Article

Dyslipidemia: Current Therapies and Guidelines for Treatment

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.

  • Views: 30174

  • Likes: 1

  • Downloads: 37

  • Citations: 5

Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

Abstract

Despite significant advances in prevention and treatment, cardiovascular disease continues to be the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and worldwide. Nevertheless, the mortality from cardiovascular disease has decreased dramatically over the past few decades. Among the modifiable risk factors, dyslipidemia is a leading contributor to the development of coronary heart disease, and cholesterol-lowering treatment, primarily with statins, has been considered responsible for improvements in cardiovascular outcomes over the past 20 years. As such, physicians and researchers are frequently reevaluating the optimal approach and recommendations for cholesterollowering therapy for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The objectives of this article are to review the evidence and efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapies and to examine the current major societal guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia and appropriate patient selection.

Keywords

Dyslipidemia, cholesterol-lowering treatment, statin, primary prevention, cardiovascular disease,

Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare

Received:

Accepted:

DOI:https://doi.org/10.15420/usc.2016:9:2

Correspondence Details:Edward T Carreras, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. E: ecarreras@partners.org

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

Cardiovascular disease affects more than one-third of American adults and is the leading cause of mortality in the United States and worldwide.1 Only 4.5 % of those over the age of 20 meet the ideal levels of the seven metrics of cardiovascular health including cholesterol levels.1 Of modifiable risk factors, including smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, dyslipidemia has been shown to be the most strongly associated with myocardial infarction (MI).1,2 Numerous epidemiological studies have demonstrated that cardiovascular risk increases significantly as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) increases.3,4 Cholesterol-lowering therapies are thought to be primarily responsible for the reduction in deaths due to coronary heart disease in the United States over the past few decades, and there is a clear association between LDL-C-lowering therapies and improved global outcomes from cardiovascular disease.5–8 The management of dyslipidemia continues to be the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and is a major focus of recent and ongoing study.

In this article, we will review the evidence for lifestyle and pharmacological therapies for dyslipidemia and will summarize and compare the current major societal guidelines for cholesterol-lowering therapies for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, with particular focus on recommendations for appropriate patient selection for LDL-C-lowering therapies for primary prevention.

This review is based on a literature search performed in PubMed for articles published between 1980 and 2016, using combinations of the following terms: cholesterol, hyperlipidemia, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular disease, atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, treatment. References within the obtained publications were also reviewed.

Treatment Strategies

Lifestyle Modifications

Lifestyle modifications have been shown to lower serum cholesterol levels, with the most notable benefits coming from diet and weight loss. Dietary strategies to improve cholesterol include reducing cholesterol intake to <200 mg daily and reducing total fat intake to <20 % of total caloric intake. Additionally, the inclusion of dietary soluble fiber, phytosterol esters, soy isoflavones, and nuts have all been shown to reduce LDL-C, in most cases by 5–10 mg/dL.8 Physical activity does not reduce LDL-C independent of weight loss, but has been shown to improve cardiovascular health through other mechanisms, and is a cornerstone of weight loss. Overall, through weight loss, reducing dietary cholesterol and fat intake, LDL-C can be lowered by approximately 10–15 %.9

Statins

Statins are the cornerstone of treatment for elevated LDL-C levels and are the most commonly prescribed pharmacological agent used to lower LDL-C. Statin medications inhibit hydroxymethylglutaryl CoA reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme in the production of cholesterol, leading to a reduction in intrahepatic cholesterol, up-regulation of hepatic LDL receptors, and enhanced hepatic LDL uptake, thereby lowering serum LDL. Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (Table 1).10–21 One meta-analysis of statin trials for primary prevention in low-risk patients with baseline LDL-C levels of 100–160 mg/dL found that with the use of statins, a 39 mg/dL reduction in LDL-C was associated with a 38 % relative risk reduction in nonfatal MI, coronary revascularization, stroke, or coronary death, as well as a 10 % relative risk reduction in all-cause mortality.21 Furthermore, high-intensity statin therapies, defined as those associated with a ≥50 % LDL-C reduction, were shown to be associated with further reductions in LDL-C and an increase in the relative risk reduction of nonfatal MI, coronary revascularization, stroke, or coronary death of approximately 15 %.21

Table 1: Major Clinical Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Statin Therapy

Article image
Download

Patients with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease compared to patients without diabetes mellitus; specifically, diabetes mellitus in the absence of prior MI portends a similar risk for coronary heart disease as prior MI without diabetes mellitus.22–24 Furthermore, patients with diabetes mellitus experience a reduction in cardiovascular events with statin therapy similar to that in patients with known coronary heart disease without diabetes.10,12 For these reasons, diabetes mellitus is considered equivalent to coronary heart disease with respect to cardiovascular risk and guidelines for statin therapy, as discussed below.

Despite the well-documented benefits from statins, patient adherence to therapy is frequently challenged by adverse effects. The most commonly reported adverse effect with statins is myalgia; however, the incidence of myalgia attributed to statins is often overestimated based on prior observational data, and placebo-controlled studies have shown nearly identical rates of myalgia in statin and placebo groups.25–28 More serious effects, such as rhabdomyolysis, occur far less commonly, with an incidence of approximately 0.04 %.29 Reversible transaminitis occurs in approximately 0.4 % of patients.29 Importantly, there is also a small and dose-dependent increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes associated with statins.30 The risk appears to be approximately 9 % and increases with higher doses.31

Non-statin Therapies

In addition to statins, there are several other pharmacological therapies that have been studied for the management of dyslipidemia. Cholestyramine, a bile acid sequestrant, was the first medication studied that demonstrated the ability to significantly reduce LDL-C levels, with an approximately 12 % LDL-C reduction and 19 % relative risk reduction in MI or cardiovascular death when compared with placebo.32 Due to the adverse effects of constipation and gastrointestinal upset, cholestyramine is reserved for those with statin intolerance or with inadequate response to stain therapy. The potential additive benefit of reducing LDL-C and cardiovascular events with the concomitant use of statins and cholestyramine has not been prospectively evaluated.

Niacin (nicotinic acid) reduces LDL-C levels by inhibiting the hepatic production of very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C) and raises high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels by reducing the clearance and transfer of lipids to VLDL-C. Prior to the use of statins, niacin was evaluated against placebo and was found to be effective at lowering total cholesterol and reducing the incidence of nonfatal MI and possibly mortality.33 Despite this, clinical trials evaluating the addition of niacin to statin therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease found no additional clinical benefit, but an increase in adverse events.34,35

Ezetimibe reduces dietary and biliary cholesterol absorption by inhibiting the intestinal and hepatic Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 protein, thereby lowering total cholesterol and LDL-C levels. Early studies comparing ezetimibe with placebo in the absence of statins found that ezetimibe reduces LDL-C by approximately 15–20 %.36,37 A recent large clinical trial evaluating the addition of ezetimibe to statins in patients with prior acute coronary syndrome found an approximately 24 % reduction in LDL-C levels and a 6.4 % reduction in the relative risk of cardiovascular death, major coronary events, or nonfatal stroke at 7 years.38

PCSK9 Inhibitors

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) has been the focus of recent research into the reduction of LDL-C. PCSK9 acts by degrading LDL receptors, thereby reducing the hepatic uptake of LDL.39 Inhibition of PCSK9 leads to decreased LDL receptor breakdown, increased hepatic uptake of LDL, and lower serum LDL levels.40 Studies have shown that loss-of-function mutations of PCSK9 are associated with lower LDL-C levels and a reduction in cardiovascular risk.39 In addition, PCSK9 appears to promote inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, leading to accelerated atherosclerosis, suggesting that PCSK9 inhibition may improve cardiovascular outcomes through mechanisms other than LDL-C reduction alone.41

The findings from trials of two PCSK9 inhibitors have recently been published. A placebo-controlled trial utilizing alirocumab in high-risk patients on statin therapy was found to significantly reduce LDL-C levels by 62 %, with a 48 % reduction in major cardiovascular events.42,43 Evolocumab was also studied against placebo and showed similar results; there was a 61 % reduction in LDL-C and 53 % reduction in major cardiovascular events.44,45 Further large, multicenter clinical trials evaluating both alirocumab and evolocumab are ongoing.42,46 Both PCSK9 inhibitors have been associated with a similar overall rate of adverse events compared to placebo.47 The US Food and Drug Administration has approved both PCSK9 inhibitors as an adjunct to diet and maximally-tolerated statin therapy in adults with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or familial hypercholesterolemia who require additional LDL-C lowering.

Novel Agents

In addition to PSCK9 inhibitors, there are several other novel therapies for LDL reduction currently being investigated. One pharmacological therapy targets cholesterylester transfer protein (CETP), which normally works to facilitate the transfer of cholesteryl esters and triglycerides from HDL to lipoproteins. CETP inhibition has been shown to lead to increases in HDL and decreases in LDL-C and lipoprotein(a) levels.8 Early studies of CETP inhibitors have failed to show any clinical benefit, while one study of the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib is currently ongoing.48

Major Guidelines

Guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia have been published by multiple different national and international medical societies, including joint guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and from the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) (Figure 1).49 The European guidelines divide patients into four categories based on risk factors and utilize systemic coronary risk estimation (SCORE) at 10 years in order to establish LDL-C goals for the initiation of pharmacological therapy. In low-risk patients with a SCORE <1 %, the recommended LDL-C goal is <100 mg/dL, but pharmacological therapy is only recommended if LDL-C remains >190 mg/dL despite lifestyle interventions. Moderate-risk patients are defined as those with a SCORE of 1–5 %, and in these patients pharmacological therapy should be considered if LDL-C is >100 mg/dL despite lifestyle modification. High-risk patients are those with a SCORE of 5–10 %, or those with certain significant risk factors, such as familial hypercholesterolemia or severe hypertension. In these patients, the guidelines recommend pharmacological therapy be added to lifestyle modifications for all patients with LDL-C >100 mg/dL, and consideration of pharmacological therapy in patients with LDL-C <100 mg/dL. Very-high-risk patients are defined as those with documented cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, type 1 diabetes mellitus with end organ damage, moderate to severe chronic kidney disease, or a SCORE >10 %. In these patients, in addition to lifestyle modification, pharmacological therapy is recommended for all patients with LDL-C >70 mg/dL, and should be considered even for those with LDL-C below this level.

Figure 1: Comparison of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology

Article image
Download

The ACC/AHA guidelines were last updated in 2013, with several notable differences when compared to their prior iteration and to the 2011 ESC/ EAS guidelines.50 These guidelines focus on a fixed-dose approach to cholesterol-lowering treatment, in which statin therapy is no longer titrated to achieve LDL goals. This update also introduced a new Pooled Cohort Equation, which incorporates age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, total cholesterol, renal function, and the presence or absence of diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy, and prior MI or stroke, in calculating an estimated risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at 10 years. The guidelines recommend fixed-dose, high-intensity statin therapy that results in a >50 % reduction in LDL-C for three broad groups of patients: 1) documented ASCVD between the ages of 21 and 75 years; 2) LDL-C >190 mg/dL and age ≥21 years; and 3) LDL-C 70–189 mg/dL, age 40–75 years, diabetes mellitus, and 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5 %. Moderate-intensity statin therapy with a 30–50 % reduction in LDL-C is recommended for the following groups of patients: 1) documented ASCVD and age >75 years; 2) LDL-C 70–189 mg/dL, age 40–75 years, diabetes mellitus, and 10-year ASCVD risk <7.5 %; and 3) LDL-C 70–189 mg/dL, age 40–75 years, and 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5 %. Similar to the ESC/EAS guidelines, the ACC/AHA recommends lifestyle modification strategies for all patients and selective use of non-statin pharmacological therapies as adjuncts to statin therapy.

The updated 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines contained two major changes from the previous iterations. The first is the abandonment of the previously recommended strategy to titrate statin dosing to achieve LDL-C goals. Dyslipidemia therapy, based on patients’ risk profiles, with fixed, high- or moderate-intensity statins is more consistent with the majority of clinical trials, which tested the efficacy of statin therapy by using fixed doses. One potential major advantage to this strategy is the avoidance of statin underdosing and undertreatment of LDL-C, which may be more likely to occur when clinicians are encouraged to reduce statin dosing if and when a target LDL-C is reached.51 The ACC/AHA guidelines also now recommend less frequent routine LDL-C monitoring, however, which may create more difficulty in identifying adherence success, and leaves a greater degree of uncertainty regarding if and when to add non-statin therapies to improve LDL-C reduction.52 The second notable change is the introduction of the new Pooled Cohort Equation for the estimation of 10-year ASCVD risk. This risk estimator provides a lower threshold for initiating therapy for primary prevention when compared to the prior guidelines. The 7.5 % 10-year threshold for therapy, which carries a recommendation for a fixed-dose moderate-intensity statin in patients aged 40–75 years with LDL-C of 70–189 mg/dL, corresponds to a European SCORE of 2.5 %, at which drug therapy can be considered at LDL-C >100 mg/dL, but is not strictly recommend.53

This paradigm change in the approach to primary prevention and the recommendation to treat a significantly greater number of patients has garnered a considerable amount of publicity and criticism. Some recent studies have suggested that this strategy is a cost-effective method to improve population health.53–56 One study evaluated the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk population in order to assess the impact of the ACC/AHA guidelines on population health.53 The authors found that the new ACC/AHA guidelines would result in up to 65 % more individuals being treated with statins for primary prevention and would mildly overestimate the incidence of ASCVD over 10 years (Figure 2). The authors found no significant benefit of the ACC/AHA Pooled Cohort Equation over SCORE in the EPICNorfolk population.

Overall, the ACC/AHA guidelines recommend treating an increased number of individuals for primary prevention and recommend treating all patients with higher statin doses, while the ESC/EAS guidelines take a less conservative approach to primary prevention, and recommend generally lower statin doses, titrated to LDL-C levels. The ACC/AHA risk calculator has not been prospectively evaluated and appears to overestimate cardiovascular risk, particularly in some ethnic populations.

Our Approach to Patient Selection

Given the major differences between the AHA/ACC and ESC/EAS guidelines, clinicians today are faced with challenges regarding choosing appropriate individuals to treat with statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Adopting the AHA/ACC guidelines will result in a significant increase in the number of individuals treated and will significantly reduce average LDL-C levels. However, the long-term cost of this approach is not currently known. Given the burden of cardiovascular disease and enormous success at reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality over the past few decades with LDL-lowering therapies, we favor considering a risk-based assessment of patients including the fundamental basis of the 2013 AHA/ACC guidelines, and an individualized patient-based discussion regarding therapy. We view these guidelines as a framework for when to consider therapy, identify patients in whom earlier initiation of statin therapy may be beneficial, and identify those who may benefit from higher doses of statins, such as high-risk diabetics. In patients without known diabetes mellitus or ASCVD who have borderline 10-year risk scores that would warrant therapy, however, we favor an extensive risk and benefit discussion in order to make a joint decision about long-term therapy, taking into account patients’ preferences and values in order to ensure compliance and potential benefit from lipid-lowering therapy.

Figure 2: Comparison of Predicted Versus Observed Event Rates

Article image
Download

Conclusion

Cardiovascular disease continues to be the number one cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and worldwide, with treatment of dyslipidemia being the most effective modifiable target for improving cardiovascular outcomes. Statins are the cornerstone of LDLC-lowering therapy, while PCSK-9 inhibitors are now available for addition to maximally-tolerated statin therapy in the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, who require additional lowering of LDL-C. The most recent update to the ACC/AHA guidelines recommends treating a greater number of patients for primary prevention and aiming to achieve percentage-based LDL reduction rather than specific LDL levels. The accuracy of the new ACC/AHA risk calculator and the long-term costs of this approach are not currently known. Moving forward, it will be helpful to prospectively validate the Pooled Cohort Equation’s accuracy at predicting cardiovascular risk and to test the results across various ethnic and geographic populations. For now, these new guidelines serve as a framework within which patients can be evaluated, while individual treatment decisions should always involve an individualized patient-centered approach, with consideration of individual risks, benefits, and values in choosing the most appropriate treatment strategy.

References

  1. Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS, et al. American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2015;131 :e29–322.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, et al. INTERHEART Study Investigators. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet 2004;364:937–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998;97:1837–47.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Sharrett AR, Ballantyne CM, Coady SA, et al. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study Group. Coronary heart disease prediction from lipoprotein cholesterol levels, triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), apolipoproteins A-I and B, and HDL density subfractions: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Circulation 2001;104:1108–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Wijeysundera HC, Machado M, Farahati F, et al. Association of temporal trends in risk factors and treatment uptake with coronary heart disease mortality, 1994–2005. JAMA 2010;303:1841–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Flores-Mateo G, Grau M, O’Flaherty M, et al. [Analyzing the coronary heart disease mortality decline in a Mediterranean population: Spain 1988–2005]. Rev Esp Cardiol 2011;64:988–96 [article in Spanish].
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, et al. Explaining the decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980–2000. N Engl J Med 2007;356:2388–98.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Wadhera RK, Steen DL, Khan I, et al. A review of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, treatment strategies, and its impact on cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. J Clin Lipidol 2016;10:472–89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Scirica BM, Cannon CP. Treatment of elevated cholesterol. Circulation 2005;111 :e360–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al. CARDS Investigators. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebocontrolled trial. Lancet 2004;364:685–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study. JAMA 1998;279:1615–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Knopp RH, d’Emden M, Smilde JG, et al. Efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in the prevention of cardiovascular end points in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in Noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (ASPEN). Diabetes Care 2006;29:1478–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA 2002;288:2998–3007.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1301–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1349–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Pedersen TR, Olsson AG, Faergeman O, et al. Lipoprotein changes and reduction in the incidence of major coronary heart disease events in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Circulation 1998;97:1453–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1495–504.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. de Lemos JA, Blazing MA, Wiviott SD, et al. Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial. JAMA 2004;292:1307–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) Study Group. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2437–45.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195–207.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) Collaborators; Mihaylova B, Emberson J, Blackwell L, et al. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2012;380:581–90.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Juutilainen A, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, et al. Type 2 diabetes as a “coronary heart disease equivalent”: an 18-year prospective population-based study in Finnish subjects. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2901–7. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, et al. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998;339:229–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Huxley R, Barzi F, Woodward M. Excess risk of fatal coronary heart disease associated with diabetes in men and women: meta-analysis of 37 prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2006;332:73–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Newman CB, Tobert JA. Statin intolerance: reconciling clinical trials and clinical experience. JAMA 2015;313:1011–2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Collins R, Reith C, Emberson J, et al. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. Lancet 2016;388:2532–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Hsia J, MacFadyen JG, Monyak J, et al. Cardiovascular event reduction and adverse events among subjects attaining lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol <50 mg/dl with rosuvastatin. The JUPITER trial (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin). J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1666–75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group; Armitage J, Bowman L, Collins R, et al. Effects of simvastatin 40 mg daily on muscle and liver adverse effects in a 5-year randomized placebo-controlled trial in 20,536 high-risk people. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2009;9:6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Kashani A, Phillips CO, Foody JM, et al. Risks associated with statin therapy: a systematic overview of randomized clinical trials. Circulation 2006;114:2788–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Preiss D, Seshasai SR, Welsh P, et al. Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2011;305:2556–64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray HM, et al. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet 2010;375:735–42.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results. II. The relationship of reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease to cholesterol lowering. JAMA 1984;251 :365–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Canner PL, Berge KG, Wenger NK, et al. Fifteen year mortality in Coronary Drug Project patients: long-term benefit with niacin. J Am Coll Cardiol 1986;8:1245–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Investigators A-H, Boden WE, Probstfield JL, et al. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2255–67.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Group HTC, Landray MJ, Haynes R, et al. Effects of extendedrelease niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2014;371 :203–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Dujovne CA, Ettinger MP, McNeer JF, et al. Efficacy and safety of a potent new selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Am J Cardiol 2002;90:1092–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Knopp RH, Gitter H, Truitt T, et al. Effects of ezetimibe, a new cholesterol absorption inhibitor, on plasma lipids in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Eur Heart J 2003;24:729–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. IMPROVE-IT Investigators. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2387–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Urban D, Poss J, Bohm M, et al. Targeting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 for the treatment of dyslipidemia and atherosclerosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62: 1401–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Everett BM, Smith RJ, Hiatt WR. Reducing LDL with PCSK9 inhibitors – the clinical benefit of lipid drugs. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1588–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Walley KR, Thain KR, Russell JA, et al. PCSK9 is a critical regulator of the innate immune response and septic shock outcome. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:258ra143.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Robinson JG, Farnier M, Krempf M, et al. ODYSSEY LONG TERM Investigators. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1489–99.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Joseph L, Robinson JG. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibition and the future of lipid lowering therapy. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2015;58:19–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Wiviott SD, et al. Open-Label Study of Long-Term Evaluation against LDL Cholesterol (OSLER) Investigators. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1500–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Desai NR, Sabatine MS. PCSK9 inhibition in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2015;25:567–74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Schwartz GG, Bessac L, Berdan LG, et al. Effect of alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, on long-term cardiovascular outcomes following acute coronary syndromes: rationale and design of the ODYSSEY outcomes trial. Am Heart J 2014;168: 682–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Navarese EP, Kolodziejczak M, Schulze V, et al. Effects of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 antibodies in adults with hypercholesterolemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:40–51. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Cannon CP, Shah S, Dansky HM, et al. Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability Investigators. Safety of anacetrapib in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2406–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Catapano AL, Reiner Z, De Backer G, et al. European Society of Cardiology and European Atherosclerosis Society. ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias The Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS). Atherosclerosis 2011;217:3–46. 
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2889–934.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Arnold SV, Kosiborod M, Tang F, et al. Patterns of statin initiation, intensification, and maximization among patients hospitalized with an acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2014;129:1303–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. McGinnis B, Olson KL, Magid D, et al. Factors related to adherence to statin therapy. Ann Pharmacother 2007;41 :1805–11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Ray KK, Kastelein JJ, Boekholdt SM, et al. The ACC/AHA 2013 guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults: the good the bad and the uncertain: a comparison with ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias 2011. Eur Heart J 2014;35:960–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Martin SS, Abd TT, Jones SR, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guideline: what was done well and what could be done better. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2674–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Pencina MJ, Navar-Boggan AM, D’Agostino RB, et al. Application of new cholesterol guidelines to a population-based sample. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1422–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Pandya A, Sy S, Cho S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of 10-Year risk thresholds for initiation of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. JAMA 2015;314:142–50.
    Crossref | PubMed
Previous Volume Article Next Volume Article