Why the study?
A causal relationship between elevated triglycerides and cardiovascular disease remains controversial because prior trials of triglyceride-lowering treatments largely failed to show significant impact on cardiovascular outcomes.
Do triglyceride-lowering treatments reduce cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia?
Do triglyceride-lowering treatments reduce cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with hypertriglyceridemia?
Although traditional triglyceride-lowering therapies like niacin and fibrates have largely failed to improve cardiovascular outcomes, icosapent ethyl significantly reduces cardiovascular events in high-risk patients on statins, likely through mechanisms beyond triglyceride reduction.
Hypertriglyceridemia may confer residual CV risk despite statins; leaves open whether targeted lowering improves outcomes in subgroups.
A causal relationship between elevated triglycerides and cardiovascular disease is controversial, as trials of triglyceride-lowering treatments have not shown significant impact on cardiovascular outcomes. However, hypertriglyceridemia is associated with atherogenesis and risk for acute cardiovascular events that persist despite optimal statin treatment. Although most trials of triglyceride-lowering treatments have been negative, in trials of niacin and fibrates, subgroup analyses in patients with higher baseline triglycerides and lower HDL-C levels suggest reduced incidence of cardiovascular endpoints. The REDUCE-IT trial demonstrated that addition of purified prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (icosapent ethyl) 4 g/day in high-risk patients with triglyceride levels 135–499 mg/dL and optimized statin treatment significantly reduced cardiovascular events versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.68–0.83; P < 0.001). Benefit was seen regardless of baseline and on-treatment triglyceride levels, suggesting that other effects of eicosapentaenoic acid besides triglyceride reduction may have played a role.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tóth et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: