Benefits and limitations of statin use in primary cardiovascular prevention : recent advances

The status of low‑density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is strong as an essential cause of atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASCVD) and primary target of lipid lowering. Drugs affecting primarily LDL choles‑ terol through an increase of LDL receptor expression are the backbone of current therapy, and generic statins are generally safe, effective, and inexpensive drugs serving this purpose. Statins are indicated for practically all patients in secondary prevention, whereas treatment in primary prevention (healthy individuals) is based on a calculated 10‑year risk of ASCVD. At “borderline” (from 5% to “intermediate” (from 7.5% to for accurate assessment of the individual risk. The calculation of a lifetime risk instead of the 10‑year risk can be especially useful in younger people. More information about the benefits and risks of statins in primary prevention in older people (>70 years of age) will be provided by ongoing randomized and controlled trials (STAREE and PREVENTABLE). In this narrative review, I shall present recent advances in the use of statins in younger and older healthy people, and discuss their benefits and potential risks. I also raise a question whether with the current evidence base, most people in affluent societies would benefit from taking statins.Peer reviewe

Role of Statin Therapy in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Elderly Patients

Purpose of ReviewHypercholesterolemia and statin treatment are nowadays common among people older than 75years, but clinical heterogeneity in this increasing age group is wide, and treatment decisions may differ from those in younger patients. Aim is to discuss the presentation, modifying factors, and treatment decisions of hypercholesterolemia (usually with statins) in older persons and focusing on primary prevention.Recent FindingsThere are no randomized controlled trials in persons older than 80years at baseline. Randomized controlled trial findings in younger patients and 75+ subgroups and in observational studies support treatment in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but trial evidence in primary prevention is less clear. Available data do not imply specific harms in older patients, and, therefore, also, judicious primary prevention is possible. However, persons older than 75years are biologically a very heterogeneous group with frequent frailty, comorbid conditions, and multiple concomitant drugs. All these, as well as personal preferences, must be taken into account in treatment decisions.SummaryStatin treatment is only one way to prevent ASCVD in older people. Treatment of hypercholesterolemia should be started far before 75-80years, and there is no need to discontinue statin treatment due to chronological age alone. After 75years, treatment should be started in patients with ASCVD and judiciously in primary prevention. Like all prevention, statin treatment should be discontinued when palliative treatment is started. Ongoing and planned trials in 70+ individuals will give more information about primary prevention in older persons.Peer reviewe

Clinical trials in older people

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) usually provide the best evidence for treatments and management. Historically, older people have often been excluded from clinical medication trials due to age, multimorbidity and disabilities. The situation is improving, but still the external validity of many trials may be questioned. Individuals participating in trials are generally less complex than many patients seen in geriatric clinics. Recruitment and retention of older participants are particular challenges in clinical trials. Multiple channels are needed for successful recruitment, and especially individuals experiencing frailty, multimorbidity and disabilities require support to participate. Cognitive decline is common, and often proxies are needed to sign informed consent forms. Older people may fall ill or become tired during the trial, and therefore, special support and empathic study personnel are necessary for the successful retention of participants. Besides the risk of participants dropping out, several other pitfalls may result in underestimating or overestimating the intervention effects. In nonpharmacological trials, imperfect blinding is often unavoidable. Interventions must be designed intensively and be long enough to reveal differences between the intervention and control groups, as control participants must still receive the best normal care available. Outcome measures should be relevant to older people, sensitive to change and targeted to the specific population in the trial. Missing values in measurements are common and should be accounted for when designing the trial. Despite the obstacles, RCTs in geriatrics must be promoted. Reliable evidence is needed for the successful treatment, management and care of older people.Non peer reviewe

Contributions of vascular and Alzheimer's disease pathology to dementia

Non peer reviewe

SGLT-2 inhibitors for people with type 2 diabetes

Non peer reviewe

From Frailty to Gerastenia

Seethe Reply by .Non peer reviewe

Retirement as a predictor of physical functioning trajectories among older businessmen

Background Associations between retirement characteristics and consequent physical functioning (PF) are poorly understood, particularly in higher socioeconomic groups, where postponing retirement has had both positive and negative implications for PF. Methods Multiple assessments of PF, the first of which at the mean age of 73.3 years, were performed on 1709 men who were retired business executives and managers, using the RAND-36/SF-36 instrument, between 2000 and 2010. Questionnaire data on retirement age and type of pension was gathered in 2000. Five distinct PF trajectories were created using latent growth mixture modelling. Mortality- and covariate-adjusted multinomial regression models were used to estimate multinomial Odds Ratios (mOR) on the association between retirement characteristics and PF trajectories. Results A one-year increase in retirement age was associated with decreased likelihood of being classified in the 'consistently low' (fully adjusted mOR = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.70, 0.97; P = 0.007), 'intermediate and declining' (mOR = 0.89; 95%CI = 0.83, 0.96; P = 0.002), and 'high and declining' (mOR = 0.92; 95%CI = 0.87, 0.98; P = 0.006) trajectories, relative to the 'intact' PF trajectory. Compared to old age pensioners, disability pensioners were more likely to be classified in the 'consistently low' (mOR = 23.77; 95% CI 2.13, 265.04; P = 0.010), 'intermediate and declining' (mOR = 8.24; 95%CI = 2.58, 26.35; P < 0.001), and 'high and declining' (mOR = 2.71; 95%CI = 1.17, 6.28; P = 0.020) PF trajectories, relative to the 'intact' PF trajectory. Conclusions Among executives and managers, older age at retirement was associated with better trajectories of PF in old age. Compared to old age pensioners, those transitioning into disability and early old age pensions were at risk of having consistently lower PF in old age.Peer reviewe

A tale of two therapies lipid-lowering vs. anti-inflammatory therapy : a false dichotomy?

Non peer reviewe

A tale of two therapies lipid-lowering vs. anti-inflammatory therapy : a false dichotomy?

Non peer reviewe

Retirement age and type as predictors of frailty : a retrospective cohort study of older businessmen

Objectives To study the association between retirement characteristics and frailty in a homogenous population of former business executives. Design Cross-sectional cohort study using data from the Helsinki Businessmen Study. Setting Helsinki, Finland. Participants 1324 Caucasian men, born in 1919-1934, who had worked as business executives and managers and of whom 95.9% had retired by the year 2000. Questions on age at and type of retirement, lifestyle and chronic conditions were embedded in questionnaires. Primary and secondary outcome measures Frailty assessed according to a modified phenotype definition at mean age 73.3 years. Results Mean age at retirement was 61.3 years (SD 4.3) and 37.1% had retired due to old age. The prevalence of frailty was lowest among men retiring at ages 66-67 years but increased among those who worked up to age 70 years or older. Compared with men who retired before age 55 years, those retiring at ages 58-69 years were at decreased risk of frailty in old age relative to non-frailty (adjusted ORs 0.07-0.29, pPeer reviewe