Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Femoral Head Size and Wear of Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene at 5 to 8 Years

Wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene is reportedly independent of head size. To confirm that observation we asked in our population whether head size related to wear with one type of electron beam highly cross-linked polyethylene. Of 146 hips implanted, we evaluated complete clinical and radiographic data for 90 patients (102 hips or 70%). The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 5.7 years; range, 5–8 years). The head size was selected intraoperatively based on the size of the acetabular component and presumed risk of dislocation. Polyethylene wear measurements were performed in one experienced laboratory using the method of Martell et al. There was no hip with pelvic or femoral osteolysis. The median linear wear rate was 0.028 mm/year (mean, 0.04 mm/year), and the median volumetric wear rate was 25.6 mm3/year (mean, 80.5 mm3/year). Median total volumetric wear was 41.0 mm3 (mean, 98.5 mm3). We found no association between femoral head size and the linear wear rate, but observed an association between larger (36- and 40-mm) head size and volumetric wear rate and total volumetric wear. Although the linear wear rate of polyethylene was not related to femoral head diameter, there was greater volumetric wear (156.6 mm3/year) with the 36- and 40-mm heads. Pending long-term studies of large head sizes, we advise caution in using larger femoral heads in young or active patients and in those with a low risk of dislocation

The case of GWAS of obesity: does body weight control play by the rules?

As yet, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have not added much to our understanding of the mechanisms of body weight control and of the etiology of obesity. This shortcoming is widely attributed to the complexity of the issues. The appeal of this explanation notwithstanding, we surmise that (i) an oversimplification of the phenotype (namely by the use of crude anthropometric traits) and (ii) a lack of sound concepts of body weight control and, thus, a lack of a clear research focus have impeded better insights most. The idea of searching for polygenetic mechanisms underlying common forms of obesity was born out of the impressive findings made for monogenetic forms of extreme obesity. In the case of common obesity, however, observational studies on normal weight and overweight subjects never provided any strong evidence for a tight internal control of body weight. In addition, empirical studies of weight changes in normal weight and overweight subjects revealed an intra-individual variance that was similar to inter-individual variance suggesting the absence of tight control of body weight. Not least, this lack of coerciveness is reflected by the present obesity epidemic. Finally, data on detailed body composition highlight that body weight is too heterogeneous a phenotype to be controlled as a single entity. In summary GWAS of obesity using crude anthropometric traits have likely been misled by popular heritability estimates that may have been inflated in the first place. To facilitate more robust and useful insights into the mechanisms of internal control of human body weight and, consequently, the genetic basis of obesity, we argue in favor of a broad discussion between scientists from the areas of integrative physiologic and of genomics. This discussion should aim at better conceived studies employing biologically more meaningful phenotypes based on in depth body composition analysis. To advance the scientific community—including the editors of our top journals—needs a re-launch of future GWAS of obesity