Target cardiovascular risk rather than cholesterol concentration

BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7110 (Published 27 November 2013)
Cite this as: BMJ 2013;347:f7110

Recent rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included as edited readers' letters in the weekly print issue of the BMJ, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window.

Displaying 1-3 out of 3 published

"Tectonic shift" or "Un-masking of an old concept"

I read the editorial by Krumholz(1) with interest that highlights the changes in the recent lipid guidelines and calling these a ‘tectonic shift’. Is this really a ‘tectonic shift’ or is simply the unmasking of the “Diet-Heart: end of an era” concept(2)? As all of the currently used lipid-lowering agents are out of patents and none of the pharmaceutical company has vested interest anymore to influence guidelines or evidence this year. This may change as the new-kid comes on the block (like PCKS9 agents). It appears that the current guidelines were possibly written without a jaundiced view, resulting in unmasking of an old concept that likely was suppressed for 3 decades.

References:

1. Krumholz HM. Target cardiovascular risk rather than cholesterol concentration
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7110
2. Mann GV. Diet-Heart: end of an era. NEJM 1977 Sep 22;297(12):644-50.

Competing interests: None declared

Malvinder S. Parmar, MD

Associate Professor, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, 700 Ross Ave. East, Timmins, ON P4N 8P2

Click to like:

To be specific: the risk of vascular complication, especially stroke, rises exponentially with age.[1] This is why the rigorously designed PROSPER study set out to establish what impact statin therapy had in the highest risk group (the over 70s).[2]

The outcome? No reduction in stroke incidence. There was a reduction in all vascular complications, BUT it needed treatment for nearly 60 people over 3 years to prevent any one vascular complication, or for 100 people over the same duration to prevent one non-fatal vascular complication. And statin therapy brings significant morbidity.[3]

Thus, targeting risk, per se, misses the point. Targeting achievable, evidence-based, and clinically useful outcomes is surely a much more logical approach?

References
1. Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991 Aug;22(8):983–988.
2. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen ELEM, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM, et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002 Nov;360(9346):1623-1630.
3. Buettner C, Davis RB, Leveille SG, Mittleman MA, Mukamal KJ. Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and statin use. J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Aug;23(8):1182-1186.

Competing interests: None declared

Kit Byatt, consultant general physician & geriatrician

Hereford County Hospital, Union Walk, Hereford HR1 2ER

Click to like:

Statins, the final paradigm change: they don’t save lives in a fatal disease.

The Editorial by Krumholz highlights the changes in the recent U.S. cholesterol-treatment guidelines, calling them a tectonic shift, no longer focusing on “cholesterol targets”(1). This shift should precede the final paradigm change when guideline authors, who basically already ignore the term all-cause mortality in a fatal disease, officially also recognize that statins effectively do not lower mortality, a fact certain in women and in anyone over age 70, debated here(2).

While statins lower non-fatal events or visits to the catheterisation laboratory, why don’t they extend lives? Statins minuscule “benefit” may well result from a pleitropic effect such as their undisputed nitroglycerine / nitrate mimicking effect, the NO/eNOS pathways(2). Logically, nitrates should reduce non-fatal event check-marks in Patient-Report-Forms in trials, while also not extending lives. The JUPITER trial was telling because no cardiovascular-deaths were prevented while in women the only statistically significant “benefit” from statin was in fewer visits to the catheterisation laboratory for revascularisations.(3)

The final paradigm shift would be a return to 1977: “end of an era” for the fat and cholesterol Diet-Heart-Hypothesis, that was put on life-support 3 years later by the invent of statins(4). Decades of effort and hundreds of billions wasted to return to what was evident a third of a century ago.

Eddie Vos, M. Eng.
Pierre Biron, M.D.

1. Krumholz HM. Target cardiovascular risk rather than cholesterol concentration
BMJ 2013; 347 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7110

2. Vos E, Rose CP, Biron P. Point: why statins have failed to reduce mortality in just about anybody. J Clin Lipidol. 2013 May-Jun;7(3):222-4.

3. Vos E, Rose CP, Biron P. Doi: 10.1161/circulationAHA.110.954016 Circ 2010 Dec 7;122(23):e576. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/23/e576.long

4. Mann GV. Diet-Heart: end of an era. NEJM 1977 Sep 22;297(12):644-50.

Competing interests: None declared

Eddie Vos, M.Eng.

Pierre Biron, M.D.

none, maintains health-heart.org, 127 Courser Road, Sutton QC Canada J0E 2K0

Click to like:

THIS WEEK'S POLL