Clinical outcomes in managed-care patients with coronary heart disease treated aggressively in lipid-lowering disease management clinics: the alliance study

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if an aggressive, focused low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering strategy was superior to usual care for coronary heart disease (CHD) patients enrolled in health maintenance organization or Veterans Administration settings. BACKGROUND: Statin therapy benefits are well established. No prospective, randomized studies have tested strategies to optimize these benefits in a "real-world" setting. METHODS: A total of 2,442 CHD patients with hyperlipidemia were randomized to either an aggressive treatment arm using atorvastatin or usual care and followed for 51.5 months on average. Atorvastatin-group patients were titrated to LDL-C goals of <80 mg/dl (2.1 mmol/l) or a maximum atorvastatin dose of 80 mg/day. Usual-care patients received any treatment deemed appropriate by their regular physicians. End point assessments were complete in 958 atorvastatin-group and 941 usual-care patients. Partial assessments occurred in 259 patients in the atorvastatin group and 284 patients in the usual care group who did not complete four years of study participation because of adverse events, withdrawn consent, or follow-up loss. The primary efficacy parameter was time to first cardiovascular event. RESULTS: A total of 289 (23.7%) patients in the atorvastatin group compared with 333 (27.7%) patients in the usual care group experienced a primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.97, p = 0.02). This reduction in morbidity was largely due to fewer non-fatal myocardial infarctions (4.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.0002). Levels of LDL-C were reduced more (34.3% vs. 23.3%, p < 0.0001) and National Cholesterol Education Program goals (LDL-C <100 mg/dl) more likely met at end-of-study visits (72.4% vs. 40.0%) in patients receiving atorvastatin compared with those receiving usual care. CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive, focused statin therapy management strategy outperformed usual care in health maintenance organization and Veterans Administration clinic patients with CHD.     

Randomized evaluation of atorvastatin in patients with coronary heart disease: a serial intravascular ultrasound study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether a marked reduction of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and mild hypercholesterolemia leads to less progression of atherosclerosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with CHD and hypercholesterolemia (100相似文献   

Intensive smoking cessation intervention reduces mortality in high-risk smokers with cardiovascular disease

PURPOSES: To compare an intensive smoking cessation intervention against usual care in hospitalized high-risk smokers with acute cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 hospitalized smokers were randomized to the intensive intervention (n = 109) or to usual care (n = 100). Usual care consisted only of counseling and printed educational material provided prior to hospital discharge. Intensive treatment consisted of a minimum of 12 weeks of behavior modification counseling and individualized pharmacotherapy provided at no cost to the participant. Smoking status in all subjects was confirmed biochemically (ie, by measuring expired carbon monoxide) at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after randomization. Outcomes included point prevalence and continuous abstinence smoking cessation rates, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: At each follow-up interval, point prevalence and continuous abstinence smoking cessation rates were significantly greater in the intensive-treatment group compared to the usual-care group. At 24 months, continuous abstinence smoking cessation rates were 33% in the intensive-treatment group and 9% in the usual-care group (p < 0.0001). Over the 2-year follow-up period, 41 patients in the usual-care group were hospitalized compared to 25 patients in the intensive-treatment group (relative risk reduction [RRR], 44%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16 to 63%; p = 0.007). The all-cause mortality rate was 2.8% in the intensive-treatment group and 12.0% in the usual-care group (RRR, 77%; 95% CI, 27 to 93%; p = 0.014). The absolute risk reduction in mortality was 9.2% with a number needed to treat of 11. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized smokers, especially those with cardiovascular disease, should undergo treatment with a structured intensive cessation intervention. The duration of the initial treatment should be 3 months.     

Rosuvastatin is cost-effective compared with atorvastatin in reaching cholesterol goals

BACKGROUND: Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels reduces the risk of coronary heart disease. The introduction of a highly efficacious new statin, rosuvastatin, may enable more patients to be treated to LDL-C goal within a fixed budget. OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg in lowering LDL-C and achieving guideline goals after 12 weeks of treatment. The LDL-C goals were those recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP ATP) III and the Third Joint European Task Force. METHODS: The analysis was performed on pooled data from three clinical trials. Efficacy was measured as the percent reduction in LDL-C and the proportion of patients who reached guideline LDL-C goals following the first 12 weeks of treatment, prior to dose titration. Costs comprised drug acquisition costs only. The cost-effectiveness measures were cost per 1% reduction in LDL-C and cost per patient treated to their LDL-C goal. RESULTS: Treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg costs 1.85 per 1% reduction in LDL-C, compared with 2.37 per 1% reduction with atorvastatin 10 mg. The average costs per patient treated to the European LDL-C goals were 130.18 for rosuvastatin 10 mg and 242.44 for atorvastatin 10 mg. Treating to NCEP ATP III goals costs 115 per patient treated with rosuvastatin 10 mg vs. 163 per patient treated with atorvastatin 10 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin has the same acquisition costs as and is more efficacious than atorvastatin in lowering LDL-C and treating patients to target LDL-C levels.     

Effectiveness of statin therapy in adults with coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND: We conducted a meta-analysis of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) to determine the effectiveness of statin therapy; whether effectiveness varied according to patient characteristics, outcomes, or pretreatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels; and the optimal LDL-C goal and the level at which to initiate statin therapy. METHODS: Randomized trials or systematic reviews for secondary prevention of CHD with statin therapy published between January 1966 and December 2002 were identified through MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they randomly assigned adults with CHD to statin therapy or control, enrolled at least 100 individuals per arm, reported clinical outcomes and LDL-C levels, and were published as full studies in English. Two reviewers abstracted data using a prospectively designed protocol. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies enrolling 69 511 individuals were included. Participants in 19 placebo-controlled trials had a mean age of 63 years and a mean pretreatment LDL-C level of 149 mg/dL (3.85 mmol/L); 23% were women. Statin therapy reduced CHD mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction 25% (relative risk [RR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.79), all-cause mortality 16% (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.89), and CHD mortality 23% (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83). Beneficial effects were seen in women and the elderly. There were no data to determine whether lowering the LDL-C level to less than 100 mg/dL (<2.59 mmol/L) was superior to lowering it to 100 to 130 mg/dL (2.59-3.36 mmol/L). Meta-regression analyses revealed risk reductions for CHD mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction and major vascular events across available pretreatment LDL-C levels. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy reduces mortality and morbidity in adults with CHD, even at pretreatment LDL-C levels as low as 100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L).     

Effects of pravastatin on coronary events in 2073 patients with low levels of both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: results from the LIPID study.

AIMS: Fibrates or nicotinic acid are usually recommended for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with low plasma levels of both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < or =140 mg/dL (< or =3.6 mmol/L) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) < or =40 mg/dL (< or =1.03 mmol/L). The LIPID trial, a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 9014 patients at 87 centres in Australia and New Zealand, provided an opportunity to investigate the effects of an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor in patients with low LDL-C and low HDL-C. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants in this post hoc substudy were 2073 patients aged 31-75 years with baseline LDL-C < or =140 mg/dL (< or =3.6 mmol/L), HDL-C < or =40 mg/dL (< or =1.03 mmol/L), and triglyceride < or =300 mg/dL (< or =3.4 mmol/L). The relative risk reduction with pravastatin treatment was 27% for major coronary events (95% CI 8-42%), 27% for coronary heart disease mortality (95% CI 0-47%), 21% for all-cause mortality (95% CI 0-38%), and 51% for stroke (95% CI 24-69%). The number needed to treat to prevent a major coronary event over 6 years was 22. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pravastatin in patients with both low LDL-C and low HDL-C significantly reduced major coronary events, stroke, and all-cause mortality. The level of HDL-C is crucial to the risk of recurrent CHD events and, consequently, the benefit of lowering LDL-C.     

The control of dyslipidemia in outpatient clinics in Greece (OLYMPIC) Study

The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of Greek patients referred to outpatient clinics for dyslipidemia who achieved the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) guidelines, using lifestyle changes, lipid-lowering drug treatment (LLDT), or both. Adult patients with dyslipidemia, who had been receiving a hypolipidemic diet and/or LLDT for at least 3 months were assessed in a multicenter study performed at 66 sites across Greece. Patients were followed up for an additional 3-month treatment period. Lipid levels were recorded at baseline and at the end of the study. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving their individual LDL-C target at the end of the study, according to their coronary heart disease (CHD) risk status or its equivalents, as defined by the NCEP-ATP III guidelines. Multivariate logistic models were used to identify determinants of undertreatment. The study included 2,660 adults (20-75 years) from 7 regions of Greece. Of the evaluable sample (n = 2,211; men 51%; mean age 62 +/-9 years) 81% were receiving LLDT (96% with statins and 3% with fibrates), 44% had a history of CHD, 61% arterial hypertension, 36% diabetes, and 26% a family history of premature CHD. Overall, 6% were at low CHD risk, 30% at medium CHD risk, and 63% at high CHD risk. At the end of the study, 26% of all patients and 30% of those receiving LLDT achieved the NCEP-specified LDL-C target levels. The percentage of patients at LDL-C goal according to CHD risk status was: low risk 67% (95% CI = 59-75), medium risk 29% (95% CI = 26-33), and high risk 20% (95% CI = 18-22). Statins proved to be more effective than fibrates (p <0.0001). Atorvastatin-treated subjects (n = 1,222, mean dose 19 mg/day) attained the LDL-C target (31% of the cases) at a higher rate than those receiving other LLDT (n = 574, 26% at target, p <0.01) or not receiving drug treatment (n = 415, 8%, p <0.001). This outcome was more evident in the high-CHD risk group (n = 1,402, 26% with atorvastatin vs 16% with other LLDT and 3% not receiving LLDT attained the LDL-C goal, ANOVA, p <0.001). The majority of dyslipidemic patients receiving LLDT, mainly those with high-CHD risk, are not achieving the NCEP LDL-C target. This is mainly explained by inadequate dose titration to ensure target goals are met. Promoting healthy lifestyle and appropriate LLDT (potent statins with sufficient dose titration) must be implemented to ensure that patients attain LDL-C treatment goals and thus benefit from the reduction in individual CHD risk.     

Achieving lipoprotein goals in patients at high risk with severe hypercholesterolemia: efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with atorvastatin

Background

Despite the efficacy of statins in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, many patients who are at high risk for heart disease with hypercholesterolemia require additional LDL-C level reduction. The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, has been shown to provide significant incremental reductions in LDL-C levels when co-administered with statins. This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (10 mg) plus response-based atorvastatin titration versus response-based atorvastatin titration alone in the attainment of LDL-C goals in subjects who are at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) and are not at their LDL-C goal on the starting dose of atorvastatin.

Methods

This was a 14-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study conducted in 113 clinical research centers in 21 countries. Participants were adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), CHD, or multiple (≥2) cardiovascular risk factors, and a LDL-C level ≥130 mg/dL after a 6- to10-week dietary stabilization and atorvastatin (10 mg/day) open-label run-in period. Eligible subjects continued to receive atorvastatin (10 mg) and were randomized to receive blinded treatment with ezetimibe (10 mg/day; n = 305) or an additional 10 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 316). The atorvastatin dose in both groups was doubled after 4 weeks, 9 weeks, or both when the LDL-C level was not at its goal (≤100 mg/dL), so that patients receiving combined therapy could reach 40 mg/day and patients receiving atorvastatin alone could reach 80 mg/day. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving their LDL-C level goal at week 14. A secondary end point was the change in LDL-C level and other lipid parameters at 4 weeks after ezetimibe co-administration with 10 mg/day of atorvastatin versus 20 mg/day of atorvastatin monotherapy.

Results

The proportion of subjects reaching their target LDL-C level goal of ≤100 mg/dL was significantly higher in the co-administration group than in the atorvastatin monotherapy group (22% vs 7%; P <.01). At 4 weeks, levels of LDL-C, triglycerides, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were reduced significantly more by combination therapy than by doubling the dose of atorvastatin (LDL-C −22.8% versus −8.6%; P <.01). The combination regimen had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of atorvastatin alone.

Conclusions

The addition of ezetimibe to the starting dose of 10 mg/day of atorvastatin followed by response-based atorvastatin dose titration to a maximum of 40 mg/day provides a more effective means for reducing LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for CHD than continued doubling of atorvastatin as high as 80 mg/day alone.     

冠心病介入手术后阿托伐他汀对冠脉再狭窄的影响

目的：观察经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）术后患者服用阿托伐他汀后血清低密度脂蛋白-胆固醇（LDL—C）水平达标情况及其与冠脉再狭窄的关系。方法：选择我院因冠心病行PCI术患者91例,术后除接受抗血小板等常规治疗外,均服用阿托伐他汀（20mg／d）,6～18月后再次行冠脉造影术（CAG）,根据CAG评分结果患者被分为病变进展组（n=32）和病变未进展组（n=59）;又根据第二次手术前LDL—C水平分为LDL-C≥2．1mmol／L（n=43）,1．64LDL—c〈2．1mmol／L（n=30）,LDL—C〈1．6mmol／L（n=18）三亚组,并探讨其相关性。结果：与病变未进展组患者比较,病变进展组LDL-C降低幅度[（0．46±0．81）mmol／L比（-0．04±0．65）mmol／L],降低百分比[（13．18±31．67）％比（-8．21±37．22）％]明显减小（P均〈0．05）;LDL-C≥2．1mmol／L组,1．6≤LDL-C〈2．1mmol／L组,LDL-C〈1．6mmol／L组病变未进展者比例逐渐升高（58．1％比63．3％比83．3％,P〈0．05）;Spearman分析显示,CAG前LDL水平与冠脉评分呈负相关（r=-0．70,P〈0．0001）。结论：常规治疗量的阿托伐他汀可使多数患者低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平达标并有效遏制冠心病患者冠脉再狭窄。     

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg versus atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the POLARIS study

POLARIS investigated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Patients (n=871) were randomized to rosuvastatin 40 mg/day or atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C levels at 8 weeks. Secondary assessments included safety and tolerability, NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal achievement, change in other lipids and lipoproteins at 8 and 26 weeks, and health economics. Mean LDL-C levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin 40 mg than with atorvastatin 80 mg at 8 weeks (-56% versus -52%, p<0.001). The proportion of patients achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal at 8 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group (80% versus 72%, p<0.01). Significant differences in the change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+9.6% versus +4.4%) and apolipoprotein (Apo)A-I levels (+4.2 versus -0.5) were observed between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin (all p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Based on a US analysis, rosuvastatin used fewer resources and delivered greater efficacy. Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day provided greater LDL-C-lowering efficacy than atorvastatin 80 mg/day, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goals. Rosuvastatin may therefore improve LDL-C goal achievement in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia.     

The efficacy of atorvastatin in treating patients with hypercholesterolaemia to target LDL-cholesterol goals: the LIPI-GOAL trial

OBJECTIVE: LIPI-GOAL is a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative treat-to-target study, conducted from March 1998 to May 1999, that assessed the percentage of patients reaching 1992 European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets with atorvastatin 10-80 mg/day in subjects with hypercholesterolaemia, defined as LDL-C > 160 mg/dl after a 12-week step I diet. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were treated towards the following LDL-C goals: < 135 mg/dl in patients with atherosclerotic disease present and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) risk >40%/10 years, or LDL-C < 155 mg/dl in all others. All subjects started treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day for 6 weeks. The dose was doubled every 6 weeks, to 20, 40, or 80 mg/day at weeks 12, 18, and 24, respectively, if targets were not reached. Of 587 patients screened for participation, 473 were enrolled and 419 (59% male; mean age 61 years) were available for efficacy evaluation. Fifty-five percent had atherosclerotic disease and/or CHD risk >40%/10 years. Dose titration was not needed in 303 patients (72%) who reached LDL-C target with atorvastatin 10 mg/day. Among 116 patients who were subsequently treated with higher atorvastatin dosages, 47 reached LDL-C target with 20 mg/day, 15 with 40 mg/day, and 6 with 80 mg/day. Therefore, 88.5% of subjects reached LDL-C goal in an intention-to-treat analysis. In general, atorvastatin was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients at high risk for CHD reached LDL-C goals with atorvastatin 10-80 mg/day. Seventy-two % of patients reached target with atorvastatin 10 mg/day, which may simplify clinical management and should encourage better adherence to recommendations.     

Coronary Heart Disease and Dyslipidemia: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Prevalence, Current Treatment, and Clinical Control in a Large Cohort of Spanish High-Risk Patients: The PRINCEPS Study

The authors assessed a large cohort of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or at high risk for developing CHD in terms of lipid profile, lipid-lowering treatment, and attainment of National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. The investigation was a cross-sectional study involving Spanish outpatients treated in primary or secondary care facilities. From a total of 26,598 attending patients, 12,128 with CHD or CHD risk equivalents were recruited by 1875 physicians; 49% had CHD and 69% had multiple risk factors. Only 25% of patients attained LDL-C values <100 mg/dL, 76.6% patients received lipid-lowering therapy (statins in 95.4% of cases), and 54% of physicians considered that a treatment change was required (the most frequent choice was the addition of ezetimibe to current statin therapy). In this large cohort of high-risk coronary patients, only 25% attained a target LDL-C of <100 mg/dL. These results highlight a need for improved patient care and physician awareness/training.     

Can change in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels reduce cardiovascular risk?

Background

The cardiovascular risk reduction observed in many trials of lipid-lowering agents is greater than expected on the basis of observed low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level reductions. Our objective was to explore the degree to which high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level changes explain cardiovascular risk reduction.

Methods

A systematic review identified trials of lipid-lowering agents reporting changes in HDL-C and LDL-C levels and the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). The observed relative risk reduction (RRR) in CHD morbidity and mortality rates was calculated. The expected RRR, given the treatment effect on total cholesterol level, was calculated for each trial with logistic regression coefficients from observational studies. The difference between observed and expected RRR was plotted against the change in HDL-C level, and a least-squares regression line was calculated.

Results

Fifty-one trials were identified. Nineteen statin trials addressed the association of HDL-C with CHD. Limited numbers of trials of other therapies precluded additional analyses. Among statin trials, therapy reduced total cholesterol levels as much as 32% and LDL-C levels as much as 45%. HDL-C level increases were <10%. Treatment effect on HDL-C levels was not a significant linear predictor of the difference in observed and expected CHD mortality rates, although we observed a trend in this direction (P = .08). Similarly, HDL-C effect was not a significant linear predictor of the difference between observed and expected RRRs for CHD morbidity (P = .20).

Conclusions

Although a linear trend toward greater risk reduction was observed with greater effects on HDL-C, differences were not statistically significant. The narrow range of HDL-C level increases in the statin trials likely reduced our ability to detect a beneficial HDL-C effect, if present.     

The benefit of aggressive lipid lowering

The beneficial effects of lipid-lowering therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) have been conclusively demonstrated in large-scale clinical trials. Does more aggressive lipid lowering provide even greater clinical benefit? The post coronary artery bypass graft (post-CABG) study was the first angiographic trial to show that aggressive lipid-lowering therapy was more effective at reducing disease progression than conventional approaches to cholesterol management. Recently, the results of the atorvastatin versus revascularization treatments (AVERT) trial have also shown significant benefit on clinical events with aggressive lipid lowering. A total of 341 patients with stable CHD were randomly assigned to receive medical therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg/day plus conventional treatment or angioplasty followed by usual care. Atorvastatin therapy resulted in a 46% reduction in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level compared with an 18% decrease for patients in the angioplasty/usual care group. Patients treated with atorvastatin had fewer ischemic events compared with those who had angioplasty (13 vs. 21%, P = 0.048) and a significantly greater time to first ischemic event (P = 0.027). AVERT is the first clinical study demonstrating that patients with stable CHD achieve significant cardiovascular benefit by aggressively lowering cholesterol levels with atorvastatin. It would therefore appear that an aggressive approach to lipid-lowering therapy is beneficial in patients with existing CHD.     

The undertreatment of LDL-cholesterol: addressing the challenge

Patients with dyslipidemia are at increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), while treatment to reduce low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations lessens this risk. Consequently, the Lipid Treatment Assessment Project (L-TAP) was undertaken in the US to determine the extent to which primary care practitioners utilize lipid-lowering therapy and to evaluate the success of current therapeutic regimens, using the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines as therapeutic targets. The L-TAP study, initiated in 1996 and completed in February 1997, recorded LDL-C levels in 4888 patients from 619 US practices. All patients had received lipid-lowering therapy for at least 3 months. The primary care practitioners involved in the study were questioned about the NCEP guidelines and the results confirmed that these physicians were representative of primary care practitioners in the USA. The 4888 patients were categorized according to risk: patients with <2 risk factors (RFs) but no CHD, those with >/=2 RFs but no CHD and patients with confirmed CHD. Overall, only 38% of the patients attained LDL-C target levels or had values lower than these goals. The greater the number of RFs, the lower the proportion of patients achieving target levels. LDL-C targets were less often attained in patients receiving dietary therapy only compared with those receiving lipid lowering drug treatment. However, there was good correlation between the success of treatment and both receipt of and compliance with dietary instruction. In conclusion, a large proportion of dyslipidemic patients who are being treated in primary care are not achieving NCEP target LDL-C levels.     

Effects of Statin Plus Ezetimibe on Coronary Plaques in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Sub-Analysis of PRECISE-IVUS Trial

Aim: Coronary plaque regression is weak in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). We evaluated whether dual lipid-lowering therapy (DLLT) with ezetimibe and atorvastatin attenuates coronary plaques in ACS patients with DM.Methods: The prospective, randomized controlled, multicenter PRECISE-IVUS (Plaque Regression with Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitor or Synthesis Inhibitor Evaluated by Intravascular Ultrasound) trial assigned 246 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to DLLT or atorvastatin monotherapy and evaluated IVUS-derived changes in percent atheroma volume (ΔPAV), at baseline and 9–12-month follow-up, in 126 ACS cases, including 25 DM patients. The atorvastatin dose was up-titrated to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL.Results: In DM patients, the monotherapy group (n = 13) and the DLLT group (n = 12) showed a similar prevalence of coronary risks and baseline lipid profiles. During the study, the change in LDL-C level was similar between DM and non-DM patients. Compared with non-DM patients, DM patients showed weaker regression of ΔPAV by DLLT than those who underwent monotherapy (DM: −2.77 ± 3.47% vs. −0.77 ± 2.51%, P = 0.11; non-DM: −2.01 ± 3.36% vs. −0.08 ± 2.66%, P = 0.008). The change in LDL-C level was not correlated with ΔPAV in non-DM patients, but there was significant correlation between the change in LDL-C level and ΔPAV in DM patients (r = 0.52, P = 0.008).Conclusions: ACS patients with DM showed weaker coronary plaque regression than their counterparts. A significant correlation between the change in LDL-C level and ΔPAV in DM patients suggested that more intensive lipid-lowering therapy is required in ACS patients with DM.     

不同调脂方案对冠心病患者C反应蛋白和CD40配体的影响

目的 观察在冠状动脉狭窄50%～70%的冠心病患者中应用阿托伐他汀和依折麦布联合治疗调脂作用和安全性,及其对C-反应蛋白(CRP)、CD40配体(CD40L)的影响. 方法选取冠状动脉狭窄50%～70%的冠心病患者42例,均未植入支架,分为他汀组19例(40 mg阿托伐他汀)和联合治疗组(10 mg阿托伐他汀+10 mg依折麦布)23例.在服药前、用药4周、用药12周测定总胆固醇(TC)、三酰甘油(TG)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)、肝功能、肾功能、肌酸激酶、CRP和CD40L. 结果 (1)他汀组和联合治疗组均在4周时患者的TC、LDL-C降低,12周时他汀组的LDL-C为(1.94±0.49)mmol/L,联合治疗组为(1.92±0.54)mmol/L,两组差异无统计学意义;(2)他汀组和联合治疗组患者肝功能、肾功能、肌酸激酶用药后无明显升高;(3)两组CRP在12周时较基线均有降低,他汀组CD40L降低. 结论单用他汀治疗和联合治疗降脂疗效无差异.两种治疗均未引起患者肝、肾功能和肌酸激酶异常.40 mg阿托伐他汀治疗可降低患者CRP、CD40L.     

Depression and CHD risk: How should we intervene?

Opinion statement Depression is common in the community and is a risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). In patients with CHD, the prevalence of major depression is nearly 20% and the prevalence of minor depressive disorder is approximately 27%. When present in patients with existing CHD, depression is independently associated with worse outcome, including higher morbidity and mortality, and worse health status. Observational studies suggest that use of antidepressant medications in patients with CHD is associated with decreased risk of cardiovascular events. However, only one randomized controlled trial, the ENRICHD (Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease) study, was designed to evaluate whether treatment of depression in patients with CHD can improve cardiac prognosis. Although the study showed that cognitive behavior therapy was better than usual care in improving depression, there was no improvement in all-cause mortality or recurrent cardiac events. There have been no clinical trials specifically designed to evaluate whether pharmacologic treatment of depression improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CHD. Thus, there is a clear need for additional trials testing interventions to improve cardiac prognosis based on treatment of depression. In the meantime, depression remains an important illness in its own right and deserves treatment. Safe and effective treatments of depression in patients with CHD include cognitive behavior therapy and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.     

Therapy to reduce risk of coronary heart disease

Recent primary and secondary intervention studies have shown that reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins significantly reduced coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality. However, many patients with dyslipidemia who have or are at risk for CHD do not reach target LDL-C goals. The recently updated National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines identify a group of patients at very high risk for CHD for more aggressive LDL-C reduction and reaffirm the importance of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) by raising the categorical threshold to 40 mg/dl. Lipid-lowering therapy needs to be more aggressive in both primary and secondary prevention settings, and therapy should be considered to increase HDL-C as well as lower LDL-C in order to improve patient outcomes. Both combination therapy and the next generation of statins may provide improved efficacy across the dyslipidemia spectrum.