Positioning document and summary of recommendations recently published by the Working Group on Atherogenic Dyslipemia of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis and by the European Society of Arteriosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) in type 2 diabetes (DM2) should focus on the global control of dyslipidemia. The aim of this study was to determine how hospital (MSs) and primary care specialist (GPs) from Spain manage AD in DM2 during their daily practice.
METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional, multicentric study was conducted. Information about daily practice was obtained from 497 MSs and 872 GPs across Spain.
RESULTS: 66% of MSs and 30.5% of GPs considered DM2 patients to be high-risk. Most consider the c-LDL targets based on European guidelines. The statins most widely used are atorvastatin and simvastatin. However both MSs and GPs considered rosuvastatin to be the most appropriate statin for these patients. 82% of MSs and 68% of GPs considered that >50% of their patients achieved the c-LDL target. The main reasons of not achieving this target were lack of treatment adherence and pressure from the administration. Seventy four percent of MSs reported that there are no common clinical protocols with GPs.
CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the perception of the real cardiovascular risk of the patient, low use of more appropriate statins, lack of adherence and poor perception of real c-LDL control may contribute to the failure in achieving lipid targets in DM2.

Therapeutic objectives for patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia are achieved by improving patient compliance and adherence. Clinical practice guidelines address the importance of treatment compliance for achieving objectives. The combination of a fixed dose of pravastatin and fenofibrate increases the adherence by simplifying the drug regimen and reducing the number of daily doses. The good tolerance, the cost of the combination and the possibility of adjusting the administration to the patient\'s lifestyle helps achieve the objectives for these patients with high cardiovascular risk.

Pravafenix(®) is a fixed-dose combination of 40mg of pravastatin and 160 mg of fenofibrate. The rationale behind the use of Pravafenix(®) is based on the increased residual cardiovascular risk observed in high risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia and/or low HDL cholesterol levels despite treatment with statins in monotherapy. In this article, we review the available evidence on the clinical efficacy of Pravafenix(®), which shows complementary benefits in the overall lipid profile of high risk patients with mixed dyslipidemia not controlled with 40-mg pravastatin or 20-mg simvastatin.

Atherogenic dyslipidemia (AD) consists of the combination of an increase in very low density lipoproteins (VLDL), which results in increased plasma triglyceride (TG) levels, with a reduction of levels of high-density lipoprotein bound cholesterol (HDL-C), also accompanied by a high proportion of small and dense LDL particles. AD is considered the main cause of the residual risk of experiencing cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is still presented by any patient on treatment with statins despite maintaining low-density lipoprotein bound cholesterol (LDL-C) levels below the values considered to be the objective. Non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-c) reflects the number of atherogenic particles present in the plasma. This includes VLDL, intermediate density lipoproteins (IDL) and LDL. Non-HDL-c provides a better estimate of cardiovascular risk than LDL-c, especially in the presence of hypertriglyceridemia or AD. The European guidelines for managing dyslipidemia recommend that non-HDL-c values be less than 100 and 130 mg/dL for individuals with very high and high cardiovascular risk, respectively. However, these guidelines state that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that raising HDL-c levels incontrovertibly results in a reduction in CVD. Therefore, the guidelines do not set recommended HDL-c levels as a therapeutic objective. The guidelines, however, state that individuals with AD on treatment with statins could benefit from an additional reduction in their risk by using fibrates.

OBJECTIVE: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is characterized by increased triglyceride levels and reduced HDL cholesterol levels, is underestimated and undertreated in clinical practice. We assessed its prevalence and the achievement of therapeutic objectives for HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels in patients treated at lipid and vascular risk units in Spain.
METHODS: This was an observational, longitudinal, retrospective, multicenter study performed in 14 autonomous Spanish communities that consecutively included 1828 patients aged ≥18 years who were referred for dyslipidemia and vascular risk to 43 lipid clinics accredited by the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis. We collected information from the medical records corresponding to 2 visits conducted during 2010 and 2011-12, respectively.
RESULTS: Of the 1649 patients who had a lipid profile in the first visit (90.2%), 295 (17.9%) had atherogenic dyslipidemia. The factors associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia were excess weight/obesity, not taking hypolipidemic drugs (statins and/or fibrates), diabetes, myocardial infarction and previous heart failure. Of the 273 (92.5%) patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia that had a lipid profile in the last visit, 44 (16.1%) achieved the therapeutic objectives for HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels. The predictors of therapeutic success were normal weight and normoglycemia.
CONCLUSIONS: One of every 6 patients treated in lipid and vascular risk units had atherogenic dyslipidemia. The degree to which the therapeutic goals for HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels were achieved in these patients was very low.

OBJECTIVE: Although atherogenic dyslipidemia is a recognized cardiovascular risk factor, it is often underassessed and thus undertreated and poorly controlled in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to reach a multidisciplinary consensus for the establishment of a set of clinical recommendations on atherogenic dyslipidemia to optimize its prevention, early detection, diagnostic evaluation, therapeutic approach, and follow-up.
METHODS: After a review of the scientific evidence, a scientific committee formulated 87 recommendations related to atherogenic dyslipidemia, which were grouped into 5 subject areas: general concepts (10 items), impact and epidemiology (4 items), cardiovascular risk (32 items), detection and diagnosis (19 items), and treatment (22 items). A 2-round modified Delphi method was conducted to compare the opinions of a panel of 65 specialists in cardiology (23%), endocrinology (24.6%), family medicine (27.7%), and internal medicine (24.6%) on these issues.
RESULTS: After the first round, the panel reached consensus on 65 of the 87 items discussed, and agreed on 76 items by the end of the second round. Insufficient consensus was reached on 3 items related to the detection and diagnosis of atherogenic dyslipidemia and 3 items related to the therapeutic goals to be achieved in these patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The external assessment conducted by experts on atherogenic dyslipidemia showed a high level of professional agreement with the proposed clinical recommendations. These recommendations represent a useful tool for improving the clinical management of patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. A detailed analysis of the current scientific evidence is required for those statements that eluded consensus.

The dyslipidaemias are conditions that are still under-diagnosed, under-treated, and poorly controlled. This condition is common to the rest of the risk factors considered fundamental. Within the dyslipidaemias, the data that we have available, generally refer to the hypercholesterolaemias or in particular to the dyslipidaemias not dependent on LDL in patients who are already being treated with statins. However, there is only limited data available on atherogenic dyslipidaemia, characterised by the elevation of triglycerides and/or a decrease in HDL-cholesterol. However, given its profile, to determine the particularities of this atherogenic dyslipidaemia could help to control this anomaly more effectively. The present study, conducted in accordance with the Delphi method, has as its purpose to demonstrate the level of agreement or disagreement of an expert group, made up from different scientific societies, on what atherogenic dyslipidaemia is and represents, as well as what is the most suitable diagnostic and therapeutic approach. It has been concluded that the level of knowledge of the epidemiological aspects, its association with cardiovascular risks, of clinical identification, and specific treatment, has reached a significant level of agreement between the experts consulted. However, some aspects have been detected that, even today, are still subject to controversy: the role of isolated hypertriglyceridaemia as a risk factor, and its consideration as a therapeutic objective both in primary and secondary prevention, the effects linked to HDL-cholesterol, and that are strictly associated with the capacity to produce cholesterol efflux, the appropriateness of the therapeutic objectives to individual particularities, as well as the need to employ - frequently - combined treatment to correctly approach the correction of the lipid profile as a whole.