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 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.
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: 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.