-0.07 per million)– Hepatitis – never been reportedp p– Cholestasis – never been reported
• Transaminitis – 0.5% to 1.3%– Reversal of transaminase elevation is frequently noted with a
reduction in statin dose– Elevations do not often recur with either readministration or
selection of another statin
• Statins have not been shown to worsen the outcome in persons with chronic transaminase elevations due to hepatitis B or C
• Treatment of hyperlipidemia may actually improve transaminase elevations in individuals with fatty liver condition
Pasternak et al. Circulation. 2002;106:1024-1028.
71 DOS CME Course 2011
ALT/AST < 3X ULN
• Review meds/ETOH
• Look for other causes
• Repeat labs in 6-12 weeks on same or lower dose
• Repeat in 1 to 2 weeks, if persistently high, stop statin
• Recheck in 2 to 4 weeks
ALT/AST > 3X ULN
• May consider rechallenge with lower dose or different statin
72 DOS CME Course 2011
37
• Kiyici et al.,– 44 patients with biopsy proven NASH
– Atorvastatin 10mg for 6 months
Should you start statin in someone with high ALT/AST?
– Decrease in cholesterol, AST, ALT, AP, and GGT
• Chalasani et al., (moderate AST/ALT elevation)– Effect of statins over 6 months (mild/moderate, severe)
– High AST/ALT placed on statin (4.7%, 0.6%)
– High AST/ALT not placed on statin (6.4%, 0.4%)
– Normal AST/ALT placed on statin (1.9%, 0.2%)
73 DOS CME Course 2011
Prevention – Secondary Population LDL
LDLc (w/2FUPs) - Statin Tolerant
170
90
110
130
150
Lc
(m
g/d
L)
Me
dia
n (
IQR
)
BaselineBaseline
DOS CME Course 2011
50
70
LD
L
Follow Follow -- UpUp
74
38
Prevention - Secondary Population LDL
LDLc (w/2FUPs) - Statin Intolerant
170
90
110
130
150
Lc
(m
g/d
L)
Me
dia
n (
IQR
)
Baseline Baseline
DOS CME Course 2011
50
70
LD
L
Follow Follow -- UpUp
75
Every Life Deserves World Class CareEvery Life Deserves World Class Care
DOS CME Course 201176
39
Case PresentationsCase PresentationsAnticoagulation Issues
Michael B. Rocco, M.D.
Jonathan Schaffer, M.D.
DOS CME Course 201177 Oxtober 201077Confidential© Cleveland Clinic 2011
77 DOS CME Course 2011
• 64yo WM, BMI 32
• Persistent atrial fibrillation for 4 years
• Hypertension controlled on current therapy
• Diabetes, HbA1c of 7.1, Creatinine 1.2
Preoperative Knee Replacement
• No previous history of VTE
• Drug eluting stent placed in proximal LAD 3 months ago at another institution. Presented with unstable angina and cath demonstrated 95% LAD stenosis
• No history of MI, LV function normal on Echo
• Meds: ASA 81mg qday, warfarin 5mg qday, clopidogrel 75mg qday, metoprolol succinate 100 mg qday, lisinopril 20 mg qday, metformin 1000 mg bid, simvastatin 40 mg qdaysimvastatin 40 mg qday,
• Ortho wants to schedule for knee replacement using spinal and femoral nerve catheter ASAP
• Denies recurrent chest pain, DOE, PND orthopnea, palpitations, hypoglycemic episodes
• EKG: atrial fibrillation rate 82, LVH
78 DOS CME Course 2011
40
Preoperative Knee Replacement
• CV risk for non-cardiac surgery
• Need for stress testing– Will it alter treatment decisions
• Atrial fibrillation rate control• Atrial fibrillation rate control
• Withdrawal of antiplatelet therapy– Clopidogrel– ASA
• Withdrawal of warfarin– Need for bridging with heparin
• VTE prophylaxis
• Peri-operative medications
• Diabetes management
• Type of anesthesia
79 DOS CME Course 2011
Proposed Approach to the Management of Patients with Previous PCI Who Require Noncardiac Surgery
Previous PCI
Balloonangioplasty
Bare-metalstent
Drug-elutingstent
<14 days>30- 45 days <30- 45 days >365 days
Time since PCI
<365 days
>14 days
Delay for elective ornonurgent surgery
Proceed to theoperation room
with aspirin
Delay for elective ornonurgent surgery
Proceed to theoperating room
with aspirin
PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention
80 DOS CME Course 2011
41
AHA/ACC/SCAI/ACS/ADA 2007 Science AdvisoryPrevention of Premature Discontinuation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Stents
• Premature discontinuation greatly increases the risk for stent thrombosis and associated clinical events.
• Patients’ ability to comply with prolonged dual therapy and need for subsequent invasive procedures should be considered when choosing stent type
• In patients likely to require invasive or surgical procedures within the next 12 months, consideration should be given to implantation of a bare metal stent or balloon angioplasty with provisional stent implantation
• Patients should receive 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after DES
• Patients and other health care providers should consult with the patient's cardiologist before stopping dual therapy.
• Elective surgery associated with a significant risk of bleeding should be postponed until an appropriate course of dual antiplatelet therapy (1 month forpostponed until an appropriate course of dual antiplatelet therapy (1 month for BMS, 12 months for DES).
• For patients treated with DES who are to undergo subsequent procedures that mandate discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy, aspirin should be continued if at all possible and the thienopyridine restarted as soon as possible after the procedure because of concerns about late stent thrombosis.
Grines CL, et al. Circulation. 2007;115:813-818.
81 DOS CME Course 2011
• 74yo WF, BMI 22
• Hip has loosened and she has impending fracture requiring surgery sooner than later
• No evidence of infection– Normal CRP, Sed rate, WBC and aspiration
Preoperative Revision of Hip for Loosening
• Prosthetic St. Judes mechanical mitral valve 15 years ago implanted elsewhere for mitral regurgitation. Pre-op cath revealed no obstructive CAD
• Recent Echo: moderate left atrial enlargement, ejection fraction 45%
• Hypertension controlled on therapy
• Venous stasis disease with intact skin
• Meds: ASA 81mg qday, warfarin 3mg qday, lisinopril 10mg qday carvedilol 12 5 bid simvastatin 40mg qday10mg qday, carvedilol 12.5 bid, simvastatin 40mg qday
• Ortho wants to schedule for hip revision using spinal anesthesia next week
• Denies chest pain, edema, PND, orthopnea, palpitations. Has unchanged mild SOB with 2 flights of stairs
82 DOS CME Course 2011
42
Preoperative Knee Replacement
• CV risk for non-cardiac surgery
• Withdrawal of antiplatelet therapy– ASA
• Withdrawal of warfarin– Need for bridging with heparin
• Peri-operative medications
• VTE prophylaxis
• Type of anesthesia
83 DOS CME Course 2011
Clinical Risk Factors for Perioperative Cardiovascular Complications
• History of ischemic heart disease
• History of compensated or prior heart failure;
• History of cerebrovascular disease;
• Diabetes mellitus; and
Renal insufficiency (defined in the Revised Cardiac Risk Index as a • Renal insufficiency (defined in the Revised Cardiac Risk Index as a preoperative serum creatinine of >2 mg/dL)
84 DOS CME Course 2011
43
Bridging Rx in Patients with Mechanical ValvesRecommended: Class I
• Low risk of thrombosis (bileaflet mechanical AVR with no risk factors): stop warfarin 48 to 72 hours prior for INR <1.5 and restart within 24 hours. Heparin in usually unnecessary I
• High risk of thrombosis (mechanical MVR or mechanical AVR with any risk factor): UFH when INR falls <2 0 (typically 48 hours pre surgery) stoppedfactor): UFH when INR falls <2.0 (typically 48 hours pre surgery), stopped 4 to 6 hours before surgery restarted as early after surgery as bleeding allowa, and continue until INR in therapeutic with warfarin. I
Reasonable: Class II
• Reasonable to give FFP with mechanical valves who require emergent procedures. FFP perferable to vitamin K. IIa
• High risk of thrombosis: therapeutic doses of subcutaneous UFH (15,000 U q12 hours) or LMWH (100 U/kg q12 hours) may be considered during period of subtherapeutic INR IIb
Not Recommended: Classs III
• Patients with mechanical valves who require interruption of warfarin, high dose vitamin K should not be given routinely since this may create a hypercoagulable condition.
85 DOS CME Course 2011
Recommendations for Perioperative Beta-Blocker Therapy
Surgery No Clinical Risk Factors
CAD or High Risk (1 or
Patients Currently
more clinical risk factors)
Taking Beta Blockers
Vascular Class llb, Level of Evidence: B
Class lla, Level of Evidence: B
Class 1, Level of Evidence: C
Intermediate … Class lla, Level Class 1, Level of Intermediate risk
,of Evidence: B
,Evidence: C
Low risk … … Class 1, Level of Evidence: C
86 DOS CME Course 2011
44
DOS CME Course 201187 DOS CME Course 2011
ACC/AHA Guidelines for Non-cardiac Surgery
88 DOS CME Course 2011
45
Cardiac Risk Stratification for Noncardiac Surgical Procedures
Risk Stratification Procedure Examples
Vascular (reported cardiac Aortic and other major vascular surgery
risk often > 5%) Peripheral vascular surgery
Intermediate (reported Intraperitoneal and intrathoracic surgery
cardiac risk generally 1%-5%) Carotid endarterectomy
Head and neck surgery, Orthopedic surgery, Prostate surgery
Low (reported cardiac Endoscopic procedures
risk generally <1% Superficial procedure /Breast surgery
Cataract surgeryAmbulatory surgery
89 DOS CME Course 2011
Cardiac Evaluation and Care Algorithm for Noncardiac Surgery (1)
Need for emergencynoncardiac surgery? Yes
(Class I, LOE C)Operating room Perioperative surveillance
and postoperative riskstratification and risk factor
Step 1
stratification and risk factormanagement
Active cardiacconditions* Evaluate and treat per
ACC/AHA guidelines
Consideroperating room
No
Low risk surgery
Yes(Class I, LOE B)
Yes(Class I LOE B)
Proceed withplanned surgery
No
Step 2
Step 3(Class I, LOE B)
Functional capacity greater than orequal to 4 METs without symptoms. Proceed with
planned surgeryYes(Class IIa, LOE B)
No
Step 4
90 DOS CME Course 2011
46
Cardiac Evaluation and Care Algorithm for Noncardiac Surgery (2)
No or unknownStep 5
3 or more clinicalrisk factors?
1-2 clinicalrisk factors?
No clinicalrisk factors
Vascular SurgeryIntermediaterisk surgery
Class IIa,
LOE B
Vascular SurgeryIntermediate risk
surgeryClass ILOE B
Consider testing if it willchange management ¶
Proceed with
planned surgeryProceed with planned surgery with HR control ¶ (Class IIa, LOE B)
or consider noninvasive testing (Class IIb LOE B) if it will change with management
91 DOS CME Course 2011
Recommendations for Beta-Blocker Medical TherapyRecommended: Class I
• Continue in patients undergoing surgery who are receiving beta blockers for treatment of conditions with ACCF/AHA Class I guideline indications for the drugs. I
Reasonable: Class II
• Beta blockers titrated to heart rate and blood pressure are probably recommended for patients undergoing vascular surgery who are at high cardiac risk owing to coronary artery disease or the finding of cardiac ischemia on preoperative testing. IIag p p g
• Beta blockers titrated to heart rate and blood pressure are reasonable for patients in whom preoperative assessment for vascular surgery identifies high cardiac risk, as defined by the presence of > 1 clinical risk factor. IIa
• Beta blockers titrated to heart rate and blood pressure are reasonable for patients in whom preoperative assessment identifies coronary artery disease or high cardiac risk, as defined by the presence of > 1 clinical risk factor,* who are undergoing intermediate-risk surgery. IIa
• The usefulness of beta blockers is uncertain for patients who are undergoing either intermediate-risk procedures or vascular surgery in whom preoperative assessment identifies a single clinical risk factor in the absence of coronary artery disease.* IIb
• The usefulness of beta blockers is uncertain in patients undergoing vascular surgery with no• The usefulness of beta blockers is uncertain in patients undergoing vascular surgery with no clinical risk factors who are not currently taking beta blockers. IIb
Not Recommended: Classs III
• Beta blockers should not be given to patients undergoing surgery who have absolute contraindications to beta blockade.
• Routine administration of high-dose beta blockers in the absence of dose titration is not useful and may be harmful to patients not currently taking beta blockers who are undergoing noncardiac surgery.
92 DOS CME Course 2011
47
Recommendations for Non-Invasive Stress Testing Before Noncardiac Surgery
Recommended: Class I
• Patients with active cardiac conditions in whom noncardiac surgery is planned should be evaluated and treated per ACC/AHA guidelines before noncardiac surgery. I
Reasonable: Class II
• Noninvasive stress testing of patients with 3 or more clinical risk factors and poor functional capacity (< 4 METs) who require vascular surgery is reasonable if it will change management. IIa
• Noninvasive stress testing may be considered for patients with at least 1 to 2 clinical risk factors and poor functional capacity (less than 4 METs) who require intermediate-risk or vascular surgery if it will change management. IIbb
Not Recommended: Classs III
• With no clinical risk factors undergoing intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery.
• Undergoing low-risk noncardiac surgery.
93 DOS CME Course 2011
Recommendations for Preoperative Noninvasive Evaluation of LV Function
Preoperative evaluation of LV function is reasonable: Class II
• For patients with dyspnea of unknown origin to undergo preoperative evaluation of LV function IIaevaluation of LV function. IIa
• For patients with current or prior HF with worsening dyspnea or other change in clinical status to undergo preoperative evaluation of LV function if not performed within 12 months. IIa
• Reassessment of LV function in clinically stable patients with previously documented cardiomyopathy is not well established. IIb
Preoperative evaluation of LV function not recommended: Class III
• Routine perioperative evaluation of LV function in patients is not recommended.
94 DOS CME Course 2011
48
Recommendations for Preoperative Resting 12-Lead ECG
Preoperative resting 12-lead ECG is recommended for patients with: Class I
• At least 1 clinical risk factor* who are undergoing vascular surgical procedures.
• Known CHD, peripheral arterial disease, or cerebrovascular disease who are undergoing intermediate-risk surgical procedures.
Preoperative resting 12-lead ECG is reasonable for patients with: Class II
• Preoperative resting 12-lead ECG is reasonable in persons with no clinical risk factors who are undergoing vascular surgical procedures. IIa
• Preoperative resting 12-lead ECG may be reasonable in patients with at least 1 clinical risk factor who are undergoing intermediate-risk operative procedures IIbclinical risk factor who are undergoing intermediate-risk operative procedures. IIb
Preoperative resting 12-lead is not indicated: Class III
• Preoperative and postoperative resting 12-lead ECGs are not indicated in asymptomatic persons undergoing low-risk surgical procedures.
* Clinical risk factors include history of ischemic heart disease, history of compensated or prior HF, history of cerebrovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and renal insufficiency.
95 DOS CME Course 2011
Perioperative Control of Blood Glucose Concentration
• It is reasonable that blood glucose concentration be controlled during the perioperative period in patients with diabetes mellitusduring the perioperative period in patients with diabetes mellitus or acute hyperglycemia who are at high risk for myocardial ischemia or who are undergoing vascular and major surgical procedures with planned ICU admission.
• The usefulness of strict control of blood glucose concentration during the perioperative period is uncertain in patients with diabetes mellitus or acute hyperglycemia who are undergoingdiabetes mellitus or acute hyperglycemia who are undergoing noncardiac surgical procedures without planned ICU admission.
96 DOS CME Course 2011
49
Intraoperative and Postoperative Use of ST-Segment Monitoring• Intraoperative and postoperative ST-segment monitoring can be useful to
monitor patients with known CAD or those undergoing vascular surgery, with computerized ST segment analysis, when available, used to detect myocardial ischemia during the perioperative period.
• Intraoperative and postoperative ST-segment monitoring may be considered in patients with single or multiple risk factors for CAD who are undergoing noncardiac surgery.
Surveillance for Perioperative MI• Postoperative troponin measurement is recommended in patients with
ECG changes or chest pain typical of acute coronary syndrome
• The use of postoperative troponin measurement is not well established in patients who are clinically stable and have undergone vascular and intermediate-risk surgery.
• Postoperative troponin measurement is not recommended in asymptomatic stable patients who have undergone low-risk surgery.
97 DOS CME Course 2011
Pre-operative Revascularization
Recommended: Class I
• Stable angina with left main disease.
• Stable angina with 3-vessel disease (survival benefit greater if LVEF <0.50)
• Stable angina with 2-vessel disease and proximal LAD disease and either LVEF <0.50 or ischemia on non-invasive testing
• Unstable angina or NSTEMI• Unstable angina or NSTEMI
• Acute STEMI
Reasonable: Class II
• Patients in whom PCI is appropriate for mitigation of symptoms and who need elective surgery in the subsequent 12 months, POBA or BMS followed by 4 to 6 weeks of dual-antiplatelet therapy. IIa
• In patients with DES who must undergo urgent therapy that mandates stopping thienopyridine RX, continue aspirin if at all possible IIa
• Not well established in high-risk ischemic patients (e.g. abnormal dobutamine stress with at least 5 segments of WMA) IIb
• Not well established for low-risk (e.g. abnormal dobutamine stress (1 to 4 segments) IIb
Not Recommended: Classs III
• As routine in patients with stable CAD
• Surgery within 4 to 6 weeks of BMS or 12 months of DES
• Surgery within 4 weeks of balloon angioplasty
98 DOS CME Course 2011
50
ATP III: The Metabolic SyndromeDiagnosis established with 3 of these risk factors.
Abdominal obesity(Waist circumference†)
Defining LevelRisk FactorGeneral Features of the Metabolic Syndrome
• Abdominal obesity
• Atherogenic dyslipidemia
<40 mg/dL<50 mg/dL
MenWomen
>102 cm (>40 in)>88 cm (>35 in)
MenWomen
HDL-C
150 mg/dLTG
• Atherogenic dyslipidemia
– Elevated triglycerides
– Small LDL particles
– Low HDL cholesterol
• Raised blood pressure
• Insulin resistance ( glucose
intolerance)
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment ofHigh Blood Cholesterol in Adults. JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497.
110 mg/dL (>100)Fasting glucose
130/85 mm HgBlood pressure
intolerance)
• Prothrombotic state
• Proinflammatory state
99 DOS CME Course 2011
Defining the High Risk Patient• Known CHD: Prior infarction, documented CAD
angiographically, positive stress test, typical angina
• Other clinically significant vascular disease such as carotid artery disease, prior stroke, aortic aneurysm, PVD
• Diabetes
• > 20% ten year risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or CHD related mortality: e.g. Framingham risk score (FRS)
• Intermediate risk by clinical criteria (10 to 20% ten year risk) with other risk factors;– strong family history of premature CHD– metabolic syndromemetabolic syndrome– elevation of other markers of risk or inflammation: hs-CRP– LP(a)– carotid IMT, coronary calcification score, ABI (ankle-brachial
index)
• Chronic inflammatory illness
100 DOS CME Course 2011
51
Stepwise Selection of Risk Factors* in 2693 White Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Time to First Event: UKPDS
Coronary Artery Disease (n=280)
VariableVariable
Low-Density Lipoprotein
High-Density Lipoprotein
Hemoglobin A1c
PP ValueValue
<0.0001
0.0001
0.0022
Position in ModelPosition in Model
First
Second
Third g 1c
Systolic Blood Pressure
Smoking
0.0065
0.056
Fourth
Fifth*Adjusted for age and sex.
Turner RC et al. BMJ 1998;316:823-828.
101 DOS CME Course 2011
Predictors of Progression When LDL-C <70 mg/dL
Baseline PAVBaseline PAV
DiabetesDiabetes
Odds RatioOdds Ratio
Change in SBPChange in SBP
Change in HDLChange in HDL--CC
Change in APOBChange in APOB
Baseline LDLBaseline LDL--CC
Concomitant Concomitant StatinStatin UseUse
Change in LDLChange in LDL--CC
00 0.50.5 1.01.0 1.51.5 2.02.0 2.52.5
Change in LDLChange in LDL CC
FavorsFavorsNonNon--ProgressorsProgressors
FavorsFavorsProgressorsProgressors
Bayturan, Nicholls et al Bayturan, Nicholls et al J Amer Coll CardiolJ Amer Coll Cardiol 2010 (In Press)2010 (In Press)
52
Niacin Meta-analysis: MACE and CVA
Athero 2010;210:353-361
103 DOS CME Course 2011
ARBITER 6-HALTS: Treatment effects on lipids
Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects for
N = 208 on statin therapy
25
20
15-10
-5
0 LDL-CHDL-C
Percent Effects for Reducing Cholesterol 6–HDL and LDL Treatment Strategies
0
-5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
-10
10
5
-5
-30
-25
-20
-15Percent
change frombaseline
5
0
-5Niacin
P < 0.001
P = 0.01
EzetimibeP t
Total-C Triglycerides
Months
-10
-15
-200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Months 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-10
-15
-20
-25
P = 0.001P = 0.01
Percentchange from
baseline
Taylor AJ et al N Engl J Med 2009:361
104 DOS CME Course 2011
53
ILLUSTRATE Trial: Primary EndpointPercent change in atheroma volume from baseline
p=0.72
The percent me
0.3
0.12%
0.19%
The percent change in atheroma volume did not differ between treatment groups
ge
in A
ther
om
a Volu
mBas
elin
e (%
)
0.1
0.2
Torcetrapib Placebo
Chan
gfr
om
B
N = 591 N = 597
Nissen SE et al. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1304-1316.
0
105 DOS CME Course 2011
LDL & CRP: PROVE-IT
Events/100 person years
LDL < 70 mg/dL 2 7
On therapy Events/100 person years
LDL > median 4 6LDL < 70 mg/dL 2.7
LDL > 70 mg/dL 4.0
CRP < 2 mg/L 2.8
C /
LDL > median
CRP > median
4.6
LDL > median
CRP < median
3.1
LDL < median
CRP > median
3.2
LDL < median 2.4CRP > 2 mg/L 3.9 CRP < median
• The lowest risk was noted in (post-hoc analysis) those with LDL < 70 mg/dL and CRP < 1 mg/L. (1.9 events/100 person years) This accounted for only 15.9% of the population.
Ridker et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:20-28
106 DOS CME Course 2011
54
JUPITER Primary Trial Endpoint: MI, Stroke, UA/Revascularization, CV Death
0.08Placebo
251/8901
HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46–0.69, P<0.0001
Cu
mu
lati
ve I
nci
den
ce 0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
251/8901
Rosuvastatin 142/8901
-44%Number Needed to Treat (NNTT) = 25ARR: 0.77 vs 1.36%/yr
LDL: 108 mg/dL; 50%
CRP: 4.2 mg/L; 37%
HDL: 49 mg/dL; 4%
TGS: 119 mg/dL; 37%
Follow-up (years)
0 1 2 3 4
Ridker PM et al. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2202.
107 DOS CME Course 2011
Cumulative incidence of MI, stroke, admission for UA, arterial revascularization, or CV death
0.08
Jupiter: Importance of Achieving Dual LDL-C and hsCRP Reduction
Cumulative incidence
0.06
0.04
0.02
1 2 3 4
Follow-up (years)
0
Rosuvastatin (LDL-C 70 mg/dL or hsCRP 2 mg/L)
Placebo Rosuvastatin (LDL-C <70 mg/dL and hsCRP <2 mg/L)
Ridker PM et al. Lancet. 2009;37:1175-82.
108 DOS CME Course 2011
55
ACCORD – Lipid Results
N=5518Mean Age: 62 yrMean f/u: 4.7 yr
109 DOS CME Course 2011
The ACCORD Study Group. N Engl J Med 362(17):1563-74, 2010.
Safety of Fibrates• GI
– Gallstones
– Elevated transaminase
– Increased need for CCK and/or Appendectomy
• Thromboembolic events (FIELDS)
• Myopathy– As monotherapy as well as combo therapy
– Both gemfibrozil and fenofibrate but more with gemfibrozil
– 5.5 fold increased risk of myopathy when combined with statins
– Risk of rhabdo increases with diabetic, CRI, hypothyroidism and in elderly patient
• Renal Effects– Plasma half-life of fenofibric acid is prolonged
– Can increase creatinine (less common with gemfibrozil) – 12% in FIELD study ReversibleCan increase creatinine (less common with gemfibrozil) 12% in FIELD study. Reversible
– Fibrates dose lowered in renal patients
– Fenofibrate – Lower dose with GFR 15-59 and avoid all together if GFR <15
– Gemfibrozil – better in CRI or transplants patients. However, lower dose to 50% if GFR 15-59 and avoid if GFR drops below 15
110 DOS CME Course 2011
Am J Cardiol 2007: 99: 3C-18C
56
Renal Effects: Fibrates
• Plasma half-life of fenofibric acid is prolonged
• Can increase creatinine (less common with gemfibrozil) –12% in FIELD study. Reversible
• Fibrates dose lowered in renal patients
• Fenofibrate – Lower dose with GFR 15-59 and avoid all together if GFR <15
• Gemfibrozil – better in CRI or transplants patients. However, lower dose to 50% if GFR 15-59 and avoid if GFR drops below 15
111 DOS CME Course 2011
Creatinine and GFR ChangesFrom Baseline to Final Visit
Treatment NCreatinine% Change
Change inGFR
Placebo 371 0.8 -0.3
Rosuvastatin 5 mg 637 -1.6 1.5 osu astat 5 g10 mg20 mg40 mg
290914322107
-1.4 -1.6 -1.3
1.6 1.9 1.6
Atorvastatin 10 mg20 mg40 mg80 mg
13941562
221535
-1.5 -1.4 -2.0 -3.8
1.6 1.5 1.9 3.4
Simvastatin 10 mg20 mg40 mg
1611217
506
-0.4 -1.4 -1.6
0.5 1.4 1.7 40 mg
80 mg506500
6-1.2 1.5
Pravastatin 10 mg20 mg40 mg
159342745
-1.8 -2.1 -0.7
1.81.9 0.8
112 DOS CME Course 2011
Median duration of therapy ~ 8 weeks.Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in mL/min/1.73 m2.Combined All Controlled and Controlled RTLD Pool.Data on file (DA-CRS-07). AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Wilmington, DE.
57
CK Elevation With Symptoms
• Document severity of symptom
• Evaluate for other causesEvaluate for other causes
• Stop statin if muscle weakness, pain or dark urine
• <3X ULN, then consider lowering the dose, recheck
• >3X ULN then stop statin, recheck CK in 5-7 days, if stable repeat in 4-6 weeks
• >10X ULN stop statin check for rhabdo• >10X ULN, stop statin check for rhabdo
113 DOS CME Course 2011
New CK Elevation Without Symptoms
• Recheck CK and document to see if there is weakness on exam. Recheck medication carefully.
• If CK less than 3X ULN, continue statin and recheck in 6 weeks
• CK 3-10X ULN, then either reduce or stop statin
• CK >10X ULN, stop statin and work-up for myositis
114 DOS CME Course 2011
58
Asymptomatic baseline CK elevation
• CK <3X ULN – May start statin, recheck in 2 monthsy ,
• CK 3-10X ULN– Look for cause (hypothyroidism etc)
– Low dose statin, repeat CK 4-6 weeks
• CK >10X elevated– Look for cause
115 DOS CME Course 2011
Common OTC Fish Oil
Soft Gell or Capsule Name Amount of EPA and DHA in One
Soft Gel or Capsule
Berkley & Jensen Natural Extra Strength Fish Oil, 1200 mg with Omega-3 Fatty Acids
216 mg EPA and 144 mg of DHA per soft gel 11 tablets QD
Carlson Super Omega-3 Fish Oil Concentrate 500 mg EPA & DHA
300 mg of EPA and 200 mg of DHA per soft gel 8 tablets QD
Pharmacy Natural Fish Oil 1000 mg
(Distributed by GNC)
180 mg EPA and 120 mg of DHA per soft gel 13 tablets QD
Origin Natural Fish Oil Omega-3 1200 mg (Distributed by Target Corporation)
216 mg EPA and 144 mg DHA per soft gel 11 tablets QD
Sundown Cholesterol Free Fish Oil 1000 mg 180 mg EPA and 120 mg DHA per soft gel 13 tablets QD
Weil – Andrew Weil, MD Omega-3 Complex 333 mg of EPA and 167 mg DHA per soft gel 8 tablets QD
116 DOS CME Course 2011