To appraise the clinical and genetic evidence that low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects. Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD.

In observational analyses, higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol have been associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease events. However, whether raising HDL cholesterol levels therapeutically reduces cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) raises HDL cholesterol levels and might therefore improve cardiovascular outcomes. We randomly assigned 15,871 patients who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome to receive the CETP inhibitor dalcetrapib, at a dose of 600 mg daily, or placebo, in addition to the best available evidence-based care. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, unstable angina, or cardiac arrest with resuscitation. At the time of randomization, the mean HDL cholesterol level was 42 mg per deciliter (1.1 mmol per liter), and the mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level was 76 mg per deciliter (2.0 mmol per liter). Over the course of the trial, HDL cholesterol levels increased from baseline by 4 to 11% in the placebo group and by 31 to 40% in the dalcetrapib group. Dalcetrapib had a minimal effect on LDL cholesterol levels. Patients were followed for a median of 31 months. At a prespecified interim analysis that included 1135 primary end-point events (71% of the projected total number), the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility. As compared with placebo, dalcetrapib did not alter the risk of the primary end point (cumulative event rate, 8.0% and 8.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with dalcetrapib, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.16; P=0.52) and did not have a significant effect on any component of the primary end point or total mortality. The median C-reactive protein level was 0.2 mg per liter higher and the mean systolic blood pressure was 0.6 mm Hg higher with dalcetrapib as compared with placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons). In patients who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, dalcetrapib increased HDL cholesterol levels but did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche; dal-OUTCOMES ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00658515.)

Atherosclerosis is generally viewed as a chronic, progressive disease characterized by continuous accumulation of atheromatous plaque within the arterial wall. The last 2 decades have witnessed the introduction of a variety of antiatherosclerotic therapies, most notably the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins). Although statins rank among the most extensively studied therapies in contemporary medicine, the optimal target levels for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remain controversial. Recently, several active control trials have reported that more intensive statin therapy results in a greater reduction in adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with more moderate treatment.^1-3 Accordingly, guidelines now recommend achieving more aggressive target levels (an LDL-C level of <70 mg/dL [1.8 mmol/L]) in certain very high-risk secondary prevention patients.⁴

There are several well-documented functions of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) that may explain the ability of these lipoproteins to protect against atherosclerosis. The best recognized of these is the ability of HDL to promote the efflux of cholesterol from cells. This process may minimize the accumulation of foam cells in the artery wall. However, HDL has additional properties that may also be antiatherogenic. For example, HDL is an effective antioxidants. The major proteins of HDL, apoA-I and apoA-II, as well as other proteins such as paraoxonase that cotransport with HDL in plasma, are well-known to have antioxidant properties. As a consequence, HDL has the capacity to inhibit the oxidative modification of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) in a process that reduces the atherogenicity of these lipoproteins. HDL also possesses other antiinflammatory properties. By virtue of their ability to inhibit the expression of adhesion molecules in endothelial cells, they reduce the recruitment of blood monocytes into the artery wall. These antioxidant and antiinflammatory properties of HDL may be as important as its cholesterol efflux function in terms of protecting against the development of atherosclerosis.

Reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A reductase (statins) is the cornerstone of contemporary care for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Analysis of data within individual statin trials and through meta-analyses suggests a consistent relationship between achieving lower LDL-C levels and reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events.^1,2 In parallel, trials using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) have studied the effect of statins on coronary atherosclerosis and demonstrated a linear relationship between achieved LDL-C levels and reduction in atheroma burden.^3- 6 However, major clinical outcome trials and IVUS studies have explored a range of achieved LDL-C levels, extending to a mean of approximately 60 mg/dL.^3,5

Review from JAMA — Pioglitazone and Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus — A Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials — ContextPioglitazone is widely used for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but evidence is mixed regarding the influence of medications of this class on cardiovascular outcomes.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on ischemic cardiovascular events.Data Sources and Study SelectionA database containing individual patient-level time-to-event data collected during pioglitazone clinical trials was transferred from the drug's manufacturer for independent analysis. Trials were included if they were randomized, double-blinded, and controlled with placebo or active comparator.Data ExtractionThe primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary outcome measures included the incidence of serious heart failure. A fixed-effects approach was used to combine the estimates across the duration strata and statistical heterogeneity across all the trials was tested with the I2 statistic.Data SynthesisA total of 19 trials enrolling 16 390 patients were analyzed. Study drug treatment duration ranged from 4 months to 3.5 years. Death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 375 of 8554 patients (4.4%) receiving pioglitazone and 450 of 7836 patients (5.7%) receiving control therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.94; P = .005). Progressive separation of time-to-event curves became apparent after approximately 1 year of therapy. Individual components of the primary end point were all reduced by a similar magnitude with pioglitazone treatment, with HRs ranging from 0.80 to 0.92. Serious heart failure was reported in 200 (2.3%) of the pioglitazone-treated patients and 139 (1.8%) of the control patients (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.76; P = .002). The magnitude and direction of the favorable effect of pioglitazone on ischemic events and unfavorable effect on heart failure was homogeneous across trials of different durations, for different comparators, and for patients with or without established vascular disease. There was no evidence of heterogeneity across the trials for either end point (I2 = 0%; P = .87 for the composite end point and I2 = 0%; P = .97 for heart failure).ConclusionsPioglitazone is associated with a significantly lower risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke among a diverse population of patients with diabetes. Serious heart failure is increased by pioglitazone, although without an associated increase in mortality.