Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized trials identified using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches from January 1, 1980, through April 13, 2015, of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and new-onset diabetes. RESULTS: Our search yielded 106 randomized trials that enrolled 254,301 patients. Compared with placebo, ACEis but not ARBs reduced the outcomes of all-cause mortality (ACEis vs placebo: relative risk [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00; ARBs vs placebo: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; Pinteraction=.04), cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99 and RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; Pinteraction=.05), and MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90 and RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; Pinteraction=.06). The meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo was due to a higher placebo event rate in the ACEis trials (most of these trials were conducted a decade earlier than the ARB trials) for the outcome of all-cause mortality (P=.001), cardiovascular death (P<.001), and MI (P=.02). Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo (Pinteraction>.05). Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes except for a lower risk of drug withdrawal due to adverse effects with ARBs (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81). CONCLUSION: In patients without heart failure, evidence from placebo-controlled trials (restricted to trials after 2000), active controlled trials, and head-to-head randomized trials all suggest ARBs to be as efficacious and safe as ACEis, with the added advantage of better tolerability.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome are important targets for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease. However, the prevalence in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is not well defined. We aimed to analyze the prevalence and characteristics of patients undergoing PCI with previously unrecognized prediabetes, diabetes and metabolic syndrome. METHODS: Data were collected from 740 patients undergoing elective PCI between November 2010 and March 2013 at a tertiary referral center. Prevalence of DM and prediabetes was evaluated using Hemoglobin A1c (A1c >/= 6.5% for DM, A1c 5.7-6.4% for prediabetes). A modified definition was used for metabolic syndrome [3 or more of the following criteria: body mass index (BMI) >/=30 kg/m2; triglycerides >/= 150 mg/dL; high density lipoprotein <40 mg/dL in men and <50 mg/dL in women; systolic blood pressure >/= 130 mmHg and/or diastolic >/= 85 mmHg; A1c >/= 5.7% or on therapy]. RESULTS: Mean age was 67 years, median BMI was 28.2 kg/m2 , and 39% had known DM. Of those without known DM, 8.3% and 58.5% met A1c criteria for DM and for prediabetes at time of PCI. Overall, 54.9% met criteria for metabolic syndrome (69.2% of patients with DM and 45.8% of patients without DM). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing elective PCI, a substantial number were identified with new DM, prediabetes, and/or metabolic syndrome. Routine screening for an abnormal glucometabolic state at the time of revascularization may be useful for identifying patients who may benefit from additional targeting of modifiable risk factors

Testosterone therapy is recommended for men with symptomatic androgen deficiency and unequivocally low testosterone levels. Although the prevalence of hypogonadism seems relatively constant, studies of prescribing patterns in both the United States and the United Kingdom show a dramatic increase in testosterone prescription in recent years, possibly due to increased marketing and inappropriate therapy. Concurrent with this, there has been growing concern regarding the potential adverse effects of testosterone therapy, particularly its cardiovascular risks. In this review, we present our current understanding of the implications of testosterone deficiency, as well as the conflicting evidence surrounding the cardiovascular effects of testosterone replacement therapy. Although there is a lack of adequate data, based on the current evidence, we conclude that testosterone therapy can be safely considered in men with appropriately diagnosed clinical androgen deficiency and increased cardiovascular risk after a thorough discussion of potential risks and with guideline recommended safety monitoring.

Patients with elevated triglycerides (TG) may be at a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Omega-3 fatty acids (OM3FAs), particularly the long-chain fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), effectively reduce TG and thus may impact CV outcomes; however, clinical data have been inconsistent. This review discusses the efficacy, safety, and key considerations of currently approved prescription OM3FA products in patients with elevated TG with or without concomitant elevations in other atherogenic parameters. Currently, 6 prescription OM3FA formulations are approved in the United States: omega-3-acid ethyl esters (Lovaza, Omtryg, and 2 generic formulations), omega-3-carboxylic acids (Epanova), which contain both EPA and DHA, and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), which is an EPA-only formulation. All prescription OM3FA products effectively lower TG, with the magnitude of TG reduction affected by baseline TG level. Products that contain DHA can raise levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which is of particular concern in patients with atherosclerosis; Vascepa, however, does not raise these levels and therefore provides these patients with another option. Long-term outcomes trials for Vascepa (ongoing) and Epanova (planned) will help clarify the potential CV benefits in patients with persistent hypertriglyceridemia despite statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association recommends targeting 7 cardiovascular (CV) health metrics to reduce morbidity and mortality. Control of these targets in patients undergoing CV intervention is uncertain. METHODS: We prospectively studied patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary or peripheral intervention from November 2010 to May 2012. We recorded data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and social history. Risk factor control was categorized as ideal, intermediate, or poor according to the 7 American Heart Association-defined CV health metrics (smoking status, body mass index, physical activity, diet, cholesterol, blood pressure, and metabolic control). Linear regression model was used to evaluate the association between baseline characteristics and poor CV health. RESULTS: Among 830 consecutive patients enrolled, mean age is 67.3 +/- 10.8 years, 74.2% are male, and 62.1% are white. The adequacy of achievement of ideal CV health is suboptimal in our cohort; the mean number of ideal CV metrics is 2.15 +/- 1.06. Less than 1 in 10 (9.7%) met >/=4 ideal CV health metrics. After multivariate analysis, male sex (P = .04), nonwhite race (P = .01), prior coronary artery disease (P < .01), prior peripheral arterial disease (P < .01), and history of depression (P = .01) were significantly associated with poor CV health. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients referred for elective CV intervention, achievement of ideal CV health is poor. Elective interventions represent an opportunity to identify and target CV health for risk factor control and secondary prevention.

BACKGROUND: -National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events. Yet, the prognostic value of fasting vs. non-fasting low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: -Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed between 1988 to 1994, were stratified based on fasting status (>/=8 hours or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (+/-0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and non-fasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was CV mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4,299 pairs of fasting and non-fasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded similar prognostic value as non-fasting LDL-C [C-statistics=0.59 (95% CI 0.57-0.61) vs. 0.58 (95% CI 0.56-0.60; P=0.73], and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazard model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome [fasting vs. non-fasting C-statistics=0.62 (95% CI 0.60-0.66) vs. 0.62 (95% CI 0.60-0.66); P=0.96; and Pinteraction=0.34]. CONCLUSIONS: -Non-fasting LDL-C has similar prognostic value as that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider re-evaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.

Statins are the first line pharmacotherapy for cholesterol reduction. Use of these drugs in large, randomized clinical trials have consistently shown significant reductions in major vascular events including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization. The updated guidelines for the treatment of high blood cholesterol from the ACC/AHA, will lead to a rise in the number of patients taking statins. Hence, statin intolerance may subsequently increase, emphasizing the need to understand and treat this important problem.Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2014); Accepted article preview online 11 April 2014; doi:10.1038/clpt.2014.84.

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between diabetes and different phenotypes of peripheral vascular disease (lower extremity peripheral artery disease [PAD], carotid artery stenosis [CAS], and abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA]).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPrevalence of vascular disease was evaluated in 3,696,778 participants of the Life Line Screening survey between 2003 and 2008. PAD was defined as ankle-brachial pressure index <0.90 or prior revascularization, CAS as >/=50% stenosis or prior revascularization, and AAA as infrarenal aortic diameter >/=3 cm or prior repair. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were assessed using logistic regression modeling.RESULTSDiabetes mellitus was present in 10.8% of participants (n = 399,884). Prevalence of PAD, CAS, and AAA were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in participants with compared with those without diabetes. After multivariate adjustment for baseline demographics and clinical risk factors, a significant interaction existed between diabetes and vascular disease phenotype (P < 0.0001). Diabetes was associated with increased odds of PAD (OR 1.42 [95% CI 1.41-1.4]; P < 0.0001) and CAS (1.45 [1.43-1.47]; P < 0.0001) but decreased odds of AAA (0.86 [0.84-0.88]; P < 0.0001). The strength of association increased with increasing severity of disease in each vascular phenotype, and this association persisted in the population with asymptomatic vascular disease.CONCLUSIONSIn a large population-based study, the association between diabetes and vascular disease differed according to vascular phenotype. Future studies exploring the mechanism for these vascular-specific differences are needed.

OPINION STATEMENT: With the advent of noninvasive 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), clinicians have access to a wealth of individualized data for the hypertensive patient. This has led to a greater understanding of the pathophysiology of hypertension and its complications. This tool has provided more precise diagnostic criteria for hypertension and helped discover those with white coat and masked hypertension. Patterns noted on ABPM and correlated with outcomes have allowed for more accurate identification of patients at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, and have offered an additional prognostic tool. In addition, ABPM allows for the assessment of the efficacy and adequacy of blood pressure treatment. In the current paper, we will describe the essential components of ABPM, review the evidence detailing the prognostic information that can be derived from its use, highlight clinical scenarios wherein ABPM can offer invaluable diagnostic information, and describe applications of ABPM that evaluate the efficacy of treatment of the hypertensive patient.