METHOD: Between November 2009 and July 2010, outpatients from 45 countries who met the criteria for stable CAD were recruited into the registry. Baseline characteristics were documented at enrolment, and patients were reassessed during their annual visits over a five-year follow-up period. Key outcomes measured were sudden death and cardiovascular (CV) death, non-CV death and CV morbidity.
RESULTS: At baseline, 33,283 patients were available for analysis within the registry; 380 and 27 were Malaysians and Bruneians, respectively. The mean ages of Malaysian/Bruneian patients and the rest of the world (RoW) were 57.83 ±9.98 years and 64.23 ± 10.46 years, respectively (p<0.001). The median body mass index values were 26.6 (24.4-29.6) kg/m2 and 27.3 (24.8-30.3) kg/m2, respectively (p=0.014). Malaysian/Bruneian patients had lower rates of myocardial infarction (54.55% versus 59.76%, p=0.033) and higher rates of diabetes (43.24% versus 28.99%, p<0.001) and dyslipidaemia (90.42% versus 74.66%, p<0.001) compared with the RoW. Measured clinical outcomes in Malaysian and Bruneian patients at 2-years follow-up were low and generally comparable to the RoW.
CONCLUSION: Malaysian/Bruneian patients with stable CAD tend to be younger with poorer diabetic control compared with the RoW. However, they had similar outcomes as the main registry following two years of treatment.
METHODS: The Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS) II was a multinational observational study of patients with stable CHD and hospitalised patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). A full lipid profile and use of LLT were documented at baseline, and for the ACS cohort, at four months post-hospitalisation.
RESULTS: 325 patients were recruited from four sites in Singapore; 199 had stable CHD and 126 were hospitalised with an ACS. At baseline, 96.5% of the CHD cohort and 66.4% of the ACS cohort were being treated with LLT. In both cohorts, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were lower for the treated than the non-treated patients; accordingly, a higher proportion of patients met the LDL-C goal of < 70 mg/dL (CHD: 28.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.10; ACS: 20.2% vs. 0%, p < 0.01). By the four-month follow-up, a higher proportion of the ACS patients that were originally not treated with LLT had met the LDL-C goal (from 0% to 54.5%), correlating with the increased use of medication. However, there was negligible improvement in the patients who were treated prior to the ACS.
CONCLUSION: Dyslipidaemia is a significant concern in Singapore, with few patients with stable or acute CHD meeting the recommended European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society goal. LLT was widely used but not optimised, indicating considerable scope for improved management of these very-high-risk patients.
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.
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.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing postoperative comorbid disease resolution such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, joint and musculoskeletal conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and menstrual irregularities following LVSG and LRYGB were included for analysis. The studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database and reported on at least one comorbidity resolution or improvement. The present work was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Jadad method for assessment of methodological quality was applied to the included studies.
RESULTS: Six RCTs performed between 2005 and 2015 involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on the resolution or improvement of comorbid disease following LVSG and LRYGB procedures. Both bariatric procedures provide effective and almost comparable results in improving or resolving these comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative nondiabetic comorbid diseases in obese patients. While results are not conclusive at this time, LRYGB may provide superior results compared to LVSG in mediating the remission and/or improvement in some conditions such as dyslipidemia and arthritis.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic search of all available RCTs conducted up to 21 February 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. The choice of fixed- or random-effect model for analysis was determined according to the I2 statistic. Effect sizes were expressed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooling of 12 effect sizes from seven articles revealed a significant reduction of Lp(a) levels following PS supplementation (MD: -0.025 mg/dl, 95% CI: -0.045, -0.004, p = 0.017) without significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.599). Also, PS supplementation significantly lowered FFA (MD: -0.138 mg/dl, 95% CI: -0.195, -0.081, p = 0.000) without significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.911). The results for meta-regression and sensitivity analysis were not significant.
CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis suggests that oral PS supplementation could cause a significant reduction in serum Lp(a) and FFA.