John J Albers1, April Slee2, Jerome L Fleg3, Kevin D O'Brien4, Santica M Marcovina5. 1. University of Washington, Northwest Lipid Metabolism and Diabetes Research Laboratories, 401 Queen Anne Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: jja@uw.edu. 2. AIM-HIGH Coordinating Center, Axio Research, 2601 Fourth Ave, Ste 200, Seattle, WA 98121, USA. Electronic address: AprilS@axioresearch.com. 3. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, 6701 Rockledge Dr, Rm 8150, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Electronic address: flegj@nhlbi.nih.gov. 4. University of Washington, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific Ave, Box 356422, Seattle, WA 98195-6422, USA. Electronic address: cardiac@uw.edu. 5. University of Washington, Northwest Lipid Metabolism and Diabetes Research Laboratories, 401 Queen Anne Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: smm@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous results of the AIM-HIGH trial showed that baseline levels of the conventional lipid parameters were not predictive of future cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The aims of this secondary analysis were to examine the levels of cholesterol in high density lipoprotein (HDL) subclasses (HDL2-C and HDL3-C), small dense low density lipoprotein (sdLDL-C), and LDL triglyceride (LDL-TG) at baseline, as well as the relationship between these levels and CV outcomes. METHODS:Individuals with CV disease and low baseline HDL-C levels were randomized to simvastatin plus placebo or simvastatin plus extended release niacin (ERN), 1500 to 2000 mg/day, with ezetimibe added as needed in both groups to maintain an on-treatment LDL-C in the range of 40-80 mg/dL. The primary composite endpoint was death from coronary disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, or symptom-driven coronary or cerebrovascular revascularization. HDL-C, HDL3-C, sdLDL-C and LDL-TG were measured at baseline by detergent-based homogeneous assays. HDL2-C was computed by the difference between HDL-C and HDL3-C. Analyses were performed on 3094 study participants who were already on statin therapy prior to enrollment in the trial. Independent contributions of lipoprotein fractions to CV events were determined by Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Baseline HDL3-C was protective against CV events (HR: 0.84, p = 0.043) while HDL-C, HDL2-C, sdLDL-C and LDL-TG were not event-related (HR: 0.96, p = 0.369; HR: 1.07, p = 0.373; HR: 1.05, p = 0.492; HR: 1.03, p = 0.554, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this secondary analysis of the AIM-HIGH Study indicate that levels of HDL3-C, but not other lipoprotein fractions, are predictive of CV events, suggesting that the HDL3 subclass may be primarily responsible for the inverse association of HDL-C and CV disease.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous results of the AIM-HIGH trial showed that baseline levels of the conventional lipid parameters were not predictive of future cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The aims of this secondary analysis were to examine the levels of cholesterol in high density lipoprotein (HDL) subclasses (HDL2-C and HDL3-C), small dense low density lipoprotein (sdLDL-C), and LDL triglyceride (LDL-TG) at baseline, as well as the relationship between these levels and CV outcomes. METHODS: Individuals with CV disease and low baseline HDL-C levels were randomized to simvastatin plus placebo or simvastatin plus extended release niacin (ERN), 1500 to 2000 mg/day, with ezetimibe added as needed in both groups to maintain an on-treatment LDL-C in the range of 40-80 mg/dL. The primary composite endpoint was death from coronary disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, or symptom-driven coronary or cerebrovascular revascularization. HDL-C, HDL3-C, sdLDL-C and LDL-TG were measured at baseline by detergent-based homogeneous assays. HDL2-C was computed by the difference between HDL-C and HDL3-C. Analyses were performed on 3094 study participants who were already on statin therapy prior to enrollment in the trial. Independent contributions of lipoprotein fractions to CV events were determined by Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Baseline HDL3-C was protective against CV events (HR: 0.84, p = 0.043) while HDL-C, HDL2-C, sdLDL-C and LDL-TG were not event-related (HR: 0.96, p = 0.369; HR: 1.07, p = 0.373; HR: 1.05, p = 0.492; HR: 1.03, p = 0.554, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this secondary analysis of the AIM-HIGH Study indicate that levels of HDL3-C, but not other lipoprotein fractions, are predictive of CV events, suggesting that the HDL3 subclass may be primarily responsible for the inverse association of HDL-C and CV disease.
Authors: Laurent Camont; Marie Lhomme; Fabiana Rached; Wilfried Le Goff; Anne Nègre-Salvayre; Robert Salvayre; Catherine Calzada; Michel Lagarde; M John Chapman; Anatol Kontush Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: H Robert Superko; Lakshmana Pendyala; Paul T Williams; Katherine M Momary; Spencer B King; Brenda C Garrett Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: William E Boden; Jeffrey L Probstfield; Todd Anderson; Bernard R Chaitman; Patrice Desvignes-Nickens; Kent Koprowicz; Ruth McBride; Koon Teo; William Weintraub Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael Y Tsai; Brian T Steffen; Weihua Guan; Robyn L McClelland; Russell Warnick; Joseph McConnell; Daniel M Hoefner; Alan T Remaley Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Robert W McGarrah; Damian M Craig; Carol Haynes; Z Elaine Dowdy; Svati H Shah; William E Kraus Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Lesley A Stevens; Christopher H Schmid; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Alejandro F Castro; Harold I Feldman; John W Kusek; Paul Eggers; Frederick Van Lente; Tom Greene; Josef Coresh Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James D Otvos; John R Guyton; Margery A Connelly; Sydney Akapame; Vera Bittner; Steven L Kopecky; Megan Lacy; Santica M Marcovina; Joseph B Muhlestein; William E Boden Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Robert W McGarrah; Jacob P Kelly; Damian M Craig; Carol Haynes; Ryan C Jessee; Kim M Huffman; William E Kraus; Svati H Shah Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2016-11-03 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Anum Saeed; Elena V Feofanova; Bing Yu; Wensheng Sun; Salim S Virani; Vijay Nambi; Josef Coresh; Cameron S Guild; Eric Boerwinkle; Christie M Ballantyne; Ron C Hoogeveen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2018-07-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Yong-Hyun Han; Emily J Onufer; Li-Hao Huang; Robert W Sprung; W Sean Davidson; Rafael S Czepielewski; Mary Wohltmann; Mary G Sorci-Thomas; Brad W Warner; Gwendalyn J Randolph Journal: Science Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Anna E Bortnick; Petra Buzkova; James D Otvos; Majken K Jensen; Michael Y Tsai; Matthew J Budoff; Rachel H Mackey; Samar R El Khoudary; Elda Favari; Ryung S Kim; Carlos J Rodriguez; George Thanassoulis; Jorge R Kizer Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 10.514