Cardiovascular Diseases

Apolipoprotein B in cardiovascular risk assessment

Author/s: 
Ahmad, maud, Sniderman, Allan D., Hegele, Robert A.

Apolipoprotein (apo) B measurement is a recommended alternative to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)
The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline on dyslipidemia recommends that physicians may use levels of either non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) or apo B instead of LDL-C for screening and targets of treatment.1 Non-HDL-C represents total cholesterol minus cholesterol from HDL particles; apo B represents the total number of atherogenic particles, since 1 apo B molecule is found on each LDL, very low–density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particle.2

Apolipoprotein B in cardiovascular risk assessment

Author/s: 
Ahmad, maud, Sniderman, Allan D., Hegele, Robert A.

Apolipoprotein (apo) B measurement is a recommended alternative to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)
The 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline on dyslipidemia recommends that physicians may use levels of either non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) or apo B instead of LDL-C for screening and targets of treatment.1 Non-HDL-C represents total cholesterol minus cholesterol from HDL particles; apo B represents the total number of atherogenic particles, since 1 apo B molecule is found on each LDL, very low–density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein and lipoprotein(a) particle.2

Bempedoic Acid for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Statin-Intolerant Patients

Author/s: 
Nissen, S. E., Menon, V., Nicholls, S. J., Brennan, D., Laffin, L., Ridker, P., Ray, K. K., Mason, D., Kastelein, J. J. P., Cho, L., Libby, P., Li, N., Foody, J., Louie, M. J., Lincoff, A. M.

Importance: The effects of bempedoic acid on cardiovascular outcomes in statin-intolerant patients without a prior cardiovascular event (primary prevention) have not been fully described.

Objective: To determine the effects of bempedoic acid on cardiovascular outcomes in primary prevention patients.

Design, setting, and participants: This masked, randomized clinical trial enrolled 13 970 statin-intolerant patients (enrollment December 2016 to August 2019 at 1250 centers in 32 countries), including 4206 primary prevention patients.

Interventions: Participants were randomized to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily (n = 2100), or matching placebo (n = 2106).

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy measure was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of any component of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization.

Results: Mean participant age was 68 years, 59% were female, and 66% had diabetes. From a mean baseline of 142.2 mg/dL, compared with placebo, bempedoic acid reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels by 30.2 mg/dL (21.3%) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels by 0.56 mg/L (21.5%), from a median baseline of 2.4 mg/L. Follow-up for a median of 39.9 months was associated with a significant risk reduction for the primary end point (111 events [5.3%] vs 161 events [7.6%]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.89]; P = .002) and key secondary end points, including the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (83 events [4.0%] vs 134 events [6.4%]; HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.84]; P < .001); MI (29 events [1.4%] vs 47 events [2.2%]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.39-0.98]); cardiovascular death (37 events [1.8%] vs 65 events [3.1%]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.41-0.92]); and all-cause mortality (75 events [3.6%] vs 109 events [5.2%]; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.98]). There was no significant effect on stroke or coronary revascularization. Adverse effects with bempedoic acid included a higher incidence of gout (2.6% vs 2.0%), cholelithiasis (2.5% vs 1.1%), and increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.

Conclusions: In a subgroup of high-risk primary prevention patients, bempedoic acid treatment was associated with reduced major cardiovascular events.

Management of Menopausal Symptoms: A Review

Author/s: 
Crandall, C. J., Mehta, J. M., Manson, J. E.

Importance: Menopause, due to loss of ovarian follicular activity without another pathological or physiological cause, typically occurs between the ages of 45 years and 56 years. During the menopausal transition, approximately 50% to 75% of women have hot flashes, night sweats, or both (vasomotor symptoms) and more than 50% have genitourinary symptoms (genitourinary syndrome of menopause [GSM]).

Observations: Vasomotor symptoms typically last more than 7 years and GSM is often chronic. Efficacious treatments for women with bothersome vasomotor symptoms or GSM symptoms include hormonal and nonhormonal options. Systemic estrogen alone or combined with a progestogen reduces the frequency of vasomotor symptoms by approximately 75%. Oral and transdermal estrogen have similar efficacy. Conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) were the only hormonal treatments for which clinical trials were designed to examine cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and breast cancer risk. Compared with placebo, the increased risk of stroke and venous thromboembolism associated with CEE (with or without MPA) and breast cancer (with use of CEE plus MPA) is approximately 1 excess event/1000 person-years. Low-dose CEE plus bazedoxifene is not associated with increased risk of breast cancer (0.25%/year vs 0.23%/year with placebo). Bioidentical estrogens approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (with identical chemical structure to naturally produced estrogens, and often administered transdermally) also are available to treat vasomotor symptoms. For women who are not candidates for hormonal treatments, nonhormonal approaches such as citalopram, desvenlafaxine, escitalopram, gabapentin, paroxetine, and venlafaxine are available and are associated with a reduction in frequency of vasomotor symptoms by approximately 40% to 65%. Low-dose vaginal estrogen is associated with subjective improvement in GSM symptom severity by approximately 60% to 80%, with improvement in severity by 40% to 80% for vaginal prasterone, and with improvement in severity by 30% to 50% for oral ospemifene.

Conclusions and relevance: During the menopausal transition, approximately 50% to 75% of women have vasomotor symptoms and GSM symptoms. Hormonal therapy with estrogen is the first-line therapy for bothersome vasomotor symptoms and GSM symptoms, but nonhormonal medications (such as paroxetine and venlafaxine) also can be effective. Hormone therapy is not indicated for the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with hypertension with evening versus morning dosing of usual antihypertensives in the UK (TIME study): a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint clinical trial

Author/s: 
Mackenzie, I. S., Rogers, A., Poulter, N. R., Williams, B., Brown, M. J., Webb, D. J., Ford, I., Rorie, D. A., Guthrie, G., Grieve, J. W. K., Pigazzani, F., Rothwell, P. M., Young, R., McConnachie, A., Struthers, A. D., Lang, C. C., MacDonald, T. M.

Background: Studies have suggested that evening dosing with antihypertensive therapy might have better outcomes than morning dosing. The Treatment in Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aimed to investigate whether evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication improves major cardiovascular outcomes compared with morning dosing in patients with hypertension.

Methods: The TIME study is a prospective, pragmatic, decentralised, parallel-group study in the UK, that recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with hypertension and taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), without restriction, stratification, or minimisation, to take all of their usual antihypertensive medications in either the morning (0600-1000 h) or in the evening (2000-0000 h). Participants were followed up for the composite primary endpoint of vascular death or hospitalisation for non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Endpoints were identified by participant report or record linkage to National Health Service datasets and were adjudicated by a committee masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was assessed as the time to first occurrence of an event in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants randomly assigned to a treatment group). Safety was assessed in all participants who submitted at least one follow-up questionnaire. The study is registered with EudraCT (2011-001968-21) and ISRCTN (18157641), and is now complete.

Findings: Between Dec 17, 2011, and June 5, 2018, 24 610 individuals were screened and 21 104 were randomly assigned to evening (n=10 503) or morning (n=10 601) dosing groups. Mean age at study entry was 65·1 years (SD 9·3); 12 136 (57·5%) participants were men; 8968 (42·5%) were women; 19 101 (90·5%) were White; 98 (0·5%) were Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British (ethnicity was not reported by 1637 [7·8%] participants); and 2725 (13·0%) had a previous cardiovascular disease. By the end of study follow-up (March 31, 2021), median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-5·7), and 529 (5·0%) of 10 503 participants assigned to evening treatment and 318 (3·0%) of 10 601 assigned to morning treatment had withdrawn from all follow-up. A primary endpoint event occurred in 362 (3·4%) participants assigned to evening treatment (0·69 events [95% CI 0·62-0·76] per 100 patient-years) and 390 (3·7%) assigned to morning treatment (0·72 events [95% CI 0·65-0·79] per 100 patient-years; unadjusted hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·83-1·10]; p=0·53). No safety concerns were identified.

Interpretation: Evening dosing of usual antihypertensive medication was not different from morning dosing in terms of major cardiovascular outcomes. Patients can be advised that they can take their regular antihypertensive medications at a convenient time that minimises any undesirable effects.

Funding: British Heart Foundation.

Glucosamine/Chondroitin and Mortality in a US NHANES Cohort

Author/s: 
King, Dana E., Xiang, Jun

Background: Limited previous studies in the United Kingdom or a single US state have demonstrated an association between intake of glucosamine/chondroitin and mortality. This study sought to investigate the association between regular consumption of glucosamine/chondroitin and overall and cardiovascular (CVD) mortality in a national sample of US adults.

Methods: Combined data from 16,686 participants in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2010, merged with the 2015 Public-use Linked Mortality File. Cox proportional hazards models were conducted for both CVD and all-cause mortality.

Results: In the study sample, there were 658 (3.94%) participants who had been taking glucosamine/chondroitin for a year or longer. During followup (median, 107 months), there were 3366 total deaths (20.17%); 674 (20.02%) were due to CVD. Respondents taking glucosamine/chondroitin were less likely to have CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92). After controlling for age, use was associated with a 39% reduction in all-cause (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.77) and 65% reduction (HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.20-0.61) in CVD mortality. Multivariable-adjusted HR showed that the association was maintained after adjustment for age, sex, race, education, smoking status, and physical activity (all-cause mortality, HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93; CVD mortality, HR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75).

Conclusions: Regular intake of glucosamine/chondroitin is associated with lower all-cause and CVD mortality in a national US cohort and the findings are consistent with previous studies in other populations. Prospective studies to confirm the link may be warranted.

Efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Author/s: 
Gencer, Baris, Marston, Nicholas A., Im, KyungAh, Cannon, Christopher P., Sever, Peter, Keech, Anthony, Braunwald, Eugene, Giugliano, Robert P., Sabatine, Marc S.

Background: The clinical benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering treatment in older patients remains debated. We aimed to summarise the evidence of LDL cholesterol lowering therapies in older patients.

Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles published between March 1, 2015, and Aug 14, 2020, without any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials of cardiovascular outcomes of an LDL cholesterol-lowering drug recommended by the 2018 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and data on older patients (aged ≥75 years). We excluded trials that exclusively enrolled participants with heart failure or on dialysis because guidelines do not recommend lipid-lowering therapy in such patients who do not have another indication. We extracted data for older patients using a standardised data form for aggregated study-level data. We meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for major vascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or coronary revascularisation) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Findings: Data from six articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 24 trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis plus five individual trials. Among 244 090 patients from 29 trials, 21 492 (8·8%) were aged at least 75 years, of whom 11 750 (54·7%) were from statin trials, 6209 (28·9%) from ezetimibe trials, and 3533 (16·4%) from PCSK9 inhibitor trials. Median follow-up ranged from 2·2 years to 6·0 years. LDL cholesterol lowering significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events (n=3519) in older patients by 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (RR 0·74 [95% CI 0·61-0·89]; p=0·0019), with no statistically significant difference with the risk reduction in patients younger than 75 years (0·85 [0·78-0·92]; pinteraction=0·37). Among older patients, RRs were not statistically different for statin (0·82 [0·73-0·91]) and non-statin treatment (0·67 [0·47-0·95]; pinteraction=0·64). The benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering in older patients was observed for each component of the composite, including cardiovascular death (0·85 [0·74-0·98]), myocardial infarction (0·80 [0·71-0·90]), stroke (0·73 [0·61-0·87]), and coronary revascularisation (0·80 [0·66-0·96]).

Interpretation: In patients aged 75 years and older, lipid lowering was as effective in reducing cardiovascular events as it was in patients younger than 75 years. These results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of lipid-lowering therapies, including non-statin treatment, in older patients.

Subscribe to Cardiovascular Diseases