Search

Lipid testing for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk is often performed every 4–6 years, but we hypothesized that the optimum time interval may vary depending on baseline risk. Using lipid values and other risk factors from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (n = 9,704), we calculated a 10-year risk score with the pooled-cohort equations. Future risk scores were predicted by increasing age and projecting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and lipid changes, using the mean-percentile age group change in NHANES for SBP (n = 17,329) and the Lifelines Cohort study for lipids (n = 133,540). The crossing of high and intermediate-risk thresholds were calculated by time to determine optimum intervals for lipid testing. Time to crossing risk thresholds depends on baseline risk, but the mean increase in the risk score plateaus at 1% per year for those with a baseline 10-year risk greater than 15%. Based on these findings, we recommend the following maximum time intervals for lipid testing: baseline risk < 15%: 5-years, 16%: 4-years, 17%: 3-years, 18%: 2-years, and 19%: ≤1-year. Testing patients for lipids who have a higher baseline risk more often could identify high-risk patients sooner, allowing for earlier and more effective therapeutic intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Obesity-induced inflammation plays a substantial role in the development of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. The altered gut flora in obesity can also contribute to metabolic dysregulation and systemic inflammation. However, it remains unclear how dysregulation of systemic inflammation in obesity affects the gut microbiome. We hypothesized that colchicine's systemic anti-inflammatory effects in obesity would be associated with improvements in gut microbial diversity. We conducted a secondary analysis of a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial, in which 40 adults with obesity, high C-reactive protein (CRP) (≥2.0 mg/L), insulin resistance (homeostatic model of insulin resistance: HOMA-IR ≥2.6 mg/L), and metabolic syndrome (MetS) were randomized to three months of colchicine 0.6 mg or placebo tablets twice daily. Serum and stool samples were collected at baseline and final visit. Gut microbiota composition was characterized from stool DNA by dual-index amplification and sequencing of 16S ribosomal RNA. Pre- and post-intervention stool samples were available for 15 colchicine- and 12 placebo-treated subjects. Circulating high sensitivity CRP (hsCRP), interleukin-6, resistin, white blood count, and neutrophils were significantly decreased in the colchicine arm as compared to placebo. However, changes in stool microbiome alpha diversity, as assessed by the Chao1, Shannon, and Pielou indices, were not significant between groups. Amplicon sequence variant counts were unchanged among all examined phyla or families. Oscillibacter was the only genus to demonstrate even a nominally significant change. Among adults with obesity and MetS, colchicine significantly improved systemic inflammation. However, this anti-inflammatory effect was not associated with significant changes in the gut microbiome. Further studies are warranted to investigate this relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Statins are the lipid-lowering therapy of choice for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) but their effectiveness in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) can substantially differ between individuals. In this mini-review, we describe the different causes for a suboptimal statin response and an algorithm for the diagnosis and clinical management of these patients. Evidence Acquisition: A PubMed search using the terms "statin resistance," "statin sensitivity," "statin pharmacokinetics," "cardiovascular disease," and "lipid-lowering therapies" was performed. Published papers in the past 10 years that were relevant to the topic were examined to provide content for this mini-review. Evidence Synthesis: Suboptimal lowering of LDL-C by statins is a major problem in the clinical management of patients and limits the value of this therapeutic approach. There are multiple causes of statin hyporesponsiveness with compliance being the most common explanation. Other causes, such as analytical issues with LDL-C measurement and the presence of common lipid disorders (familial hypercholesterolemia, elevated lipoprotein[a] and secondary dyslipidemias) should be excluded before considering primary statin resistance from rare genetic variants in lipoprotein-related or drug-metabolism genes. A wide variety of nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs are now available and can be added to statins to achieve more effective LDL-C lowering. Conclusions: The evaluation of statin hyporesponsiveness is a multistep process that can lead to the optimization of lipid-lowering therapy for the prevention of ASCVD. It may also lead to the identification of distinct types of dyslipidemias that require specific therapies and/or the genetic screening of family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]