PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096522

Hypercholesterolemia and Dyslipidemia.

Abstract

Disorders of cholesterol and lipoprotein metabolism are at the heart of atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease (CAD). CAD, however, is a metabolic disorder that involves a complex interaction between genetic susceptibility and environmental conditions. Despite considerable success in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, atherosclerosis remains the leading cause of death in most Western countries. Although cholesterol-lowering trials have revealed a 25% to 30% reduction in clinical events, most patients continue to have events even when treated successfully with cholesterol-lowering medications (Fig. 1). This less-than-optimal result is partly because atherosclerosis is a multifactorial disease. Although disorders of lipoprotein metabolism are found in more than 80% of patients with CAD, these disorders are very heterogeneous, and single-drug therapy aimed at one disorder should not be expected to improve the disease status in most patients. Metabolic treatment still requires identification and treatment of patients with high cholesterol levels, but the focus has shifted to identifying high-risk patients in groups previously thought to be low risk, or to identifying disorders coexistent with high cholesterol levels that are not corrected by standard cholesterol-lowering medications (Table 1). The ability to detect high-risk CAD traits, which are often inherited, and to predict response to treatment has substantially improved in the past few years. These improvements allow identification of metabolic subgroups of patients, which can alter risk prediction and response to specific treatments. Sophisticated laboratory methods permit physicians to apply this knowledge to patient care and to enter a new era of CAD risk factor detection and treatment. These advances allow for a more scientific approach than did the previously standard epidemiologic risk factors and routine blood lipid profiles. The current state-of-the-art method of diagnosing and treating lipoprotein disorders has progressed beyond the standard "lipid profile," which includes total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol along with fasting triglyceride levels. Incorporating aspects of the atherogenic lipid profile (ALP), LDL subclass distribution, HDL subclass distribution, apo E isoforms, and lipoprotein (a) provides the interested clinician with the tools to create a more detailed and accurate diagnosis of lipoprotein disorders. Sophisticated laboratory tests are available to clinicians through technology transfer programs, as exemplified by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/Berkeley HeartLab collaboration, and allow clinicians access to research-quality laboratory tools. This has significant clinical relevance because the presence of these disorders guides treatment specific to the disorder(s). Appropriate treatment is more beneficial in subgroups exhibiting the disorder that the therapy is most likely to correct. A single drug or lifestyle therapy is no longer appropriate for all patients. The treatment must match the disorder.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

HR Superko. 2000. Hypercholesterolemia and Dyslipidemia.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-000-0010-5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗