Supported by an Unrestricted
Educational Grant from
Cardiologist and Physician
Manoria Heart and Critical Care Hospital, Bhopal
</b> Today, we have Dr. P. C. Manoria, an eminent cardiologist from Bhopal. Thank you so much sir for joining us and taking our time. We are going to discuss a very important topic dyslipidemia and which forms a major component of metabolic syndrome as well as puts the person on huge risk of coronary artery disease. Sir, can you tell us about dyslipidemia issues in India.
</b> Dyslipidemia is a very common problem in the Indian context and it accounts for 50% of CHD events. So, these risk factors must be modulated so as to minimize the risk of coronary heart disease.
</b> Sir, any particular differences between Indian dyslipidemia and Western population.
</b> In the Indian context, diabetes is rampant, triglyceride levels are high, HDL levels are low, total cholesterol and LD levels are also high but not to the extent compared to the West.So, Indian dyslipidemia is a little different and LP is also elevated which is genetically determined.
</b> What type of strategies, the monitoring should be done,means any particular patient should be monitored or any particular type. You already said about diabetes, other than diabetes any other conditions where dyslipidemia should be specifically looked at.
</b> There are several secondary causes of dyslipidemia also for example, hypothyroidism is one of them, but majority of them are primary dyslipidemia.
</b> You see patients with coronary artery disease almost every day, so in them what percentage of patient present with dyslipidemia and which are the specific type of factors which are very….?
</b> The prevalence of dyslipidemia is virtually 60% to 70%, although the exact statistics are not available on a national level in the Indian context but some studies have shown that the prevalence of dyslipidemia is very high in patient presenting at CHD.
</b> What percentage of patient you see they are controlled with…?
</b> Although we prescribe drugs when they come for our consultation, but after a lapse of a few months or year, the compliance is decreased may be because of cost or because the patient feels better. Long-term compliance is not seen in large number of patients over the months and years it declines.
</b> What percentage of patient will be typically get control with medicines available as of now?
</b> We usually use high dose or high intensity statin therapy either atorvastatin 80 mg or 40 mg and this controls LDL levels to a great extent, but there are some percentage of patients where LDL level still cannot be controlled either the drug is not able to control them to its fullest extent or the patient gets intolerance and other side effects. Particularly for example, you see familiar dyslipidemia. Even 80 mg atorvastatin will not bring down the LDL level to target.
</b> Familial dyslipidemia is another important subject you mentioned sir. It is often undiagnosed and people are not able to diagnose it, any particular reason for that?
</b> Because the incidence and prevalence of familial dyslipidemia is low, so it is not a common practice to screen for it, but if the LDL level is very high say 190 or more, you should suspect it.
</b> So if the patient is presenting with very high LDL.
</b> Or you have xanthomas, you have premature arcus senilis in the eyes, or premature coronary artery disease and history in the family, all this will point towards the familial dyslipidemia.
</b> You also mentioned about intolerance. In your practice how frequently you see patients having intolerance.
</b> See muscle symptoms may be seen in 10 to 15,but the real intolerance which means CPK more than 10 is less common.So,you want to know where the CPK elevated 10 times,then declare it as statin intolerance, may be 1%, 2%,or at the most 5%,but muscle symptoms 10 to 15%.
</b> What is the role of non-statin lipid-lowering agents at this part of time?
</b> Only one drug ezetimibe has shown outcome benefit in the improved trial which was released a year back.Triglyceride lowering agent although we know triglyceride high is associated with coronary artery disease, but there is as yet no randomized dedicated prospective trial which has shown that you lower triglyceride levels, the CAD or CHD comes down.
</b> So, non-lipid lowering agents you said what is ezetimibe and anything about fibrates?
</b> It blocks the absorption of the cholesterol from the gut,so the LDL levels are decreased.Fibrates although the diabetologist commonly use, we always say triglycerides are very important,but the only evidence of fibrate at the present time is the ACCORD LLE is subgroup study, which showed that in the subset of patients the triglycerides are more than 200 and HDL is low. There is a benefit, but overall trial was negative, but subgroup studies as we see are only hypothesis generating and this has to be tested in a large prospective randomized style which is not investigated at the present time. So at the moment, the rational bases of loading triglycerides from the point of view changing the outcome are not there. This should have been investigated but as you said triglycerides have not been properly investigated and still there is a big question mark whether triglyceride lowering will alter the outcome of CAD, for prevention of pancreatitis of course they are mandatory.
</b> Patients often asked about diet also. Any particular advice you give to them when you see patients with dyslipidemia.
</b> Diet is very important, but one should have a very clear concept that diet only constitutes to 20% of the total cholesterol, 70% of the cholesterol is manufactured in the liver. So, even if you are on a stringent diet, you cannot drastically reduce the cholesterol levels, you have to use statins and that is very important to remember or you may even on diet restrictions if the body manufactures more, your LDL levels may still be elevated, but diet alone will not delipidate the plaque also. It is statins which delipidate the plaques. So, statin use is mandatory if you are CHD patient or if you are at a high risk of CAD.
</b> The latest AHA guidelines do not recommend any particular target, they only say that you give higher metastatin depending on the risk factors and subsequently you expect a particular standpoint so what should the Indian ……?
</b> When the ACC guidelines were introduced at that time the data of improvement in CV outcome was available only with statins. Later on, when this improved trial came in, the data was available that if you have a lower cholesterol in a combination with statin plus ezetimibe the benefits is still there. So in times to come, it is very likely that the ACC will issue a focused update that LDL levels are mandatory. The other reason for reviseing the guidelines again LDL levels are mandatory as the PCSK-9. Now when you use diet alone, cholesterol may be decreased by 10% or may be 15%. If you use statins, it decreases LDL-cholesterol by another 50%, so if you use diet plus statin, it is 60% or may be 65%. If you use PCSK-9 on top of that, it produces an additional 50% reduction. Suppose you have LDL level after say high-dose strength 70, another 35 mg will be reduced. So, now we have a Pan LDL control, you can decrease in the intake, you can block the absorption, you can block the senses by statin and these PCSK-9, they are the only pathway for clearance of the cholesterol through the LDL receptors. So now we have data from two trials. The Odyssey long term and the Osler, although these were not outcome trial, but they have shown reduction in the cardiovascular event and on the basis of this, the FDA and EMA has approved two PCSK-9 inverter evolocumab and alirocumab and is very likely that the long-term three outcome trials which are going are likely to be positive. So, in today’s scenario, you cannot avoid LDL target. You have to measure LDL target, although no statin trial has been done looking at the targets. So that was the reason, but now we have the 09
</b> Sir, you are saying even if the doctors are seeing levels of 45 to 55, they do not have to change any therapy?
</b> You are bringing it to near normals, then lowering, this is physiological lowering and not pathological lowering, because you are born with LDL somewhere 40 to 50.
</b> That improved trial also clearly showed that they lower the level, so any particular thing you will say about the levels going back to the level again. Do the physicians should target the levels based on the risk factors or for anybody who is presenting with coronary artery disease or even a single risk factor the level should be…..?
</b> See, another peculiar feature of statin is whatever is your LDL level, the CTT meta analysis it brings out 25% of the coronary events where your LDL to begin with is less than 70 or 80, 90 or 100 whatever because statins are drugs which do not improve CV outcome by just lowering LDL, they have pleiotropic effects. So from the point of view initiating statins if your patient has CHD which means stroke, PVD, or coronary artery disease, high-dose statin right from the word go. If you are at high risk of coronary artery disease, still high dose of statins. If you have moderate or low risk, you may have use low dose. So, from the point of you have atherosclerotic CVD, high-dose statins to begin, you may not monitor LDL right before initiating, but after you have initiated statins whether PCSK-9 would be useful or not because at the present state of time, the dicta is if the LDL goals are not achieved less than 70, we would like to add PCSK-9 inhibitors and then when you add a PCSK-9, there is another 50% to 60 % reduction, so monitoring is mandatory.
</b> Below 70 if the patient is what you suggested, especially if the patient has risk factor and if they are not ……?
</b> Classical example is familial hyperlipidemia. Why we use PCSK-9? There are three indications; one familial hyperlipidemia besides LDL apheresis, statin, ezetimibe, still you are not able to control and they had very high risk of premature coronary artery, many of them die. Second is you develop intolerance to statin and third you are a high-risk individual, you have used maximum dose of LDL, the target is still not achieved. Target at the movement is 70, but I am sure this is going to decrease to 40 or 50. Many people would agree, although guidelines take lot of time because they are based on trials, very difficult to conduct trial for every small. Surely, targets will be lowered.
</b> One of the fears with physicians have about statin is they may impair the glucose control or they may actually prediabetic patients may get converted into full grown diabetic. So any particular thing you would like to….?
</b> See if you really look at the data of the diabetogenicity of statins what happens those who are destined for diabetes, diabetes develops at 6 months or may be little more earlier. It is not that a nondiabetic individual will develop diabetes. By this, I mean suppose you have high body mass index, your waistline is more, you are obese and other risk factors for diabetes, those who are destined to become diabetic they develop diabetes with statin. Suppose you are a normal individual, normal BMI, nothing, he will not develop diabetes. So it hastens the development of diabetes rather than brings up diabetes in a totally nonpredisposed individual.That is important. Time and again, people say diabetes. It has a diabetogenicity, but this is for the person who is destined, they will get even if you do not start statin, they will develop diabetes in six months so that should be remembered.
</b> Statin should not be only …….?
</b> No they benefit diabetic patients also, but the reality is this.
</b> One final question often if there is a tendency for the patients and doctors to stop a therapy once the control is achieved which happens with blood pressure, it happens with diabetes, you might be seeing that happening even with the statins when it comes to lipid lowering, so what should we do if the levels are normal can we stop?
</b> See for primary prevention, we have now very good data from the WOSCOPS 20-year follow-up. You take statin five years and enjoy the benefit for the next 20 years, so we have now a documented data with this WOSCOPS trial, which is a primary prevention trial, so we may say you take statin for 5 years and continue your documentation that events continue to decrease, may be good but for secondary prevention, we do not have such long-term data and secondary prevention is very important to assess and reassess the risk. If your risk continues to be high, say after 5 years, I do not think it makes a point in stopping statin because he has already developed the disease and if you allow him to develop second event, this may be, so secondary prevention of our policy is a little strict. We continue to reassess. We do not have a pinpoint answer you will take for 5 years, 10 years or 15 years just like diabetes. If you want to control diabetes, you have to continue, because he has already developed the disease, it has to be a long term therapy, but if you have pinpoint question number, we continue to reassess if he is 5 years, he is still, but if the patient is tolerating the drugs, better to have the statin because the plaques are delipidated only by statins at the present. What the PCSK-9 do, we will know a little later.
</b> Thank you so much for your time.