03 su lipid management tannock.ppt
TRANSCRIPT
1
Lipid Management: p gBeyond LDL
Lisa R. Tannock MDDivision of Endocrinology andDivision of Endocrinology and
Molecular MedicineUniversity of Kentucky
Overview
• Discuss the concept of residual risk• Discuss the concept of residual risk
• Review current evidence-based medicine for therapies other than statins
2
Major CVD Risk Factors
• High LDL/ Low HDL• High LDL/ Low HDL
• Smoking
• Diabetes
• Hypertension
• Age• Age
• Gender
Prevalence of CVD* in Adults
* Includes CHD, CHF, stroke and HTN
3
Burden of Coronary Artery Disease in the US
• 2400 Americans die of CVD2400 Americans die of CVD each day
• CVD deaths equal cancer, respiratory diseases, accidents and diabetes combined
• If all forms of major CVD were• If all forms of major CVD were eliminated, life expectancy would increase 7 yrs; cancer –3 yrs
American Heart Association. 2002 Heart and Stroke Statistical Update.
Secondary Prevention
Primary Prevention 4S-PL
LDL-C Lowering With Statins: Reduced CHD Events
y
CARE-Rx
4S-Rx
LIPID-Rx
CARE-PLLIPID-PL
WOSCOPS-PL10
15
20
25
TNT-10HPS-Rx
HPS-PL
50
AFCAPS-Rx
AFCAPS-PL
WOSCOPS-RxWOSCOPS-PL
70 90 110 130 150 170 190 210
0
5
Adapted from Illingworth DR. Med Clin North Am. 2000;84:23-42.
LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL)
TNT-10TNT-80
ASCOT-RxASCOT-PL
4
Lipid LevelsLipid Levels SimvastatinSimvastatin PlaceboPlacebo
Risk ratio and 95% CIRisk ratio and 95% CI
STATIN PLACEBO
HPS: Statin Benefit Independent of Baseline LDL
Lipid LevelsLipid Levelsat Entryat Entry
SimvastatinSimvastatin(10,269)(10,269)
Placebo Placebo (10,267)(10,267)
LDL cholesterol (mg/dl)
< 100 282 358
100 < 130 668 871
130 1083 1356
STATINBetter
PLACEBOBetter
ALL PATIENTS 2033 2585
24% SE 3reduction(2P<0.00001)
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.40.4
HPS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22.
Summary of Clinical Trial Findings
• in LDL-C results in in CHD morbidity/ mortality
• Studies support treatment in various patient groups– women
– elderly
– diabetics
– more moderate hyperlipidemia
5
Risk Assessment - LDL GoalsRisk Category 10 Year
RiskLDL Goal (mg/dl)
LDL level for Drug Rx
CHD or equivalent (Diabetes)
>20% <100
Optional: <70*
≥100*
(>100 optional)
2+ risk factors ≤20% <130
<100 optional*
≥130 (10-20% risk)
(>100 optional)
≥160 (<10% risk)optional ≥160 (<10% risk)
0-1 risk factor <10% <160 ≥190
NCEP ATP III guidelines, with 2004 update*
ATP III: JAMA 2001; 2004 update: Circulation 2004
Despite LDL Lowering:Residual Risk
0
4S CA
RE
WO
SCO
PS
LIP
ID
AFC
AP
S
HPS
PR
OSP
ER
ASC
OT
36%
19%27%
40%
24%31%
24%
34%
20
40
60
80
Re
lati
ve
Ris
k R
ed
uc
tio
n
Ma
jor
Co
ron
ary
Ev
en
ts, %
Residual Risk
10
100
Rin
M
6
Patients at or Below LDL-C of 100 mg/dL Have Events
– Of 2,191 statin-treated patients who experienced a CV/CB event 67% were at LDL-C of
n=2,191
33%
67%
event, 67% were at LDL-C of 100 mg/dL
– Among patients with a CV/CB event and
• With LDL-C <100 mg/dL, 38.6%had low HDL-C and/or elevated triglycerides
• With LDL-C >100 mg/dL, 43.9%had low HDL C and/or elevated
LDL-C <100 mg/dL
LDL-C >100 mg/dL
had low HDL-C and/or elevated triglycerides
CV=cardiovascular; CB=cerebrovascular.Patients were on statin therapy ≥6 weeks; >2 years pre- and post-statin history with laboratory data; no concomitant lipid-lowering drugs; and ≥1 complete lipid profile pre- and post-statin initiation. Patients were followed for up to 5 years.Phatak H et al. Poster presented at the European Atherosclerosis Society Congress; June 10–13, 2007: Helsinki, Finland. Poster P016-441.
Beyond LDL• Low HDL and elevated TG and sdLDL
closely correlateT i ll i t l b it d• Typically seen in central obesity and metabolic syndrome patients
• TG: Non-HDL is secondary target with goal 30 mg/dl higher than LDL goalgoal
• Low HDL: Levels > 40 mg/dl “desirable” but no target yet defined
• Other lipid parameters
7
CV Risk: HDL-C and LDL-C Interaction
For any level of LDL-C, HDL-C is inversely related
Data From Framingham Study
yto CHD risk
isk o
f C
HD
1.0
2.0
3.0
Gordon T et al. Am J Med 1977;62:707-714.
R
LDL-C(mg/dL)
0.0100 160 220 85
6545
25
Hypertriglyceridemia Increases CHD Risk in Patients with Low HDL-C Levels
Prospective Cardiovascular Münster Study
245250 *
s)
TG < 200 mg/dL
116
245
100
150
200
Inci
den
ceper
1,0
00 (
in 6
yea
rs
TG 200 mg/dL
* Bar represents 5% of subjects in which 25% of CHD events occurred.Assmann G, Schulte H. Am J Cardiol 1992;70:733–737.Copyright ©1992, with permission from Excerpta Medica Inc.
24 310
50
5.0 > 5.0LDL-C/HDL-C ratio
p
8
Non-Fasting TGs Predictive of Risk
h,
MI,
io
n)
Women’s Health Initiative
• 20,118 Fasting
• 6,319 Non-fasting
Women’s Health Initiative
• 20,118 Fasting
• 6,319 Non-fasting Non-Fasting TG
Fasting TG2
2.5O
dds
Rat
io (
CV D
eath
CVA,
Rev
ascu
lari
zati (<8 hr)
• Baseline demographics
• Baseline bloods
• 11.4-year mean F/U
• Fasting time documented
• Endpoint: CV death, MI CVA
(<8 hr)
• Baseline demographics
• Baseline bloods
• 11.4-year mean F/U
• Fasting time documented
• Endpoint: CV death, MI CVA
Fasting TG
P-trend = 0.9
P-trend = 0.001
0.5
1
1.5
Tertile of Baseline TG
Bansal S et al. JAMA 2007;298:309316.
1st
MI, CVA, Revascularization
• 1,001 events
• Best risk discriminant = TG drawn @ 2–4 hours
MI, CVA, Revascularization
• 1,001 events
• Best risk discriminant = TG drawn @ 2–4 hours
2nd 3rd
CVD=cardiovascular disease; TG=triglyceride; CV=cardiovascular; MI=myocardial infarction; CVA=cerebrovascular accident; F/U=follow-up
0
• Reverse cholesterol transport
Mechanisms By Which HDLMay Be Anti-atherogenic
• Antioxidant effects
• Inhibition of adhesion molecule expression
I hibiti f l t l t ti ti• Inhibition of platelet activation
• Prostacyclin stabilization
• Promotion of NO production
9
HDL-C, RCT and Atherosclerosis
Bile
A-IM h
Mature HDL-C SR-BI
SR-BI
LDL-CReceptor
LiverFC
CE LCAT
FCA-I
CEHL, EL
Macrophage
FC
Nascent HDL-C
CE
TP
17
BCE
RCT=reverse cholesterol transport; CE=cholesteryl ester; FC=free cholesterol; LCAT=lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase; CETP=cholesteryl ester transfer protein; VLDL=very low-density lipoprotein; SR-BI=scavenger receptor class B type I; HL=hepatic lipase; EL=endothelial lipase.
Reproduced with permission from Cuchel M et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003;23:1710–1712.
VLDL/LDL-C
Declining HDL-C in the Population
>12,000 respondents to a biennial population survey in
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1 1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1 0
MenWomen
Nonsmokers
Smokers
Nonsmokers
Smokersthe Pawtucket Heart Health Program
Between 1981 and 1993, 0.08 mmol/L (3.1 mg/dL) decline H
DL-
C (
mm
ol/
L)
1.1
0.0
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.0
Smokers
Alcohol
No AlcoholNo Alcohol
Alcohol
BMI <22.9 BMI <24.5
Adjusted for other risk factor changes
Reprinted from Ann Epidemiol, Vol. 8, Derby CA et al., 84-91, copyright 1998, with permission from Elsevier.
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.0
5
BMI 27.6 BMI 27.9
1981 - 1993 1981 - 1993
10
Treating HDL:Non-pharmacologic Methods
• Exercise overrated
–HDL only when TG high
7P=0.015P=0.015
high
–HDL only with intense, frequent exercise
• Alcohol
– Raises TG Chan
ges
in H
DL-
Conce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/d
L)
4
1ControlControl
Infrequent Infrequent exerciseexercise
Frequent, intense Frequent, intense exerciseexercise
Couillard C et al. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2001;21:1226-1232. | Kraus WE et al. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1483-1492. Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
• Affects CETP activity
– Modest HDL changes
• Smoking cessation
• Weight loss
Co
0
-2
IntenseIntense
ControlControl
ModerateModerate
How Do We Increase HDL?
• Strategies to raise HDL• Strategies to raise HDL– Niacin
– Fibrates
– Thiazolidinediones
– CETP Inhibitor - ?
11
Lipid Effects of Niacin Extended-Release (ER)
han
ge
from
Bas
elin
e (%
)
-8 -13-22 -21-16
293024
2116
10
-21
-32
-14
-5
-26
-3
-12
-30-25
-17
HDLHDL--CC
LDLLDL--CC
Lp(a)Lp(a)
TGTG
3020100
-10-20-30-40
Capuzzi DM et al. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:74U-81U.
Ch -44-39 TGTG40
-50
mg500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Niacin Monotherapy: Coronary Drug Project
• 1966–1975, men with prior MI
Event Rate (%)
–1435
prior MI• 5 lipid-influencing
drugs– Niacin 1 g TID (n=1119);
TC 10%, TG 27%• 6 years: reduction in
MI only in niacin
Placebo
Niacin
–27–26
–4710
15
20
25
30
Coronary Drug Project. JAMA 1975; 231:360-381. | Canner PL et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986;8:1245-1255.
group• 15 years: 4% absolute
reduction in mortality– NNT = 25
CVSurgery
Nonfatal MI/
CHD Death
Nonfatal MI
Stroke/TIA
47
0
5
12
Niacin
• Reasonable alternate in statin-intolerant patients
• Possible consideration for combination therapy
• Limited by side effects– Flushing
– Gout
– Peptic ulcer disease
– Insulin resistance
HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study (HATS)Niacin and Statin Outcome Trial
89%89%ReductionReduction
21.4
*P<.05vs Placebo23.725
2.6*
14.3
5
10
15
20
Placebo S + N + AVS + N
Brown BG et al. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1583-1592.
AV
Coronary Death, MI, Coronary Death, MI, Stroke Stroke or Revascularizationor Revascularization
0
13
HATS: Primary Clinical EndpointCAD Death, NonCAD Death, Non--fatal MI, CVA or Revascularizationfatal MI, CVA or Revascularization
%)
Si i i i
100 1
en
ts F
ree o
f Even
ts ( Simvastatin-niacin
Relative Risk = 0.40
90
80
No simvastatin-niacin
78%
91%
Pati
e
1st
p = 0.02
Years2nd 3rd0
70
0~~
Brown BG et al. N Engl J Med 2001;345:15831592.
HATS=HDL-atherosclerosis treatment study; CAD=coronary artery disease; MI=myocardial infarction; CVA=cerebrovascular accident
0
Niacin + Statin: ARBITER 2
g/d
L)
Statin + placebo
0
100
200
300
al ero
l
LD
L
HD
L
TG
Co
nce
ntr
atio
ns
(mg
Statin + niacin ER
**
h
10
12
P = .20
9.6 60%
To
tach
ole
st
H
ARBITER 2 study; Circulation 2004Statin +Placebo
Statin +Niacin ER
Pat
ien
ts w
ith
Eve
nt
(%)
0
2
4
6
8P .20
3.8
14
Niacin Therapy
• Start low and titrate dose• Start low and titrate dose
• Take in the middle of a meal
• Avoid alcohol and hot drinks with dose
• Pre-treat with ASA 30 mins before dose
• Warn patients about the flush!• Warn patients about the flush!
Meyers et al; Ann Int Med, 2003
Niacin Brands
• Brands labeled “No Flush” or “Flush-free” have no effectfree” have no effect– Inositol hexaniacinate not metabolized
by humans
• Sustained release or timed release forms have variable effects and increased liver toxicity
Meyers et al; Ann Int Med, 2003
15
Niacin + Statin:Current Recommendations
• Pending Outcomes Trials• Pending Outcomes Trials– AIM HIGH
– HPS-THRIVE
• Monotherapy is a suitable alternative in statin intolerant patientsp
• Probable benefit from statin combination therapy in high risk
e (%
)
2° Prevention:Incidence of Death from CHD and Nonfatal MI
20
25
Fibrate Monotherapy: VA HIT
Placebo Rx
mu
lati
ve I
nci
den
ce
Placebo
Gemfibrozil
5
10
15
20
P=0.006
HDL 32 34*
LDL 113 113
TG 166 115*
Year
Cu
m
* Lipid values significantly different, P<0.05
Adapted from Rubins HB et al. N Engl J Med 1999;341:410-418.
01 2 3 4 5 6
16
Fibrate Monotherapy: Helsinki Heart Study
ents
s)20
Gemfibrozil
cid
ence
of
card
iac
eve
(per
1,0
00 p
erso
n-y
ears
5
10
15 Placebo
1° Prevention; Manninen V et al. Circulation. 1992;85:37–45
In(
0
HDL-C 42 HDL-C 42
TG 200 TG 200 TG 200 TG 200mg/dL:
Fibrate Combination Therapy: FIELD
Primary Endpoint Secondary Endpoint
Lancet, 2005Non-significant 19% increase in cardiac mortality with feno vs. placebo
17
FIELD: Outcomes
• Greater use of t ti i l bstatins in placebo
than fibrate groups
• Less ↑HDL than expected
• Not clear if statin + fib t b fi i lfibrate beneficial
Statin + Fibrate
• Data to establish benefit in outcomes pending (ACCORD trial)pending (ACCORD trial)
• Most benefit in Metabolic Syndrome and low HDL patients
• Safety: no increased risk of rhabdo or renal failure in trial settingsor renal failure in trial settings
• Choice of agents doesn't matter; use lower statin doses
Statin-Fibrate Safety Report, 2004
18
Thiazolidinediones
TG HDL-C Non–HDL-C LDL-C
20
30
†
†‡
Pioglitazone
Rosiglitazone
ang
e fr
om
bas
elin
e at
24
wee
ks (
mg
/dL
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10†
†
Data from Goldberg RB et al. Diabetes Care. 2005;28:1547-1554.
Ch
a
-50
-40
-60
TZDs: CHD Prevention
• PROactive (Prospective PioglitazoneClinical Trial in Macrovascular Events)Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events)
• 5,238 subjects with type 2 DM and macrovascular disease on best usual care
• Baseline lipids: HDL 42; LDL 112; TG 159; baseline HbA1c 7.8%
• Concurrent medication use– B blockers: 55%
– ACE inhibitors/ ARBs: 70%
– Statins: 43%
– Fibrates: 10%
19
PROactive: 1° EndpointComposite of death, nonfatal MI, stroke, ACS, leg amputation, coronary or leg revascularization
PROactive: 2° EndpointComposite of death, nonfatal MI or stroke
20
Pioglitazone: CVD RiskDeath, MI or Stroke
Lincoff et al; JAMA 2007; 298:1180-1188
Summary
• Statins remain the initial therapy
L HDL/ Hi h TG lik l t ib t t• Low HDL/ High TG likely contributes to residual risk
• Probable benefit to niacin + statins
• Evidence unclear for fibrates in monotherapy or with statins
• Probable benefit to pioglitazone in diabetics
21
Encourage Compliance…Medications that aren’t taken
don’t work