METHODS: REDISCOVER, a prospective study, enrolled 11,288 adults where sociodemographic data, anthropometric and blood pressure measurements, fasting lipid profile and glucose, and history of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking were obtained. The cross-sectional analytic sample presented in this article comprised 10,482 participants from baseline recruitment. The data was analysed by descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of elevated TC, elevated LDL-c, elevated TG, low HDL-c, and elevated non-HDL-c were 64.0% (95% CI 63.0-65.0), 56.7% (CI 55.7-57.7), 37.4% (CI 36.5-38.4), 36.2% (CI 35.2-37.1), and 56.2% (CI 55.3-57.2), respectively. Overweight, obesity, and central obesity were highly prevalent and significantly associated with elevated TC and all dyslipidaemia subtypes. Older age was associated with elevated TC, elevated LDL-c and elevated non-HDL-c. Hypertension was associated with elevated TC, elevated TG, and elevated non-HDL-c, while diabetes was associated with elevated TG and low HDL-c.
CONCLUSIONS: Elevated TC and all dyslipidaemia subtypes are highly prevalent in Malaysia where increased body mass seems the main driver. Differences in the prevalence and associated personal and clinical attributes may facilitate specific preventive and management strategies.
METHODS: Online literature search databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, Embase and Google Scholar were searched to discover relevant articles available up to 17 March 2020. We used mean changes and SD of the outcomes to assess treatment response from baseline and mean difference, and 95 % CI were calculated to combined data and assessment effect sizes in astaxanthin and control groups.
RESULTS: 14 eligible articles were included in the final quantitative analysis. Current study revealed that astaxanthin consumption was not associated with FBS, HbA1c, TC, LDL-C, TG, BMI, BW, DBP, and SBP. We did observe an overall increase in HDL-C (WMD: 1.473 mg/dl, 95 % CI: 0.319-2.627, p = 0.012). As for the levels of CRP, only when astaxanthin was administered (i) for relatively long periods (≥ 12 weeks) (WMD: -0.528 mg/l, 95 % CI: -0.990 to -0.066), and (ii) at high dose (> 12 mg/day) (WMD: -0.389 mg/dl, 95 % CI: -0.596 to -0.183), the levels of CRP would decrease.
CONCLUSION: In summary, our systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that astaxanthin consumption was associated with increase in HDL-C and decrease in CRP. Significant associations were not observed for other outcomes.
AREAS COVERED: We searched PubMed and reviewed literatures related to statin intolerance published between February 2015 and February 2020. Important large-scale or landmark studies published before 2015 were also cited as key evidence.
EXPERT OPINION: Optimal lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statins substantially reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. Muscle adverse events (AEs) were the most frequently reported AEs by statin users in clinical practice, but they usually occurred at a similar rate with statins and placebo in randomized controlled trials and had a spurious causal relationship with statin treatment. We proposed a rigorous definition for identifying true statin intolerance and present the criteria for defining different forms of muscle AEs and an algorithm for their management. True statin intolerance is uncommon, and every effort should be made to exclude false statin intolerance and ensure optimal use of statins. For the management of statin intolerance, statin-based approaches should be prioritized over non-statin approaches.
AIMS: To systematically identify and summarize the available literature on whether the modifiable risk factors associated with prediabetes displays similar relationship in both the genders.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed on electronic databases i.e. PubMed, EBSCOhost, and Scopus using "sex", "gender", "modifiable risk factors" and "prediabetes" as keywords. Reference list from identified studies was used to augment the search strategy. Methodological quality and results from individual studies were summarized in tables.
RESULTS: Gender differences in the risk factor association were observed among reviewed studies. Overall, reported association between risk factors and prediabetes apparently stronger among men. In particular, abdominal obesity, dyslipidemia, smoking and alcohol drinking habits were risk factors that showed prominent association among men. Hypertension and poor diet quality may appear to be stronger among women. General obesity showed stringent hold, while physical activity not significantly associated with the risk of prediabetes in both the genders.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests the existence of gender differences in risk factors associated with prediabetes, demands future researchers to analyze data separately based on gender. The consideration and the implementation of gender differences in health policies and in diabetes prevention programs may improve the quality of care and reduce number of diabetes prevalence among prediabetic subjects.
RECENT FINDINGS: Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia is valuable to enhance diagnostic precision, cascade testing, risk prediction and the use of new medications. Hypertriglyceridaemia may be caused by rare recessive monogenic, or by polygenic, gene variants; genetic testing may be useful in the former, for which antisense therapy targeting apoC-III has been approved. Familial high-density lipoprotein deficiency is caused by specific genetic mutations, but there is no effective therapy. Familial combined hyperlipidaemia (FCHL) is caused by polygenic variants for which there is no specific gene testing panel. Familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia is less frequent and commonly caused by APOE ε2ε2 homozygosity; as with FCHL, it is responsive to lifestyle modifications and statins or/and fibrates. Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a quantitative genetic trait whose value in risk prediction over-rides genetic testing; treatment relies on RNA therapeutics.
SUMMARY: Genetic testing is not at present commonly available for managing dyslipidaemias. Rapidly advancing technology may presage wider use, but its worth will require demonstration of cost-effectiveness and a healthcare workforce trained in genomic medicine.
Methods: This case-control study was carried out on 113 patients with PV and 100 healthy controls. Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides (TG) levels were measured and low-density lipoprotein (LDL), non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) were calculated. Chi-squared test and independent Student t-test (or their alternatives) were used for group comparison.
Results: The mean age and BMI of patients and controls were 47.7 ± 14.5 and 28 ± 6.2 and, 44.5 ± 18.5 and 25.5 ± 5.1, respectively. Total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, non-HDL-C and TG were statistically different between the two groups (P values < 0.001; < 0.001; < 0.001; < 0.001 and 0.021, respectively). However, AIP was not significantly different (P-value = 0.752).
Conclusion: The serum lipid profile was significantly higher in PV patients compared to healthy controls. Therefore, PV patients may be more prone to develop atherosclerosis and this finding can be important in the overall management of these patients.
METHODS: Consecutive NAFLD patients attending five clinics in Asia were included in this study. The 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was calculated based on the Framingham Heart Study, and patients were categorized as moderate, high, or very high risk for cardiovascular disease on the basis of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologist 2017 Guidelines. The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treatment goal for each of the risk groups was 2.6, 2.6, and 1.8 mmol/L, respectively.
RESULTS: The data for 428 patients were analyzed (mean age 54.4 ± 11.1 years, 52.1% male). Dyslipidemia was seen in 60.5% (259/428), but only 43.2% (185/428) were on a statin. The percentage of patients who were at moderate, high, and very high risk for cardiovascular disease was 36.7% (157/428), 27.3% (117/428), and 36.0% (154/428), respectively. Among patients who were on a statin, 58.9% (109/185) did not achieve the treatment target. Among patients who were not on a statin, 74.1% (180/243) should be receiving statin therapy. The percentage of patients who were not treated to target or who should be on statin was highest among patients at very high risk for cardiovascular disease at 79.6% (78/98) or 94.6% (53/56), respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study highlights the suboptimal treatment of dyslipidemia and calls for action to improve the treatment of dyslipidemia in NAFLD patients.
Methods: The drug classification systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Canada were selected to study alongside Thailand's system. The regulatory review was conducted through each country's drug regulatory agency website and available published research. Complementary interviews with drug regulatory authorities were conducted when written documentation was unclear and had limited access. Fifty-two common drugs were selected to compare their actual classifications across the different countries.
Results: All selected countries classified drugs into two major groups: prescription drugs and non-prescription drugs. The studied countries further sub-classified non-prescription drugs into 1-4 categories. Principles of drug classification criteria among countries are similar; they comprised of three themes: disease characteristics, drug safety profile, and other drug characteristics. Actual drug classification of antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and hypertension treatments in Thailand are notedly different from other countries. Furthermore, 77.4% of drugs studied in Thailand fall into the behind-the-counter (dangerous) drug category, which varied from antihistamines to antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and vaccines.
Conclusion: Thailand's drug classification criteria are comparable with other nations; however, there is a need to review drug classification statuses as many drugs have been classified into improper drug categories.