On November 12, 2013, a joint task force for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association released new guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in adults.¹

This document arrives after several years of intense deliberation, 12 years after the third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) guidelines,² and 8 years after an ATP III update recommending that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels be lowered aggressively (to less than 70 mg/dL) as an option in patients at high risk.³ It represents a major shift in the approach to and management of high blood cholesterol and has sparked considerable controversy.

In the following commentary, we summarize the new guidelines and the philosophy employed by the task force in generating them. We will also examine some advantages and what we believe to be several shortcomings of the new guidelines. These latter points are illustrated through case examples.

IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS WE TRUST

In collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association formed an expert panel task force in 2008.

The task force elected to use only evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (and only predefined outcomes of the trials, not post hoc analyses) in formulating its recommendations, with the goal of providing the strongest possible evidence.

The authors state that “By using [randomized controlled trial] data to identify those most likely to benefit [emphasis in original] from cholesterol-lowering statin therapy, the recommendations will be of value to primary care clinicians as well as specialists concerned with ASCVD prevention. Importantly, the recommendations were designed to be easy to use in the clinical setting, facilitating the implementation of a strategy of risk assessment and treatment focused on the prevention of ASCVD.”³ They also state the guidelines are meant to “inform clinical judgment, not replace it” and that clinician judgment in addition to discussion with patients remains vital.

During the deliberations, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute removed itself from participating, stating its mission no longer included drafting new guidelines. Additionally, other initial members of the task force removed themselves because of disagreement and concerns about the direction of the new guidelines.

These guidelines, and their accompanying new cardiovascular risk calculator,⁴ were released without a preliminary period to allow for open discussion, comment, and critique by physicians outside the panel. No attempt was made to harmonize the guidelines with previous versions (eg, ATP III) or with current international guidelines.

WHAT’S NEW IN THE GUIDELINES?

The following are the major changes in the new guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol:

• Treatment goals for LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) are no longer recommended.
• High-intensity and moderate-intensity statin treatment is emphasized, and low-intensity statin therapy is nearly eliminated.
• “ASCVD” now includes stroke in addition to coronary heart disease and peripheral arterial disease.
• Four groups are targeted for treatment (see below).
• Nonstatin therapies have been markedly de-emphasized.
• No guidelines are provided for treating high triglyceride levels.

The new guidelines emphasize lifestyle modification as the foundation for reducing risk, regardless of cholesterol therapy. No recommendations are given for patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure or for hemodialysis patients, because there were insufficient data from randomized controlled trials to support recommendations. Similarly, the guidelines apply only to people between the ages of 40 and 75 (risk calculator ages 40–79), because the authors believed there was not enough evidence from randomized controlled trials to allow development of guidelines outside of this age range.

FOUR MAJOR STATIN TREATMENT GROUPS

The new guidelines specify four groups that merit intensive or moderately intensive statin therapy (Table 1)¹:

• People with clinical ASCVD
• People with LDL-C levels of 190 mg/dL or higher
• People with diabetes, age 40 to 75
• People without diabetes, age 40 to 75, with LDL-C levels 70–189 mg/dL, and a 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher as determined by the new risk calculator⁴ (which also calculates the lifetime risk of ASCVD).

Below, we will address each of these four groups and provide case scenarios to consider. In general, our major disagreements with the new recommendations pertain to the first and fourth categories.

GROUP 1: PEOPLE WITH CLINICAL ASCVD

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They appropriately recommend statins in the highest tolerated doses as first-line treatment for this group at high risk.
• They designate all patients with ASCVD, including those with coronary, peripheral, and cerebrovascular disease, as a high-risk group.
• Without target LDL-C levels, treatment is simpler than before, requiring less monitoring of lipid levels. (This can also be seen as a limitation, as we discuss below.)

Limitations of the new guidelines

• They make follow-up LDL-C levels irrelevant, seeming to assume that there is no gradation in residual risk and, thus, no need to tailor therapy to the individual.
• Patients no longer have a goal to strive for or a way to monitor their progress.
• The guidelines ignore the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and evidence of residual risk in patients on both moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.
• They also ignore the potential benefits of treating to lower LDL-C or non-HDL-C goals, thus eliminating consideration of multidrug therapy. They do not address patients with recurrent cardiovascular events already on maximal tolerated statin doses.
• They undermine the potential development and use of new therapies for dysplipidemia in patients with ASCVD.

Case 1: Is LDL-C 110 mg/dL low enough?

A 52-year-old African American man presents with newly discovered moderate coronary artery disease that is not severe enough to warrant stenting. He has no history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or smoking. His systolic blood pressure is 130 mm Hg, and his body mass index is 26 kg/m². He exercises regularly and follows a low-cholesterol diet. He has the following fasting lipid values:

• Total cholesterol 290 mg/dL
• HDL-C 50 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 250 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 190 mg/dL.

Two months later, after beginning atorvastatin 80 mg daily, meeting with a nutritionist, and redoubling his dietary efforts, his fasting lipid concentrations are:

• Total cholesterol 180 mg/dL
• HDL-C 55 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 75 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 110 mg/dL.

Comment: Lack of LDL-C goals is a flaw

The new guidelines call for patients with known ASCVD, such as this patient, to receive intensive statin therapy—which he got.

However, once a patient is on therapy, the new guidelines do not encourage repeating the lipid panel other than to assess compliance. With intensive therapy, we expect a reduction in LDL-C of at least 50% (Table 1), but patient-to-patient differences in response to medications are common, and without repeat testing we would have no way of gauging this patient’s residual risk.

Further, the new guidelines emphasize the lack of hard outcome data supporting the addition of another lipid-lowering drug to a statin, although they do indicate that one can consider it. In a patient at high risk, such as this one, would you be comfortable with an LDL-C value of 110 mg/dL on maximum statin therapy? Would you consider adding a nonstatin drug?

A preponderance of data shows that LDL plays a causal role in ASCVD development and adverse events. Genetic data show that the LDL particle and the LDL receptor pathway are mechanistically linked to ASCVD pathogenesis, with lifetime exposure as a critical determinant of risk.^5,6 Moreover, randomized controlled trials of statins and other studies of cholesterol-lowering show a reproducible relationship between the LDL-C level achieved and absolute risk (Figure 1).^7–24 We believe the totality of data constitutes a strong rationale for targeting LDL-C and establishing goals for lowering its levels. For these reasons, we believe that removing LDL-C goals is a fundamental flaw of the new guidelines.

The reason for the lack of data from randomized controlled trials demonstrating benefits of adding therapies to statins (when LDL-C is still high) or benefits of treating to specific goals is that no such trials have been performed. Even trials of nonpharmacologic means of lowering LDL-C, such as ileal bypass, which was used in the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias trial,²⁰ provide independent evidence that lowering LDL-C reduces the risk of ASCVD (Figure 1).

In addition, trials of nonstatin drugs, such as the Coronary Drug Project,25 which tested niacin, also showed outcome benefits. On the other hand, studies such as the Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health26 and Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events27 trials did not show additional risk reduction when niacin was added to statin therapy. However, the study designs arguably had flaws, including requirement of aggressive LDL-lowering with statins, with LDL-C levels below 70 to 80 mg/dL before randomization.

Therefore, these trials do not tell us what to do for a patient on maximal intensive therapy who has recurrent ASCVD events or who, like our patient, has an LDL-C level higher than previous targets.

For this patient, we would recommend adding a second medication to further lower his LDL-C, but discussing with him the absence of proven benefit in clinical trials and the risks of side effects. At present, lacking LDL-C goals in the new guidelines, we are keeping with the ATP III goals to help guide therapeutic choices and individualize patient management.

GROUP 2: PEOPLE WITH LDL-C ≥ 190

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They state that these patients should receive statins in the highest tolerated doses, which is universally accepted.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• The new guidelines mention only that one “may consider” adding a second agent if LDL-C remains above 190 mg/dL after maximum-dose therapy. Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or other severe forms of hypercholesterolemia typically end up on multidrug therapy to further reduce LDL-C. The absence of randomized controlled trial data in this setting to show an additive value of second and third lipid-lowering agents does not mean these agents do not provide benefit.

GROUP 3: DIABETES, AGE 40–75, LDL-C 70–189, NO CLINICAL ASCVD

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They call for aggressive treatment of people with diabetes, a group at high risk that derives significant benefit from statin therapy, as shown in randomized controlled trials.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• Although high-intensity statin therapy is indicated for this group, we believe that, using the new risk calculator, some patients may receive overly aggressive treatment, thus increasing the possibility of statin side effects.
• The guidelines do not address patients younger than 40 or older than 75.
• Diabetic patients have a high residual risk of ASCVD events, even on statin therapy. Yet the guidelines ignore the potential benefits of more aggressive LDL-lowering or non-LDL secondary targets for therapy.

Case 2: How low is too low?

A 63-year-old white woman, a nonsmoker with recently diagnosed diabetes, is seen by her primary care physician. She has hypertension, for which she takes lisinopril 5 mg daily. Her fasting lipid values are:

• Total cholesterol 160 mg/dL
• HDL-C 64 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 100 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 76 mg/dL.

Her systolic blood pressure is 129 mm Hg, and based on the new risk calculator, her 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is 10.2%. According to the new guidelines, she should be started on high-intensity statin treatment (Table 1).

Although this is an acceptable initial course of action, it necessitates close vigilance, since it may actually drive her LDL-C level too low. Randomized controlled trials have typically used an LDL-C concentration of less than or equal to 25 mg/dL as the safety cutoff. With a typical LDL-C reduction of at least 50% on high-intensity statins, our patient’s expected LDL-C level will likely be in the low 30s. We believe this would be a good outcome, provided that she tolerates the medication without adverse effects. However, responses to statins vary from patient to patient.

High-intensity statin therapy may not be necessary to reduce risk adequately in all patients who have diabetes without preexisting vascular disease. The Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study¹² compared atorvastatin 10 mg vs placebo in people with type 2 diabetes, age 40 to 75, who had one or more cardiovascular risk factors but no signs or symptoms of preexisting ASCVD and who had only average or below-average cholesterol levels—precisely like this patient. The trial was terminated early because of a clear benefit (a 37% reduction in the composite end point of major adverse cardiovascular events) in the intervention group. For our patient, we believe an alternative and acceptable approach would be to begin moderate-intensity statin therapy (eg, with atorvastatin 10 mg) (Table 1).

Alternatively, in a patient with diabetes and previous atherosclerotic vascular disease or with a high 10-year risk and high LDL-C, limiting treatment to high-intensity statin therapy by itself may deny them the potential benefits of combination therapies and targeting to lower LDL-C levels or non-HDL-C secondary targets. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association²⁸ and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists²⁹ continue to recommend an LDL-C goal of less than 70 mg/dL in patients at high risk, a non-HDL-C less than 100 mg/dL, an apolipoprotein B less than 80 mg/dL, and an LDL particle number less than 1,000 nmol/L.

GROUP 4: AGE 40–75, LDL-C 70–189, NO ASCVD, BUT 10-YEAR RISK ≥ 7.5%

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They may reduce ASCVD events for patients at higher risk.
• The risk calculator is easy to use and focuses on global risk, ie, all forms of ASCVD.
• The guidelines promote discussion of risks and benefits between patients and providers.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• The new risk calculator is controversial (see below).
• There is potential for overtreatment, particularly in older patients.
• There is potential for undertreatment, particularly in patients with an elevated LDL-C but whose 10-year risk is less than 7.5% because they are young.
• The guidelines do not address patients younger than 40 or older than 75.
• They do not take into account some traditional risk factors, such as family history, and nontraditional risk factors such as C-reactive protein as measured by ultrasensitive assays, lipoprotein(a), and apolipoprotein B.

Risk calculator controversy

The new risk calculator has aroused strong opinions on both sides of the aisle.

Shortly after the new guidelines were released, cardiologists Dr. Paul Ridker and Dr. Nancy Cook from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston published analyses³⁰ showing that the new risk calculator, which was based on older data from several large cohorts such as the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study,³¹ the Cardiovascular Health Study,³² the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study,³³ and the Framingham Heart Study,^34,35 was inaccurate in other cohorts. Specifically, in more-recent cohorts (the Women’s Health Study,³⁶ Physicians’ Health Study,³⁷ and Women’s Health Initiative³⁸), the new calculator overestimates the 10-year risk of ASCVD by 75% to 150%.³⁰ Using the new calculator would make approximately 30 million more Americans eligible for statin treatment. The concern is that patients at lower risk would be treated and exposed to potential side effects of statin therapy.

In addition, the risk calculator relies heavily on age and sex and does not include other factors such as triglyceride level, family history, C-reactive protein, or lipoprotein(a). Importantly, and somewhat ironically given the otherwise absolute adherence to randomized controlled trial data for guideline development, the risk calculator has never been verified in prospective studies to adequately show that using it reduces ASCVD events.

Based on the risk calculator, essentially any African American man in his early 60s with no other risk factors has a 10-year risk of ASCVD of 7.5% or higher and, according to the new guidelines, should receive at least moderate-intensity statin therapy.

For example, consider a 64-year-old African American man whose systolic blood pressure is 129 mm Hg, who does not smoke, does not have diabetes, and does not have hypertension, and whose total cholesterol level is 180 mg/dL, HDL-C 70 mg/dL, triglycerides 130 mg/dL, and calculated LDL-C 84 mg/dL. His calculated 10-year risk is, surprisingly, 7.5%.

Alternatively, his twin brother is a two-pack-per-day smoker with untreated hypertension and systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg, with fasting total cholesterol 153 mg/dL, HDL-C 70 mg/dL, triglycerides 60 mg/dL, and LDL-C 71 mg/dL. His calculated 10-year risk is 10.5%, so according to the new guidelines, he too should receive high-intensity statin therapy. Yet this patient clearly needs better blood pressure control and smoking cessation as his primary risk-reduction efforts, not a statin. While assessing global risk is important, a shortcoming of the new guidelines is that they can inappropriately lead to treating the risk score, not individualizing the treatment to the patient. Because of the errors inherent in the risk calculator, some experts have called for a temporary halt on implementing the new guidelines until the risk calculator can be further validated. In November 2013, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology reaffirmed their support of the new guidelines and recommended that they be implemented as planned. As of the time this manuscript goes to print, there are no plans to halt implementation of the new guidelines.

Case 4: Undertreating a primary prevention patient

A 25-year-old white man with no medical history has a total cholesterol level of 310 mg/dL, HDL-C 50 mg/dL, triglycerides 400 mg/dL, and calculated LDL-C 180 mg/dL. He does not smoke or have hypertension or diabetes but has a strong family history of premature coronary disease (his father died of myocardial infarction at age 42). His body mass index is 25 kg/m². Because he is less than 40 years old, the risk calculator does not apply to him.

If we assume he remains untreated and returns at age 40 with the same clinical factors and laboratory values, his calculated 10-year risk of an ASCVD event according to the new risk calculator will still be only 3.1%. Assuming his medical history remains unchanged as he continues to age, his 10-year risk would not reach 7.5% until he is 58. Would you feel comfortable waiting 33 years before starting statin therapy in this patient?

Waiting for dyslipidemic patients to reach middle age before starting LDL-C-lowering therapy is a failure of prevention. For practical reasons, there are no data from randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes in younger people. Nevertheless, a tenet of preventive cardiology is that cumulative exposure accelerates the “vascular age” ahead of the chronological age. This case illustrates why individualized recommendations guided by LDL-C goals as a target for therapy are needed. For this 25-year-old patient, we would recommend starting an intermediate- or high-potency statin.

Case 5: Rheumatoid arthritis

A 60-year-old postmenopausal white woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis presents for cholesterol evaluation. Her total cholesterol level is 235 mg/dL, HDL-C 50 mg/dL, and LDL-C 165 mg/dL. She does not smoke or have hypertension or diabetes. Her systolic blood pressure is 110 mm Hg. She has elevated C-reactive protein on an ultrasensitive assay and elevated lipoprotein(a).

Her calculated 10-year risk of ASCVD is 3.0%. Assuming her medical history remains the same, she would not reach a calculated 10-year risk of at least 7.5% until age 70. We suggest starting moderate- or high-dose statin therapy in this case, based on data (not from randomized controlled trials) showing an increased risk of ASCVD events in patients with rheumatologic disease, increased lipoprotein(a), and inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein. However, the current guidelines do not address this scenario, other than to suggest that clinician consideration can be given to other risk markers such as these, and that these findings should be discussed in detail with the patient. The Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin trial¹⁶ showed a dramatic ASCVD risk reduction in just such patients (Figure 1).

APPLAUSE—AND RESERVATIONS

The newest guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol represent a monumental shift away from using target levels of LDL-C and non-HDL-C and toward a focus on statin intensity for patients in the four highest-risk groups.

We applaud the expert panel for its idealistic approach of using only data from randomized controlled trials, for placing more emphasis on higher-intensity statin treatment, for including stroke in the new definition of ASCVD, and for focusing more attention on treating diabetic patients more aggressively. Simplifying the guidelines is a noble goal. Emphasizing moderate-to-high-intensity statin therapy in patients at moderate-to-high risk should have substantial long-term public health benefits.

However, as we have shown in the case examples, there are significant limitations, and some patients can end up being overtreated, while others may be undertreated.

Guidelines need to be crafted by looking at all the evidence, including the pathophysiology of the disease process, not just data from randomized controlled trials. It is difficult to implement a guideline that on one hand used randomized controlled trials exclusively for recommendations, but on the other hand used an untested risk calculator to guide therapy. Randomized controlled trials are not available for every scenario.

Further, absence of randomized controlled trial data in a given scenario should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of benefit. An example of this is a primary-prevention patient under age 40 with elevated LDL-C below the 190 mg/dL cutoff who otherwise is healthy and without risk factors (eg, Case 4). By disregarding all evidence that is not from randomized controlled trials, the expert panel fails to account for the extensive pathophysiology of ASCVD, which often begins at a young age and takes decades to develop.^5,6,39 An entire generation of patients who have not reached the age of inclusion in most randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes is excluded (unless the LDL-C level is very high), potentially setting back decades of progress in the field of prevention. Prevention only works if started. With childhood and young adult obesity sharply rising, we should not fail to address the under-40-year-old patient population in our guidelines.

Guidelines are designed to be expert opinion, not to dictate practice. Focusing on the individual patient instead of the general population at risk, the expert panel appropriately emphasizes the “importance of clinician judgment, weighing potential benefits, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions and patient preferences.” However, by excluding all data that do not come from randomized controlled trials, the panel neglects a very large base of knowledge and leaves many clinicians without as much expert opinion as we had hoped for.

LDL-C goals are important: they provide a scorecard to help the patient with lifestyle and dietary changes. They provide the health care provider guidance in making treatment decisions and focusing on treatment of a single patient, not a population. Moreover, if a patient has difficulty taking standard doses of statins because of side effects, the absence of LDL-C goals makes decision-making nearly impossible. We hope physicians will rely on LDL-C goals in such situations, falling back on the ATP III recommendations, although many patients may simply go untreated until they present with ASCVD or until they “age in” to a higher risk category.

We suggest caution in strict adherence to the new guidelines and instead urge physicians to consider a hybrid of the old guidelines (using the ATP III LDL-C goals) and the new ones (emphasizing global risk assessment and high-intensity statin treatment).

On November 12, 2013, a joint task force for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association released new guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in adults.¹

This document arrives after several years of intense deliberation, 12 years after the third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) guidelines,² and 8 years after an ATP III update recommending that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels be lowered aggressively (to less than 70 mg/dL) as an option in patients at high risk.³ It represents a major shift in the approach to and management of high blood cholesterol and has sparked considerable controversy.

In the following commentary, we summarize the new guidelines and the philosophy employed by the task force in generating them. We will also examine some advantages and what we believe to be several shortcomings of the new guidelines. These latter points are illustrated through case examples.

IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS WE TRUST

In collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association formed an expert panel task force in 2008.

The task force elected to use only evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (and only predefined outcomes of the trials, not post hoc analyses) in formulating its recommendations, with the goal of providing the strongest possible evidence.

The authors state that “By using [randomized controlled trial] data to identify those most likely to benefit [emphasis in original] from cholesterol-lowering statin therapy, the recommendations will be of value to primary care clinicians as well as specialists concerned with ASCVD prevention. Importantly, the recommendations were designed to be easy to use in the clinical setting, facilitating the implementation of a strategy of risk assessment and treatment focused on the prevention of ASCVD.”³ They also state the guidelines are meant to “inform clinical judgment, not replace it” and that clinician judgment in addition to discussion with patients remains vital.

During the deliberations, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute removed itself from participating, stating its mission no longer included drafting new guidelines. Additionally, other initial members of the task force removed themselves because of disagreement and concerns about the direction of the new guidelines.

These guidelines, and their accompanying new cardiovascular risk calculator,⁴ were released without a preliminary period to allow for open discussion, comment, and critique by physicians outside the panel. No attempt was made to harmonize the guidelines with previous versions (eg, ATP III) or with current international guidelines.

WHAT’S NEW IN THE GUIDELINES?

The following are the major changes in the new guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol:

• Treatment goals for LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) are no longer recommended.
• High-intensity and moderate-intensity statin treatment is emphasized, and low-intensity statin therapy is nearly eliminated.
• “ASCVD” now includes stroke in addition to coronary heart disease and peripheral arterial disease.
• Four groups are targeted for treatment (see below).
• Nonstatin therapies have been markedly de-emphasized.
• No guidelines are provided for treating high triglyceride levels.

The new guidelines emphasize lifestyle modification as the foundation for reducing risk, regardless of cholesterol therapy. No recommendations are given for patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure or for hemodialysis patients, because there were insufficient data from randomized controlled trials to support recommendations. Similarly, the guidelines apply only to people between the ages of 40 and 75 (risk calculator ages 40–79), because the authors believed there was not enough evidence from randomized controlled trials to allow development of guidelines outside of this age range.

FOUR MAJOR STATIN TREATMENT GROUPS

The new guidelines specify four groups that merit intensive or moderately intensive statin therapy (Table 1)¹:

• People with clinical ASCVD
• People with LDL-C levels of 190 mg/dL or higher
• People with diabetes, age 40 to 75
• People without diabetes, age 40 to 75, with LDL-C levels 70–189 mg/dL, and a 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher as determined by the new risk calculator⁴ (which also calculates the lifetime risk of ASCVD).

Below, we will address each of these four groups and provide case scenarios to consider. In general, our major disagreements with the new recommendations pertain to the first and fourth categories.

GROUP 1: PEOPLE WITH CLINICAL ASCVD

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They appropriately recommend statins in the highest tolerated doses as first-line treatment for this group at high risk.
• They designate all patients with ASCVD, including those with coronary, peripheral, and cerebrovascular disease, as a high-risk group.
• Without target LDL-C levels, treatment is simpler than before, requiring less monitoring of lipid levels. (This can also be seen as a limitation, as we discuss below.)

Limitations of the new guidelines

• They make follow-up LDL-C levels irrelevant, seeming to assume that there is no gradation in residual risk and, thus, no need to tailor therapy to the individual.
• Patients no longer have a goal to strive for or a way to monitor their progress.
• The guidelines ignore the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and evidence of residual risk in patients on both moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.
• They also ignore the potential benefits of treating to lower LDL-C or non-HDL-C goals, thus eliminating consideration of multidrug therapy. They do not address patients with recurrent cardiovascular events already on maximal tolerated statin doses.
• They undermine the potential development and use of new therapies for dysplipidemia in patients with ASCVD.

Case 1: Is LDL-C 110 mg/dL low enough?

A 52-year-old African American man presents with newly discovered moderate coronary artery disease that is not severe enough to warrant stenting. He has no history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or smoking. His systolic blood pressure is 130 mm Hg, and his body mass index is 26 kg/m². He exercises regularly and follows a low-cholesterol diet. He has the following fasting lipid values:

• Total cholesterol 290 mg/dL
• HDL-C 50 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 250 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 190 mg/dL.

Two months later, after beginning atorvastatin 80 mg daily, meeting with a nutritionist, and redoubling his dietary efforts, his fasting lipid concentrations are:

• Total cholesterol 180 mg/dL
• HDL-C 55 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 75 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 110 mg/dL.

Comment: Lack of LDL-C goals is a flaw

The new guidelines call for patients with known ASCVD, such as this patient, to receive intensive statin therapy—which he got.

However, once a patient is on therapy, the new guidelines do not encourage repeating the lipid panel other than to assess compliance. With intensive therapy, we expect a reduction in LDL-C of at least 50% (Table 1), but patient-to-patient differences in response to medications are common, and without repeat testing we would have no way of gauging this patient’s residual risk.

Further, the new guidelines emphasize the lack of hard outcome data supporting the addition of another lipid-lowering drug to a statin, although they do indicate that one can consider it. In a patient at high risk, such as this one, would you be comfortable with an LDL-C value of 110 mg/dL on maximum statin therapy? Would you consider adding a nonstatin drug?

A preponderance of data shows that LDL plays a causal role in ASCVD development and adverse events. Genetic data show that the LDL particle and the LDL receptor pathway are mechanistically linked to ASCVD pathogenesis, with lifetime exposure as a critical determinant of risk.^5,6 Moreover, randomized controlled trials of statins and other studies of cholesterol-lowering show a reproducible relationship between the LDL-C level achieved and absolute risk (Figure 1).^7–24 We believe the totality of data constitutes a strong rationale for targeting LDL-C and establishing goals for lowering its levels. For these reasons, we believe that removing LDL-C goals is a fundamental flaw of the new guidelines.

The reason for the lack of data from randomized controlled trials demonstrating benefits of adding therapies to statins (when LDL-C is still high) or benefits of treating to specific goals is that no such trials have been performed. Even trials of nonpharmacologic means of lowering LDL-C, such as ileal bypass, which was used in the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias trial,²⁰ provide independent evidence that lowering LDL-C reduces the risk of ASCVD (Figure 1).

In addition, trials of nonstatin drugs, such as the Coronary Drug Project,25 which tested niacin, also showed outcome benefits. On the other hand, studies such as the Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health26 and Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events27 trials did not show additional risk reduction when niacin was added to statin therapy. However, the study designs arguably had flaws, including requirement of aggressive LDL-lowering with statins, with LDL-C levels below 70 to 80 mg/dL before randomization.

Therefore, these trials do not tell us what to do for a patient on maximal intensive therapy who has recurrent ASCVD events or who, like our patient, has an LDL-C level higher than previous targets.

For this patient, we would recommend adding a second medication to further lower his LDL-C, but discussing with him the absence of proven benefit in clinical trials and the risks of side effects. At present, lacking LDL-C goals in the new guidelines, we are keeping with the ATP III goals to help guide therapeutic choices and individualize patient management.

GROUP 2: PEOPLE WITH LDL-C ≥ 190

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They state that these patients should receive statins in the highest tolerated doses, which is universally accepted.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• The new guidelines mention only that one “may consider” adding a second agent if LDL-C remains above 190 mg/dL after maximum-dose therapy. Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or other severe forms of hypercholesterolemia typically end up on multidrug therapy to further reduce LDL-C. The absence of randomized controlled trial data in this setting to show an additive value of second and third lipid-lowering agents does not mean these agents do not provide benefit.

GROUP 3: DIABETES, AGE 40–75, LDL-C 70–189, NO CLINICAL ASCVD

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They call for aggressive treatment of people with diabetes, a group at high risk that derives significant benefit from statin therapy, as shown in randomized controlled trials.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• Although high-intensity statin therapy is indicated for this group, we believe that, using the new risk calculator, some patients may receive overly aggressive treatment, thus increasing the possibility of statin side effects.
• The guidelines do not address patients younger than 40 or older than 75.
• Diabetic patients have a high residual risk of ASCVD events, even on statin therapy. Yet the guidelines ignore the potential benefits of more aggressive LDL-lowering or non-LDL secondary targets for therapy.

Case 2: How low is too low?

A 63-year-old white woman, a nonsmoker with recently diagnosed diabetes, is seen by her primary care physician. She has hypertension, for which she takes lisinopril 5 mg daily. Her fasting lipid values are:

• Total cholesterol 160 mg/dL
• HDL-C 64 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 100 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 76 mg/dL.

Her systolic blood pressure is 129 mm Hg, and based on the new risk calculator, her 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is 10.2%. According to the new guidelines, she should be started on high-intensity statin treatment (Table 1).

Although this is an acceptable initial course of action, it necessitates close vigilance, since it may actually drive her LDL-C level too low. Randomized controlled trials have typically used an LDL-C concentration of less than or equal to 25 mg/dL as the safety cutoff. With a typical LDL-C reduction of at least 50% on high-intensity statins, our patient’s expected LDL-C level will likely be in the low 30s. We believe this would be a good outcome, provided that she tolerates the medication without adverse effects. However, responses to statins vary from patient to patient.

High-intensity statin therapy may not be necessary to reduce risk adequately in all patients who have diabetes without preexisting vascular disease. The Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study¹² compared atorvastatin 10 mg vs placebo in people with type 2 diabetes, age 40 to 75, who had one or more cardiovascular risk factors but no signs or symptoms of preexisting ASCVD and who had only average or below-average cholesterol levels—precisely like this patient. The trial was terminated early because of a clear benefit (a 37% reduction in the composite end point of major adverse cardiovascular events) in the intervention group. For our patient, we believe an alternative and acceptable approach would be to begin moderate-intensity statin therapy (eg, with atorvastatin 10 mg) (Table 1).

Alternatively, in a patient with diabetes and previous atherosclerotic vascular disease or with a high 10-year risk and high LDL-C, limiting treatment to high-intensity statin therapy by itself may deny them the potential benefits of combination therapies and targeting to lower LDL-C levels or non-HDL-C secondary targets. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association²⁸ and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists²⁹ continue to recommend an LDL-C goal of less than 70 mg/dL in patients at high risk, a non-HDL-C less than 100 mg/dL, an apolipoprotein B less than 80 mg/dL, and an LDL particle number less than 1,000 nmol/L.

GROUP 4: AGE 40–75, LDL-C 70–189, NO ASCVD, BUT 10-YEAR RISK ≥ 7.5%

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They may reduce ASCVD events for patients at higher risk.
• The risk calculator is easy to use and focuses on global risk, ie, all forms of ASCVD.
• The guidelines promote discussion of risks and benefits between patients and providers.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• The new risk calculator is controversial (see below).
• There is potential for overtreatment, particularly in older patients.
• There is potential for undertreatment, particularly in patients with an elevated LDL-C but whose 10-year risk is less than 7.5% because they are young.
• The guidelines do not address patients younger than 40 or older than 75.
• They do not take into account some traditional risk factors, such as family history, and nontraditional risk factors such as C-reactive protein as measured by ultrasensitive assays, lipoprotein(a), and apolipoprotein B.

Risk calculator controversy

The new risk calculator has aroused strong opinions on both sides of the aisle.

Shortly after the new guidelines were released, cardiologists Dr. Paul Ridker and Dr. Nancy Cook from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston published analyses³⁰ showing that the new risk calculator, which was based on older data from several large cohorts such as the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study,³¹ the Cardiovascular Health Study,³² the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study,³³ and the Framingham Heart Study,^34,35 was inaccurate in other cohorts. Specifically, in more-recent cohorts (the Women’s Health Study,³⁶ Physicians’ Health Study,³⁷ and Women’s Health Initiative³⁸), the new calculator overestimates the 10-year risk of ASCVD by 75% to 150%.³⁰ Using the new calculator would make approximately 30 million more Americans eligible for statin treatment. The concern is that patients at lower risk would be treated and exposed to potential side effects of statin therapy.

In addition, the risk calculator relies heavily on age and sex and does not include other factors such as triglyceride level, family history, C-reactive protein, or lipoprotein(a). Importantly, and somewhat ironically given the otherwise absolute adherence to randomized controlled trial data for guideline development, the risk calculator has never been verified in prospective studies to adequately show that using it reduces ASCVD events.

Based on the risk calculator, essentially any African American man in his early 60s with no other risk factors has a 10-year risk of ASCVD of 7.5% or higher and, according to the new guidelines, should receive at least moderate-intensity statin therapy.

For example, consider a 64-year-old African American man whose systolic blood pressure is 129 mm Hg, who does not smoke, does not have diabetes, and does not have hypertension, and whose total cholesterol level is 180 mg/dL, HDL-C 70 mg/dL, triglycerides 130 mg/dL, and calculated LDL-C 84 mg/dL. His calculated 10-year risk is, surprisingly, 7.5%.

Alternatively, his twin brother is a two-pack-per-day smoker with untreated hypertension and systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg, with fasting total cholesterol 153 mg/dL, HDL-C 70 mg/dL, triglycerides 60 mg/dL, and LDL-C 71 mg/dL. His calculated 10-year risk is 10.5%, so according to the new guidelines, he too should receive high-intensity statin therapy. Yet this patient clearly needs better blood pressure control and smoking cessation as his primary risk-reduction efforts, not a statin. While assessing global risk is important, a shortcoming of the new guidelines is that they can inappropriately lead to treating the risk score, not individualizing the treatment to the patient. Because of the errors inherent in the risk calculator, some experts have called for a temporary halt on implementing the new guidelines until the risk calculator can be further validated. In November 2013, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology reaffirmed their support of the new guidelines and recommended that they be implemented as planned. As of the time this manuscript goes to print, there are no plans to halt implementation of the new guidelines.

Case 4: Undertreating a primary prevention patient

A 25-year-old white man with no medical history has a total cholesterol level of 310 mg/dL, HDL-C 50 mg/dL, triglycerides 400 mg/dL, and calculated LDL-C 180 mg/dL. He does not smoke or have hypertension or diabetes but has a strong family history of premature coronary disease (his father died of myocardial infarction at age 42). His body mass index is 25 kg/m². Because he is less than 40 years old, the risk calculator does not apply to him.

If we assume he remains untreated and returns at age 40 with the same clinical factors and laboratory values, his calculated 10-year risk of an ASCVD event according to the new risk calculator will still be only 3.1%. Assuming his medical history remains unchanged as he continues to age, his 10-year risk would not reach 7.5% until he is 58. Would you feel comfortable waiting 33 years before starting statin therapy in this patient?

Waiting for dyslipidemic patients to reach middle age before starting LDL-C-lowering therapy is a failure of prevention. For practical reasons, there are no data from randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes in younger people. Nevertheless, a tenet of preventive cardiology is that cumulative exposure accelerates the “vascular age” ahead of the chronological age. This case illustrates why individualized recommendations guided by LDL-C goals as a target for therapy are needed. For this 25-year-old patient, we would recommend starting an intermediate- or high-potency statin.

Case 5: Rheumatoid arthritis

A 60-year-old postmenopausal white woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis presents for cholesterol evaluation. Her total cholesterol level is 235 mg/dL, HDL-C 50 mg/dL, and LDL-C 165 mg/dL. She does not smoke or have hypertension or diabetes. Her systolic blood pressure is 110 mm Hg. She has elevated C-reactive protein on an ultrasensitive assay and elevated lipoprotein(a).

Her calculated 10-year risk of ASCVD is 3.0%. Assuming her medical history remains the same, she would not reach a calculated 10-year risk of at least 7.5% until age 70. We suggest starting moderate- or high-dose statin therapy in this case, based on data (not from randomized controlled trials) showing an increased risk of ASCVD events in patients with rheumatologic disease, increased lipoprotein(a), and inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein. However, the current guidelines do not address this scenario, other than to suggest that clinician consideration can be given to other risk markers such as these, and that these findings should be discussed in detail with the patient. The Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin trial¹⁶ showed a dramatic ASCVD risk reduction in just such patients (Figure 1).

APPLAUSE—AND RESERVATIONS

The newest guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol represent a monumental shift away from using target levels of LDL-C and non-HDL-C and toward a focus on statin intensity for patients in the four highest-risk groups.

We applaud the expert panel for its idealistic approach of using only data from randomized controlled trials, for placing more emphasis on higher-intensity statin treatment, for including stroke in the new definition of ASCVD, and for focusing more attention on treating diabetic patients more aggressively. Simplifying the guidelines is a noble goal. Emphasizing moderate-to-high-intensity statin therapy in patients at moderate-to-high risk should have substantial long-term public health benefits.

However, as we have shown in the case examples, there are significant limitations, and some patients can end up being overtreated, while others may be undertreated.

Guidelines need to be crafted by looking at all the evidence, including the pathophysiology of the disease process, not just data from randomized controlled trials. It is difficult to implement a guideline that on one hand used randomized controlled trials exclusively for recommendations, but on the other hand used an untested risk calculator to guide therapy. Randomized controlled trials are not available for every scenario.

Further, absence of randomized controlled trial data in a given scenario should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of benefit. An example of this is a primary-prevention patient under age 40 with elevated LDL-C below the 190 mg/dL cutoff who otherwise is healthy and without risk factors (eg, Case 4). By disregarding all evidence that is not from randomized controlled trials, the expert panel fails to account for the extensive pathophysiology of ASCVD, which often begins at a young age and takes decades to develop.^5,6,39 An entire generation of patients who have not reached the age of inclusion in most randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes is excluded (unless the LDL-C level is very high), potentially setting back decades of progress in the field of prevention. Prevention only works if started. With childhood and young adult obesity sharply rising, we should not fail to address the under-40-year-old patient population in our guidelines.

Guidelines are designed to be expert opinion, not to dictate practice. Focusing on the individual patient instead of the general population at risk, the expert panel appropriately emphasizes the “importance of clinician judgment, weighing potential benefits, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions and patient preferences.” However, by excluding all data that do not come from randomized controlled trials, the panel neglects a very large base of knowledge and leaves many clinicians without as much expert opinion as we had hoped for.

LDL-C goals are important: they provide a scorecard to help the patient with lifestyle and dietary changes. They provide the health care provider guidance in making treatment decisions and focusing on treatment of a single patient, not a population. Moreover, if a patient has difficulty taking standard doses of statins because of side effects, the absence of LDL-C goals makes decision-making nearly impossible. We hope physicians will rely on LDL-C goals in such situations, falling back on the ATP III recommendations, although many patients may simply go untreated until they present with ASCVD or until they “age in” to a higher risk category.

We suggest caution in strict adherence to the new guidelines and instead urge physicians to consider a hybrid of the old guidelines (using the ATP III LDL-C goals) and the new ones (emphasizing global risk assessment and high-intensity statin treatment).

On November 12, 2013, a joint task force for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association released new guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol to reduce the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in adults.¹

This document arrives after several years of intense deliberation, 12 years after the third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) guidelines,² and 8 years after an ATP III update recommending that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels be lowered aggressively (to less than 70 mg/dL) as an option in patients at high risk.³ It represents a major shift in the approach to and management of high blood cholesterol and has sparked considerable controversy.

In the following commentary, we summarize the new guidelines and the philosophy employed by the task force in generating them. We will also examine some advantages and what we believe to be several shortcomings of the new guidelines. These latter points are illustrated through case examples.

IN RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS WE TRUST

In collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association formed an expert panel task force in 2008.

The task force elected to use only evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (and only predefined outcomes of the trials, not post hoc analyses) in formulating its recommendations, with the goal of providing the strongest possible evidence.

The authors state that “By using [randomized controlled trial] data to identify those most likely to benefit [emphasis in original] from cholesterol-lowering statin therapy, the recommendations will be of value to primary care clinicians as well as specialists concerned with ASCVD prevention. Importantly, the recommendations were designed to be easy to use in the clinical setting, facilitating the implementation of a strategy of risk assessment and treatment focused on the prevention of ASCVD.”³ They also state the guidelines are meant to “inform clinical judgment, not replace it” and that clinician judgment in addition to discussion with patients remains vital.

During the deliberations, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute removed itself from participating, stating its mission no longer included drafting new guidelines. Additionally, other initial members of the task force removed themselves because of disagreement and concerns about the direction of the new guidelines.

These guidelines, and their accompanying new cardiovascular risk calculator,⁴ were released without a preliminary period to allow for open discussion, comment, and critique by physicians outside the panel. No attempt was made to harmonize the guidelines with previous versions (eg, ATP III) or with current international guidelines.

WHAT’S NEW IN THE GUIDELINES?

The following are the major changes in the new guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol:

• Treatment goals for LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) are no longer recommended.
• High-intensity and moderate-intensity statin treatment is emphasized, and low-intensity statin therapy is nearly eliminated.
• “ASCVD” now includes stroke in addition to coronary heart disease and peripheral arterial disease.
• Four groups are targeted for treatment (see below).
• Nonstatin therapies have been markedly de-emphasized.
• No guidelines are provided for treating high triglyceride levels.

The new guidelines emphasize lifestyle modification as the foundation for reducing risk, regardless of cholesterol therapy. No recommendations are given for patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure or for hemodialysis patients, because there were insufficient data from randomized controlled trials to support recommendations. Similarly, the guidelines apply only to people between the ages of 40 and 75 (risk calculator ages 40–79), because the authors believed there was not enough evidence from randomized controlled trials to allow development of guidelines outside of this age range.

FOUR MAJOR STATIN TREATMENT GROUPS

The new guidelines specify four groups that merit intensive or moderately intensive statin therapy (Table 1)¹:

• People with clinical ASCVD
• People with LDL-C levels of 190 mg/dL or higher
• People with diabetes, age 40 to 75
• People without diabetes, age 40 to 75, with LDL-C levels 70–189 mg/dL, and a 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5% or higher as determined by the new risk calculator⁴ (which also calculates the lifetime risk of ASCVD).

Below, we will address each of these four groups and provide case scenarios to consider. In general, our major disagreements with the new recommendations pertain to the first and fourth categories.

GROUP 1: PEOPLE WITH CLINICAL ASCVD

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They appropriately recommend statins in the highest tolerated doses as first-line treatment for this group at high risk.
• They designate all patients with ASCVD, including those with coronary, peripheral, and cerebrovascular disease, as a high-risk group.
• Without target LDL-C levels, treatment is simpler than before, requiring less monitoring of lipid levels. (This can also be seen as a limitation, as we discuss below.)

Limitations of the new guidelines

• They make follow-up LDL-C levels irrelevant, seeming to assume that there is no gradation in residual risk and, thus, no need to tailor therapy to the individual.
• Patients no longer have a goal to strive for or a way to monitor their progress.
• The guidelines ignore the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and evidence of residual risk in patients on both moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy.
• They also ignore the potential benefits of treating to lower LDL-C or non-HDL-C goals, thus eliminating consideration of multidrug therapy. They do not address patients with recurrent cardiovascular events already on maximal tolerated statin doses.
• They undermine the potential development and use of new therapies for dysplipidemia in patients with ASCVD.

Case 1: Is LDL-C 110 mg/dL low enough?

A 52-year-old African American man presents with newly discovered moderate coronary artery disease that is not severe enough to warrant stenting. He has no history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or smoking. His systolic blood pressure is 130 mm Hg, and his body mass index is 26 kg/m². He exercises regularly and follows a low-cholesterol diet. He has the following fasting lipid values:

• Total cholesterol 290 mg/dL
• HDL-C 50 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 250 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 190 mg/dL.

Two months later, after beginning atorvastatin 80 mg daily, meeting with a nutritionist, and redoubling his dietary efforts, his fasting lipid concentrations are:

• Total cholesterol 180 mg/dL
• HDL-C 55 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 75 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 110 mg/dL.

Comment: Lack of LDL-C goals is a flaw

The new guidelines call for patients with known ASCVD, such as this patient, to receive intensive statin therapy—which he got.

However, once a patient is on therapy, the new guidelines do not encourage repeating the lipid panel other than to assess compliance. With intensive therapy, we expect a reduction in LDL-C of at least 50% (Table 1), but patient-to-patient differences in response to medications are common, and without repeat testing we would have no way of gauging this patient’s residual risk.

Further, the new guidelines emphasize the lack of hard outcome data supporting the addition of another lipid-lowering drug to a statin, although they do indicate that one can consider it. In a patient at high risk, such as this one, would you be comfortable with an LDL-C value of 110 mg/dL on maximum statin therapy? Would you consider adding a nonstatin drug?

A preponderance of data shows that LDL plays a causal role in ASCVD development and adverse events. Genetic data show that the LDL particle and the LDL receptor pathway are mechanistically linked to ASCVD pathogenesis, with lifetime exposure as a critical determinant of risk.^5,6 Moreover, randomized controlled trials of statins and other studies of cholesterol-lowering show a reproducible relationship between the LDL-C level achieved and absolute risk (Figure 1).^7–24 We believe the totality of data constitutes a strong rationale for targeting LDL-C and establishing goals for lowering its levels. For these reasons, we believe that removing LDL-C goals is a fundamental flaw of the new guidelines.

The reason for the lack of data from randomized controlled trials demonstrating benefits of adding therapies to statins (when LDL-C is still high) or benefits of treating to specific goals is that no such trials have been performed. Even trials of nonpharmacologic means of lowering LDL-C, such as ileal bypass, which was used in the Program on the Surgical Control of the Hyperlipidemias trial,²⁰ provide independent evidence that lowering LDL-C reduces the risk of ASCVD (Figure 1).

In addition, trials of nonstatin drugs, such as the Coronary Drug Project,25 which tested niacin, also showed outcome benefits. On the other hand, studies such as the Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health26 and Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events27 trials did not show additional risk reduction when niacin was added to statin therapy. However, the study designs arguably had flaws, including requirement of aggressive LDL-lowering with statins, with LDL-C levels below 70 to 80 mg/dL before randomization.

Therefore, these trials do not tell us what to do for a patient on maximal intensive therapy who has recurrent ASCVD events or who, like our patient, has an LDL-C level higher than previous targets.

For this patient, we would recommend adding a second medication to further lower his LDL-C, but discussing with him the absence of proven benefit in clinical trials and the risks of side effects. At present, lacking LDL-C goals in the new guidelines, we are keeping with the ATP III goals to help guide therapeutic choices and individualize patient management.

GROUP 2: PEOPLE WITH LDL-C ≥ 190

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They state that these patients should receive statins in the highest tolerated doses, which is universally accepted.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• The new guidelines mention only that one “may consider” adding a second agent if LDL-C remains above 190 mg/dL after maximum-dose therapy. Patients with familial hypercholesterolemia or other severe forms of hypercholesterolemia typically end up on multidrug therapy to further reduce LDL-C. The absence of randomized controlled trial data in this setting to show an additive value of second and third lipid-lowering agents does not mean these agents do not provide benefit.

GROUP 3: DIABETES, AGE 40–75, LDL-C 70–189, NO CLINICAL ASCVD

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They call for aggressive treatment of people with diabetes, a group at high risk that derives significant benefit from statin therapy, as shown in randomized controlled trials.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• Although high-intensity statin therapy is indicated for this group, we believe that, using the new risk calculator, some patients may receive overly aggressive treatment, thus increasing the possibility of statin side effects.
• The guidelines do not address patients younger than 40 or older than 75.
• Diabetic patients have a high residual risk of ASCVD events, even on statin therapy. Yet the guidelines ignore the potential benefits of more aggressive LDL-lowering or non-LDL secondary targets for therapy.

Case 2: How low is too low?

A 63-year-old white woman, a nonsmoker with recently diagnosed diabetes, is seen by her primary care physician. She has hypertension, for which she takes lisinopril 5 mg daily. Her fasting lipid values are:

• Total cholesterol 160 mg/dL
• HDL-C 64 mg/dL
• Triglycerides 100 mg/dL
• Calculated LDL-C 76 mg/dL.

Her systolic blood pressure is 129 mm Hg, and based on the new risk calculator, her 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is 10.2%. According to the new guidelines, she should be started on high-intensity statin treatment (Table 1).

Although this is an acceptable initial course of action, it necessitates close vigilance, since it may actually drive her LDL-C level too low. Randomized controlled trials have typically used an LDL-C concentration of less than or equal to 25 mg/dL as the safety cutoff. With a typical LDL-C reduction of at least 50% on high-intensity statins, our patient’s expected LDL-C level will likely be in the low 30s. We believe this would be a good outcome, provided that she tolerates the medication without adverse effects. However, responses to statins vary from patient to patient.

High-intensity statin therapy may not be necessary to reduce risk adequately in all patients who have diabetes without preexisting vascular disease. The Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study¹² compared atorvastatin 10 mg vs placebo in people with type 2 diabetes, age 40 to 75, who had one or more cardiovascular risk factors but no signs or symptoms of preexisting ASCVD and who had only average or below-average cholesterol levels—precisely like this patient. The trial was terminated early because of a clear benefit (a 37% reduction in the composite end point of major adverse cardiovascular events) in the intervention group. For our patient, we believe an alternative and acceptable approach would be to begin moderate-intensity statin therapy (eg, with atorvastatin 10 mg) (Table 1).

Alternatively, in a patient with diabetes and previous atherosclerotic vascular disease or with a high 10-year risk and high LDL-C, limiting treatment to high-intensity statin therapy by itself may deny them the potential benefits of combination therapies and targeting to lower LDL-C levels or non-HDL-C secondary targets. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association²⁸ and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists²⁹ continue to recommend an LDL-C goal of less than 70 mg/dL in patients at high risk, a non-HDL-C less than 100 mg/dL, an apolipoprotein B less than 80 mg/dL, and an LDL particle number less than 1,000 nmol/L.

GROUP 4: AGE 40–75, LDL-C 70–189, NO ASCVD, BUT 10-YEAR RISK ≥ 7.5%

Advantages of the new guidelines

• They may reduce ASCVD events for patients at higher risk.
• The risk calculator is easy to use and focuses on global risk, ie, all forms of ASCVD.
• The guidelines promote discussion of risks and benefits between patients and providers.

Limitations of the new guidelines

• The new risk calculator is controversial (see below).
• There is potential for overtreatment, particularly in older patients.
• There is potential for undertreatment, particularly in patients with an elevated LDL-C but whose 10-year risk is less than 7.5% because they are young.
• The guidelines do not address patients younger than 40 or older than 75.
• They do not take into account some traditional risk factors, such as family history, and nontraditional risk factors such as C-reactive protein as measured by ultrasensitive assays, lipoprotein(a), and apolipoprotein B.

Risk calculator controversy

The new risk calculator has aroused strong opinions on both sides of the aisle.

Shortly after the new guidelines were released, cardiologists Dr. Paul Ridker and Dr. Nancy Cook from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston published analyses³⁰ showing that the new risk calculator, which was based on older data from several large cohorts such as the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study,³¹ the Cardiovascular Health Study,³² the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study,³³ and the Framingham Heart Study,^34,35 was inaccurate in other cohorts. Specifically, in more-recent cohorts (the Women’s Health Study,³⁶ Physicians’ Health Study,³⁷ and Women’s Health Initiative³⁸), the new calculator overestimates the 10-year risk of ASCVD by 75% to 150%.³⁰ Using the new calculator would make approximately 30 million more Americans eligible for statin treatment. The concern is that patients at lower risk would be treated and exposed to potential side effects of statin therapy.

In addition, the risk calculator relies heavily on age and sex and does not include other factors such as triglyceride level, family history, C-reactive protein, or lipoprotein(a). Importantly, and somewhat ironically given the otherwise absolute adherence to randomized controlled trial data for guideline development, the risk calculator has never been verified in prospective studies to adequately show that using it reduces ASCVD events.

Based on the risk calculator, essentially any African American man in his early 60s with no other risk factors has a 10-year risk of ASCVD of 7.5% or higher and, according to the new guidelines, should receive at least moderate-intensity statin therapy.

For example, consider a 64-year-old African American man whose systolic blood pressure is 129 mm Hg, who does not smoke, does not have diabetes, and does not have hypertension, and whose total cholesterol level is 180 mg/dL, HDL-C 70 mg/dL, triglycerides 130 mg/dL, and calculated LDL-C 84 mg/dL. His calculated 10-year risk is, surprisingly, 7.5%.

Alternatively, his twin brother is a two-pack-per-day smoker with untreated hypertension and systolic blood pressure 150 mm Hg, with fasting total cholesterol 153 mg/dL, HDL-C 70 mg/dL, triglycerides 60 mg/dL, and LDL-C 71 mg/dL. His calculated 10-year risk is 10.5%, so according to the new guidelines, he too should receive high-intensity statin therapy. Yet this patient clearly needs better blood pressure control and smoking cessation as his primary risk-reduction efforts, not a statin. While assessing global risk is important, a shortcoming of the new guidelines is that they can inappropriately lead to treating the risk score, not individualizing the treatment to the patient. Because of the errors inherent in the risk calculator, some experts have called for a temporary halt on implementing the new guidelines until the risk calculator can be further validated. In November 2013, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology reaffirmed their support of the new guidelines and recommended that they be implemented as planned. As of the time this manuscript goes to print, there are no plans to halt implementation of the new guidelines.

Case 4: Undertreating a primary prevention patient

A 25-year-old white man with no medical history has a total cholesterol level of 310 mg/dL, HDL-C 50 mg/dL, triglycerides 400 mg/dL, and calculated LDL-C 180 mg/dL. He does not smoke or have hypertension or diabetes but has a strong family history of premature coronary disease (his father died of myocardial infarction at age 42). His body mass index is 25 kg/m². Because he is less than 40 years old, the risk calculator does not apply to him.

If we assume he remains untreated and returns at age 40 with the same clinical factors and laboratory values, his calculated 10-year risk of an ASCVD event according to the new risk calculator will still be only 3.1%. Assuming his medical history remains unchanged as he continues to age, his 10-year risk would not reach 7.5% until he is 58. Would you feel comfortable waiting 33 years before starting statin therapy in this patient?

Waiting for dyslipidemic patients to reach middle age before starting LDL-C-lowering therapy is a failure of prevention. For practical reasons, there are no data from randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes in younger people. Nevertheless, a tenet of preventive cardiology is that cumulative exposure accelerates the “vascular age” ahead of the chronological age. This case illustrates why individualized recommendations guided by LDL-C goals as a target for therapy are needed. For this 25-year-old patient, we would recommend starting an intermediate- or high-potency statin.

Case 5: Rheumatoid arthritis

A 60-year-old postmenopausal white woman with severe rheumatoid arthritis presents for cholesterol evaluation. Her total cholesterol level is 235 mg/dL, HDL-C 50 mg/dL, and LDL-C 165 mg/dL. She does not smoke or have hypertension or diabetes. Her systolic blood pressure is 110 mm Hg. She has elevated C-reactive protein on an ultrasensitive assay and elevated lipoprotein(a).

Her calculated 10-year risk of ASCVD is 3.0%. Assuming her medical history remains the same, she would not reach a calculated 10-year risk of at least 7.5% until age 70. We suggest starting moderate- or high-dose statin therapy in this case, based on data (not from randomized controlled trials) showing an increased risk of ASCVD events in patients with rheumatologic disease, increased lipoprotein(a), and inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein. However, the current guidelines do not address this scenario, other than to suggest that clinician consideration can be given to other risk markers such as these, and that these findings should be discussed in detail with the patient. The Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin trial¹⁶ showed a dramatic ASCVD risk reduction in just such patients (Figure 1).

APPLAUSE—AND RESERVATIONS

The newest guidelines for treating high blood cholesterol represent a monumental shift away from using target levels of LDL-C and non-HDL-C and toward a focus on statin intensity for patients in the four highest-risk groups.

We applaud the expert panel for its idealistic approach of using only data from randomized controlled trials, for placing more emphasis on higher-intensity statin treatment, for including stroke in the new definition of ASCVD, and for focusing more attention on treating diabetic patients more aggressively. Simplifying the guidelines is a noble goal. Emphasizing moderate-to-high-intensity statin therapy in patients at moderate-to-high risk should have substantial long-term public health benefits.

However, as we have shown in the case examples, there are significant limitations, and some patients can end up being overtreated, while others may be undertreated.

Guidelines need to be crafted by looking at all the evidence, including the pathophysiology of the disease process, not just data from randomized controlled trials. It is difficult to implement a guideline that on one hand used randomized controlled trials exclusively for recommendations, but on the other hand used an untested risk calculator to guide therapy. Randomized controlled trials are not available for every scenario.

Further, absence of randomized controlled trial data in a given scenario should not be interpreted as evidence of lack of benefit. An example of this is a primary-prevention patient under age 40 with elevated LDL-C below the 190 mg/dL cutoff who otherwise is healthy and without risk factors (eg, Case 4). By disregarding all evidence that is not from randomized controlled trials, the expert panel fails to account for the extensive pathophysiology of ASCVD, which often begins at a young age and takes decades to develop.^5,6,39 An entire generation of patients who have not reached the age of inclusion in most randomized controlled trials with hard outcomes is excluded (unless the LDL-C level is very high), potentially setting back decades of progress in the field of prevention. Prevention only works if started. With childhood and young adult obesity sharply rising, we should not fail to address the under-40-year-old patient population in our guidelines.

Guidelines are designed to be expert opinion, not to dictate practice. Focusing on the individual patient instead of the general population at risk, the expert panel appropriately emphasizes the “importance of clinician judgment, weighing potential benefits, adverse effects, drug-drug interactions and patient preferences.” However, by excluding all data that do not come from randomized controlled trials, the panel neglects a very large base of knowledge and leaves many clinicians without as much expert opinion as we had hoped for.

LDL-C goals are important: they provide a scorecard to help the patient with lifestyle and dietary changes. They provide the health care provider guidance in making treatment decisions and focusing on treatment of a single patient, not a population. Moreover, if a patient has difficulty taking standard doses of statins because of side effects, the absence of LDL-C goals makes decision-making nearly impossible. We hope physicians will rely on LDL-C goals in such situations, falling back on the ATP III recommendations, although many patients may simply go untreated until they present with ASCVD or until they “age in” to a higher risk category.

We suggest caution in strict adherence to the new guidelines and instead urge physicians to consider a hybrid of the old guidelines (using the ATP III LDL-C goals) and the new ones (emphasizing global risk assessment and high-intensity statin treatment).

Could it be the carbs?

In my practice, I have observed consistent improvements in recalcitrant perioral dermatitis when patients switch to low-carbohydrate diets. Several of my patients with perioral dermatitis that responded poorly to oral doxycycline, topical metronidazole, and topical tacrolimus – or recurred upon cessation of therapy – have proven to have gluten sensitivity or intolerance. Their skin condition improves when they go on a gluten-free diet. But I have also seen considerable improvements after patients undertake low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, even if those patients have no diagnosed gluten sensitivity. These improvements have occurred with minimal oral and topical treatments, and these patients have not experienced recurrences.

There have been no well-controlled studies, or even case reports to my knowledge, linking carbohydrate or gluten intake to perioral dermatitis. Could the improvement be serendipitous, or is there some basis for carbohydrates contributing to inflammatory status in the oral and gastrointestinal mucosa?

Alcohol, spicy foods, and chocolate have been linked to exacerbation of erythemogenic and papulopustular rosacea. However, the precipitating ingredients in these foods have not been identified. Could the common link simply be an abundance of carbohydrates?

More studies are needed to better define the role of diet in perioral dermatitis. In the meantime, I am seeing good results with low-carb/carb-free diets and will continue to suggest them to prevent recurrences in my patients with perioral dermatitis.

Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va.

Could it be the carbs?

In my practice, I have observed consistent improvements in recalcitrant perioral dermatitis when patients switch to low-carbohydrate diets. Several of my patients with perioral dermatitis that responded poorly to oral doxycycline, topical metronidazole, and topical tacrolimus – or recurred upon cessation of therapy – have proven to have gluten sensitivity or intolerance. Their skin condition improves when they go on a gluten-free diet. But I have also seen considerable improvements after patients undertake low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, even if those patients have no diagnosed gluten sensitivity. These improvements have occurred with minimal oral and topical treatments, and these patients have not experienced recurrences.

There have been no well-controlled studies, or even case reports to my knowledge, linking carbohydrate or gluten intake to perioral dermatitis. Could the improvement be serendipitous, or is there some basis for carbohydrates contributing to inflammatory status in the oral and gastrointestinal mucosa?

Alcohol, spicy foods, and chocolate have been linked to exacerbation of erythemogenic and papulopustular rosacea. However, the precipitating ingredients in these foods have not been identified. Could the common link simply be an abundance of carbohydrates?

More studies are needed to better define the role of diet in perioral dermatitis. In the meantime, I am seeing good results with low-carb/carb-free diets and will continue to suggest them to prevent recurrences in my patients with perioral dermatitis.

Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va.

Could it be the carbs?

In my practice, I have observed consistent improvements in recalcitrant perioral dermatitis when patients switch to low-carbohydrate diets. Several of my patients with perioral dermatitis that responded poorly to oral doxycycline, topical metronidazole, and topical tacrolimus – or recurred upon cessation of therapy – have proven to have gluten sensitivity or intolerance. Their skin condition improves when they go on a gluten-free diet. But I have also seen considerable improvements after patients undertake low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets, even if those patients have no diagnosed gluten sensitivity. These improvements have occurred with minimal oral and topical treatments, and these patients have not experienced recurrences.

There have been no well-controlled studies, or even case reports to my knowledge, linking carbohydrate or gluten intake to perioral dermatitis. Could the improvement be serendipitous, or is there some basis for carbohydrates contributing to inflammatory status in the oral and gastrointestinal mucosa?

Alcohol, spicy foods, and chocolate have been linked to exacerbation of erythemogenic and papulopustular rosacea. However, the precipitating ingredients in these foods have not been identified. Could the common link simply be an abundance of carbohydrates?

More studies are needed to better define the role of diet in perioral dermatitis. In the meantime, I am seeing good results with low-carb/carb-free diets and will continue to suggest them to prevent recurrences in my patients with perioral dermatitis.

Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va.

DALLAS – An investigational tissue-engineered vascular graft has enduring potential for vascular access for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease, based on early clinical results.

Moreover, other potential uses are on the horizon. The big picture involves subsequent extrapolation of this technology from the large-diameter, high-flow bioengineered vessels required for hemodialysis to the creation of small-diameter, low-flow vessels for coronary artery and peripheral arterial graft surgery, Dr. Jeffrey H. Lawson explained at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

"Our goal is to make a tissue-engineered conduit that could be used widely throughout the body," said Dr. Lawson, professor of surgery and of pathology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

He presented the results from the first-in-man, ongoing phase I clinical experience with the Humacyte graft, which to date has been implanted to provide vascular access for hemodialysis in 28 patients, with 6-month patency as the primary study endpoint. This was a challenging study population, with an average of 4.1 previous access procedure failures per patient. The presentation at the AHA was the first public disclosure of the results of a project Dr. Lawson has been working on for more than 15 years. His surgical colleagues from Poland, who have done the implantations in patients with end-stage renal disease, were in attendance.

The overall 6-month patency was 100%, with no infections, no sign of an immune response, and no aneurysms or other indication of structural degeneration, he said.

Of the 28 patients, 20 had no further interventions, yielding a primary unassisted 6-month patency rate of 71%. Eight patients collectively underwent 10 interventions to maintain patency: eight had thrombectomies for graft- or surgically related thrombosis and two had venous anastomoses. Flow rates have remained suitable for dialysis in all patients, and the grafts are being used for dialysis three times per week. Dr. Lawson described the grafts as easy to cannulate via standard techniques.

He characterized these initial results as "quite remarkable" compared with the outcomes in two large studies of the current benchmark technologies, which are synthetic grafts made of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethyline). In those studies, the primary patency rate at 6 months was less than 50%, with a secondary patency rate of 77% and a 10% infection rate. In other studies, 30%-40% of PTFE grafts are abandoned within 12 months due to loss of patency.

The process of creating the bioengineered grafts begins with harvesting human aortic vascular smooth muscle cells, seeding them on a biodegradable matrix, then culturing them under pulsatile conditions. When the biodegradable matrix melts away, what remains is a tube comprised of vascular smooth muscle cells and extracellular matrix. This is then decellularized, yielding a tube of extracellular matrix that can be shipped off the shelf and around the world.

In primate models, the implanted bioengineered graft has been shown to repopulate with the host’s own vascular smooth muscle cells lined intimally by endothelium.

"Where we implanted an acellular structure, it appears to now be a living tissue, suggesting [the graft] has become their tissue, not ours," Dr. Lawson said.

To date, none of the bioengineered grafts implanted in patients has been explanted, so it’s unknown whether the favorable histologic changes seen in primates’ grafts also occur in humans. Larger clinical trials with longer follow-up are planned in order to assess the bioengineered graft’s durability.

Dr. Lawson’s study is funded by a Department of Defense research grant and by Humacyte. He serves as a consultant to the company.

[email protected]

DALLAS – An investigational tissue-engineered vascular graft has enduring potential for vascular access for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease, based on early clinical results.

Moreover, other potential uses are on the horizon. The big picture involves subsequent extrapolation of this technology from the large-diameter, high-flow bioengineered vessels required for hemodialysis to the creation of small-diameter, low-flow vessels for coronary artery and peripheral arterial graft surgery, Dr. Jeffrey H. Lawson explained at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

"Our goal is to make a tissue-engineered conduit that could be used widely throughout the body," said Dr. Lawson, professor of surgery and of pathology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

He presented the results from the first-in-man, ongoing phase I clinical experience with the Humacyte graft, which to date has been implanted to provide vascular access for hemodialysis in 28 patients, with 6-month patency as the primary study endpoint. This was a challenging study population, with an average of 4.1 previous access procedure failures per patient. The presentation at the AHA was the first public disclosure of the results of a project Dr. Lawson has been working on for more than 15 years. His surgical colleagues from Poland, who have done the implantations in patients with end-stage renal disease, were in attendance.

The overall 6-month patency was 100%, with no infections, no sign of an immune response, and no aneurysms or other indication of structural degeneration, he said.

Of the 28 patients, 20 had no further interventions, yielding a primary unassisted 6-month patency rate of 71%. Eight patients collectively underwent 10 interventions to maintain patency: eight had thrombectomies for graft- or surgically related thrombosis and two had venous anastomoses. Flow rates have remained suitable for dialysis in all patients, and the grafts are being used for dialysis three times per week. Dr. Lawson described the grafts as easy to cannulate via standard techniques.

He characterized these initial results as "quite remarkable" compared with the outcomes in two large studies of the current benchmark technologies, which are synthetic grafts made of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethyline). In those studies, the primary patency rate at 6 months was less than 50%, with a secondary patency rate of 77% and a 10% infection rate. In other studies, 30%-40% of PTFE grafts are abandoned within 12 months due to loss of patency.

The process of creating the bioengineered grafts begins with harvesting human aortic vascular smooth muscle cells, seeding them on a biodegradable matrix, then culturing them under pulsatile conditions. When the biodegradable matrix melts away, what remains is a tube comprised of vascular smooth muscle cells and extracellular matrix. This is then decellularized, yielding a tube of extracellular matrix that can be shipped off the shelf and around the world.

In primate models, the implanted bioengineered graft has been shown to repopulate with the host’s own vascular smooth muscle cells lined intimally by endothelium.

"Where we implanted an acellular structure, it appears to now be a living tissue, suggesting [the graft] has become their tissue, not ours," Dr. Lawson said.

To date, none of the bioengineered grafts implanted in patients has been explanted, so it’s unknown whether the favorable histologic changes seen in primates’ grafts also occur in humans. Larger clinical trials with longer follow-up are planned in order to assess the bioengineered graft’s durability.

Dr. Lawson’s study is funded by a Department of Defense research grant and by Humacyte. He serves as a consultant to the company.

[email protected]

DALLAS – An investigational tissue-engineered vascular graft has enduring potential for vascular access for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease, based on early clinical results.

Moreover, other potential uses are on the horizon. The big picture involves subsequent extrapolation of this technology from the large-diameter, high-flow bioengineered vessels required for hemodialysis to the creation of small-diameter, low-flow vessels for coronary artery and peripheral arterial graft surgery, Dr. Jeffrey H. Lawson explained at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

"Our goal is to make a tissue-engineered conduit that could be used widely throughout the body," said Dr. Lawson, professor of surgery and of pathology at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

He presented the results from the first-in-man, ongoing phase I clinical experience with the Humacyte graft, which to date has been implanted to provide vascular access for hemodialysis in 28 patients, with 6-month patency as the primary study endpoint. This was a challenging study population, with an average of 4.1 previous access procedure failures per patient. The presentation at the AHA was the first public disclosure of the results of a project Dr. Lawson has been working on for more than 15 years. His surgical colleagues from Poland, who have done the implantations in patients with end-stage renal disease, were in attendance.

The overall 6-month patency was 100%, with no infections, no sign of an immune response, and no aneurysms or other indication of structural degeneration, he said.

Of the 28 patients, 20 had no further interventions, yielding a primary unassisted 6-month patency rate of 71%. Eight patients collectively underwent 10 interventions to maintain patency: eight had thrombectomies for graft- or surgically related thrombosis and two had venous anastomoses. Flow rates have remained suitable for dialysis in all patients, and the grafts are being used for dialysis three times per week. Dr. Lawson described the grafts as easy to cannulate via standard techniques.

He characterized these initial results as "quite remarkable" compared with the outcomes in two large studies of the current benchmark technologies, which are synthetic grafts made of PTFE (polytetrafluoroethyline). In those studies, the primary patency rate at 6 months was less than 50%, with a secondary patency rate of 77% and a 10% infection rate. In other studies, 30%-40% of PTFE grafts are abandoned within 12 months due to loss of patency.

The process of creating the bioengineered grafts begins with harvesting human aortic vascular smooth muscle cells, seeding them on a biodegradable matrix, then culturing them under pulsatile conditions. When the biodegradable matrix melts away, what remains is a tube comprised of vascular smooth muscle cells and extracellular matrix. This is then decellularized, yielding a tube of extracellular matrix that can be shipped off the shelf and around the world.

In primate models, the implanted bioengineered graft has been shown to repopulate with the host’s own vascular smooth muscle cells lined intimally by endothelium.

"Where we implanted an acellular structure, it appears to now be a living tissue, suggesting [the graft] has become their tissue, not ours," Dr. Lawson said.

To date, none of the bioengineered grafts implanted in patients has been explanted, so it’s unknown whether the favorable histologic changes seen in primates’ grafts also occur in humans. Larger clinical trials with longer follow-up are planned in order to assess the bioengineered graft’s durability.

Dr. Lawson’s study is funded by a Department of Defense research grant and by Humacyte. He serves as a consultant to the company.

[email protected]

Answer

The radiograph shows a right apical mass. This clinical and radiographic presentation is strongly suggestive of a Pancoast tumor. Such lung masses (typically non–small cell carcinomas) can cause brachial plexus compression when they progress, which results in thoracic outlet obstruction and symptoms similar to those seen in this patient. 

The patient was admitted by a hospitalist service, and further imaging did confirm the presence of a lung mass, as well as extension to the chest wall and cervicothoracic portion of the spinal canal. CT-guided biopsy of the mass is pending.

Answer

The radiograph shows a right apical mass. This clinical and radiographic presentation is strongly suggestive of a Pancoast tumor. Such lung masses (typically non–small cell carcinomas) can cause brachial plexus compression when they progress, which results in thoracic outlet obstruction and symptoms similar to those seen in this patient. 

The patient was admitted by a hospitalist service, and further imaging did confirm the presence of a lung mass, as well as extension to the chest wall and cervicothoracic portion of the spinal canal. CT-guided biopsy of the mass is pending.

Answer

The radiograph shows a right apical mass. This clinical and radiographic presentation is strongly suggestive of a Pancoast tumor. Such lung masses (typically non–small cell carcinomas) can cause brachial plexus compression when they progress, which results in thoracic outlet obstruction and symptoms similar to those seen in this patient. 

The patient was admitted by a hospitalist service, and further imaging did confirm the presence of a lung mass, as well as extension to the chest wall and cervicothoracic portion of the spinal canal. CT-guided biopsy of the mass is pending.

A 45-year-old man presented to the dermatology office complaining of a pruritic rash on his neck, chest, abdomen, and upper back. The rash had been present since the patient was 20, intermittently flaring and causing severe pruritus. For the past two weeks, it had become increasingly bothersome.

The patient described the rash as “greasy” brown plaques diffusely scattered on his body. The rash on his neck was the most bothersome, and the patient felt an uncontrollable need to scratch that area.

Since it first developed 25 years ago, he had used OTC hydro­cortisone cream as needed to treat the rash. Although effective for past flares, the cream provided only minimal relief during the current episode.

The patient’s medical history included brittle nails with a worsening of nail quality in recent years. The family history revealed that the patient’s father and sister were affected by the same type of rash, which developed in adolescence for each of them, as well as brittle nails.

On physical examination, the skin was warm and moist to the touch. Flat, slightly elevated, greasy brown papules were scattered on the chest, abdomen, and ­upper back, with mild surrounding erythema (see Figure 1). Excoriated lesions were noted on the anterior surface of the neck, with pinpoint bleeding resulting from constant irritation. The patient’s fingernails were deformed, with longitudinal ridges and v-shaped notching of the free margin. The remainder of the physical exam was unremarkable, and review of systems was negative.

This patient’s symptoms could result from a variety of causes. Seborrheic dermatitis is a common skin condition that presents with brown plaques similar to those on the patient’s trunk. Another possible diagnosis is Grover’s disease, a rare disorder also known as transient acantholytic dermatosis, in which keratotic plaques appear on the torso and are thought to occur from trauma to sun-damaged skin. An additional consideration is Hailey-Hailey disease, a rare genetic disorder also known as benign familial pemphigus, which is characterized by red-brown plaques located predominantly on flexure surfaces.¹ Skin biopsy should be performed for a definitive diagnosis.

Given the family history of a similar rash occurring in first-degree relatives and the distinct physical exam findings, the most likely diagnosis for this patient is keratosis follicularis, also known as Darier disease (DD) or Darier-White disease.

DISCUSSION

Named after Ferdinand-Jean Darier, who discovered this rare genodermatosis, DD is a rare genetic skin disorder caused by mutations of the ATP2A2 gene, located on the long arm of chromosome 12 at position 24,11.^1,2 The mutation disrupts the encoding of the enzyme sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium-ATPase 2 (SERCA2). This enzyme is important in the transport of calcium ions across the cell membrane, and insufficient amounts lead to a defect in intracellular calcium signaling.^2,3

This genetic mutation is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait with complete penetrance. DD affects men and women equally, with progressive skin signs of interfamilial and intrafamilial variability.⁴ Skin manifestations occur from late childhood to early adulthood and are typical during adolescence.⁴ Acute flare-ups can be triggered by heat, perspiration, sunlight, ultraviolet B exposure, stress, or certain medications (in particular, lithium).² DD is not contagious.²

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

The characteristics of DD include yellow or brown, rough, firm papules that are frequently crusted. The papules often appear in seborrheic areas of the body, such as the chest, back, ears, nasolabial fold, forehead, scalp, and groin.⁴ The severity of expression varies from mild, with few lesions, to severe, in which the entire body is covered with disfiguring, macerated plaques emitting a strong odor. On biopsy, the histopathologic findings are typical of dyskeratosis and acantholysis.⁴

Fingernails (and occasionally toenails) display broad, white or red, somewhat translucent, longitudinal bands accompanied by v-shaped notching^1,4,5 (see Figure 2). Such nail changes are diagnostic and occur in 92% to 95% of patients with DD.⁶ They may, in fact, occur in the absence of cutaneous disease. All nails may be affected, but usually only two to three are involved.⁶

Although uncommon in DD, white, umbilicated, or cobblestone plaques may be found on intraoral mucous membranes (ie, tongue, buccal mucosa, palate, epiglottis, pharyngeal wall, and esophagus); due to confluence, papules may mimic leukoplakia.⁷ Lesions may also appear on the vulva or rectum.^1,5 In severe cases, the salivary glands can become blocked, and the gums can hypertrophy.⁵

Since epidermal and brain tissue both derive from ectoderm, pathologic processes that affect one organ system may also affect the other.⁸ Indeed, among patients with DD, neuropsychiatric problems—including epilepsy, learning difficulties, and schizoaffective disorder—are commonly reported.¹ To confirm an association between DD and ATP2A2 mutations, Jacobsen and colleagues performed an analysis of 19 unrelated DD patients with neuropsychiatric phenotypes. They discovered evidence to support the gene’s pleiotropic effects in the brain and hypothesized that mutations in the enzyme SERCA2 correlate with these phenotypes, most specifically for mood disorders.⁹

TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Although no cure is currently available for DD, both short- and long-term treatment options are available; the choice should be based on the severity of an individual patient’s signs and symptoms. For mild cases, topical therapy, such as general emollients, corticosteroid ointments, and high sun protection factor sunscreen, is sufficient.¹

For moderate cases, topical retinoids, including tretinoin cream, adapalene gel or cream, and tazarotene gel, may be necessary.⁴ Keratolytics, including salicylic acid in propylene glycol gel, may be used to regulate hyperkeratosis.⁴ Celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, is another option that may restore the down regulation of SERCA2. This can prevent progression of the disease.¹⁰

 Long-term management includes use of oral retinoid therapy (eg, acitretin), which might reduce the frequency of inflammatory flares.¹ Systemic adverse effects from long-term use of oral retinoids are cause for concern, however. Close monitoring along with patient education can limit the occurrence of complications.¹¹

If DD is uncontrolled with medication, dermabrasion and erbium:YAG laser ablation have been used to successfully treat chronic cases.¹² Although these treatment options may remove existing lesions, it is important to inform patients that the disease has not been cured, that remission is difficult to attain, and that lesions may recur.

Because viral, bacterial, and fungal superinfections are common and may exacerbate the disease, be sure to check for signs of infection while examining the patient.⁴ Patients should be advised to avoid hot environments, and if that is not possible, to dress in cool cotton clothing to allow for proper ventilation and avoid the build-up of perspiration. Excessive perspiration along with poor hygiene can contribute to the formation of infections as well as trigger a flare-up. If an infection develops, patients should consult a health care provider.

Keeping the skin well moisturized can alleviate the constant pruritus that many patients experience. Daily sunscreen use is essential to avoid skin irritation caused by the sun, which can trigger an acute flare-up. Patients should be advised to avoid the long-term use of corticosteroid ointment. They should also contact their health care provider before using OTC treatments such as Burow’s solution.

CONCLUSION

A thorough history and physical exam are crucial in the diagnosis of DD. In this particular case, inquiry into family history was the key to proper diagnosis. That information, paired with a thorough physical exam, led to the correct diagnosis of this rare genetic skin disorder. A skin biopsy provided definitive confirmation.

This patient had a mild-to-moderate manifestation of DD. He was prescribed retinoid therapy, and routine follow-up visits were recommended to monitor the efficacy of medical therapy and to screen for secondary infections or neuropsychiatric disorders.

This case illustrates the importance of taking a full history and performing an in-depth physical exam when a patient presents with an unfamiliar complaint. Being thorough reduces the risk of missing a crucial element that can guide the diagnostic process.

REFERENCES

1. Creamer D, Barker J, Kerdel FA. Papular and papulosquamous dermatoses. In: Acute Adult Dermatology: Diagnosis and Management (A Colour Handbook). London, UK: Manson Publishing Ltd; 2011:48.

2. Kelly EB. Darier disease (DAR). In: Encyclopedia of Human Genetics and Disease. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO; 2013:186-187.

3. Klausegger A, Laimer M, Bauer JW. Darier disease. [In German.] Haut­arzt. 2013;64:22-25.

4. Ringpfeil F. Dermatologic disorders. In: NORD Guide to Rare Disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003:101.

5. Disorders of keratinization. In: Ostler HB, Maibach HI, Hoke AW, Schwab IR, eds. Diseases of the Eye and Skin: A Color Atlas. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:23-34.

6. Baran R, de Berker D, Holzberg M, Thomas L, eds. Baran & Dawber’s Diseases of the Nails and their Management. 4th ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012:295-296.

7. Thiagarajan MK, Narasimhan M, Sankarasubramanian A. Darier disease with oral and esophageal involvement: a case report. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:843-846.

8. Medansky RS, Woloshin AA. Darier’s disease: an evaluation of its neuropsychiatric component. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84:482-484.

9. Jacobsen NJ, Lyons I, Hoogendoorn B, et al. ATP2A2 mutations in Darier’s disease and their relationship to neuropsychiatric phenotypes. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8:1631-1636.

10. Kamijo M, Nishiyama C, Takagi A, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition restores ultraviolet B-induced downregulation of ATP2A2/SERCA2 in keratinocytes: possible therapeutic approach of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition for treatment of Darier disease. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166: 1017-1022.

11. Brecher AR, Orlow SJ. Oral retinoid therapy for dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:171-182.

12. Beier C, Kaufmann R. Efficacy of erbium:YAG laser ablation in Darier disease and Hailey-Hailey disease. Arch Dermatol. 1999;35:423-427.

A 45-year-old man presented to the dermatology office complaining of a pruritic rash on his neck, chest, abdomen, and upper back. The rash had been present since the patient was 20, intermittently flaring and causing severe pruritus. For the past two weeks, it had become increasingly bothersome.

The patient described the rash as “greasy” brown plaques diffusely scattered on his body. The rash on his neck was the most bothersome, and the patient felt an uncontrollable need to scratch that area.

Since it first developed 25 years ago, he had used OTC hydro­cortisone cream as needed to treat the rash. Although effective for past flares, the cream provided only minimal relief during the current episode.

The patient’s medical history included brittle nails with a worsening of nail quality in recent years. The family history revealed that the patient’s father and sister were affected by the same type of rash, which developed in adolescence for each of them, as well as brittle nails.

On physical examination, the skin was warm and moist to the touch. Flat, slightly elevated, greasy brown papules were scattered on the chest, abdomen, and ­upper back, with mild surrounding erythema (see Figure 1). Excoriated lesions were noted on the anterior surface of the neck, with pinpoint bleeding resulting from constant irritation. The patient’s fingernails were deformed, with longitudinal ridges and v-shaped notching of the free margin. The remainder of the physical exam was unremarkable, and review of systems was negative.

This patient’s symptoms could result from a variety of causes. Seborrheic dermatitis is a common skin condition that presents with brown plaques similar to those on the patient’s trunk. Another possible diagnosis is Grover’s disease, a rare disorder also known as transient acantholytic dermatosis, in which keratotic plaques appear on the torso and are thought to occur from trauma to sun-damaged skin. An additional consideration is Hailey-Hailey disease, a rare genetic disorder also known as benign familial pemphigus, which is characterized by red-brown plaques located predominantly on flexure surfaces.¹ Skin biopsy should be performed for a definitive diagnosis.

Given the family history of a similar rash occurring in first-degree relatives and the distinct physical exam findings, the most likely diagnosis for this patient is keratosis follicularis, also known as Darier disease (DD) or Darier-White disease.

DISCUSSION

Named after Ferdinand-Jean Darier, who discovered this rare genodermatosis, DD is a rare genetic skin disorder caused by mutations of the ATP2A2 gene, located on the long arm of chromosome 12 at position 24,11.^1,2 The mutation disrupts the encoding of the enzyme sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium-ATPase 2 (SERCA2). This enzyme is important in the transport of calcium ions across the cell membrane, and insufficient amounts lead to a defect in intracellular calcium signaling.^2,3

This genetic mutation is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait with complete penetrance. DD affects men and women equally, with progressive skin signs of interfamilial and intrafamilial variability.⁴ Skin manifestations occur from late childhood to early adulthood and are typical during adolescence.⁴ Acute flare-ups can be triggered by heat, perspiration, sunlight, ultraviolet B exposure, stress, or certain medications (in particular, lithium).² DD is not contagious.²

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

The characteristics of DD include yellow or brown, rough, firm papules that are frequently crusted. The papules often appear in seborrheic areas of the body, such as the chest, back, ears, nasolabial fold, forehead, scalp, and groin.⁴ The severity of expression varies from mild, with few lesions, to severe, in which the entire body is covered with disfiguring, macerated plaques emitting a strong odor. On biopsy, the histopathologic findings are typical of dyskeratosis and acantholysis.⁴

Fingernails (and occasionally toenails) display broad, white or red, somewhat translucent, longitudinal bands accompanied by v-shaped notching^1,4,5 (see Figure 2). Such nail changes are diagnostic and occur in 92% to 95% of patients with DD.⁶ They may, in fact, occur in the absence of cutaneous disease. All nails may be affected, but usually only two to three are involved.⁶

Although uncommon in DD, white, umbilicated, or cobblestone plaques may be found on intraoral mucous membranes (ie, tongue, buccal mucosa, palate, epiglottis, pharyngeal wall, and esophagus); due to confluence, papules may mimic leukoplakia.⁷ Lesions may also appear on the vulva or rectum.^1,5 In severe cases, the salivary glands can become blocked, and the gums can hypertrophy.⁵

Since epidermal and brain tissue both derive from ectoderm, pathologic processes that affect one organ system may also affect the other.⁸ Indeed, among patients with DD, neuropsychiatric problems—including epilepsy, learning difficulties, and schizoaffective disorder—are commonly reported.¹ To confirm an association between DD and ATP2A2 mutations, Jacobsen and colleagues performed an analysis of 19 unrelated DD patients with neuropsychiatric phenotypes. They discovered evidence to support the gene’s pleiotropic effects in the brain and hypothesized that mutations in the enzyme SERCA2 correlate with these phenotypes, most specifically for mood disorders.⁹

TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Although no cure is currently available for DD, both short- and long-term treatment options are available; the choice should be based on the severity of an individual patient’s signs and symptoms. For mild cases, topical therapy, such as general emollients, corticosteroid ointments, and high sun protection factor sunscreen, is sufficient.¹

For moderate cases, topical retinoids, including tretinoin cream, adapalene gel or cream, and tazarotene gel, may be necessary.⁴ Keratolytics, including salicylic acid in propylene glycol gel, may be used to regulate hyperkeratosis.⁴ Celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, is another option that may restore the down regulation of SERCA2. This can prevent progression of the disease.¹⁰

 Long-term management includes use of oral retinoid therapy (eg, acitretin), which might reduce the frequency of inflammatory flares.¹ Systemic adverse effects from long-term use of oral retinoids are cause for concern, however. Close monitoring along with patient education can limit the occurrence of complications.¹¹

If DD is uncontrolled with medication, dermabrasion and erbium:YAG laser ablation have been used to successfully treat chronic cases.¹² Although these treatment options may remove existing lesions, it is important to inform patients that the disease has not been cured, that remission is difficult to attain, and that lesions may recur.

Because viral, bacterial, and fungal superinfections are common and may exacerbate the disease, be sure to check for signs of infection while examining the patient.⁴ Patients should be advised to avoid hot environments, and if that is not possible, to dress in cool cotton clothing to allow for proper ventilation and avoid the build-up of perspiration. Excessive perspiration along with poor hygiene can contribute to the formation of infections as well as trigger a flare-up. If an infection develops, patients should consult a health care provider.

Keeping the skin well moisturized can alleviate the constant pruritus that many patients experience. Daily sunscreen use is essential to avoid skin irritation caused by the sun, which can trigger an acute flare-up. Patients should be advised to avoid the long-term use of corticosteroid ointment. They should also contact their health care provider before using OTC treatments such as Burow’s solution.

CONCLUSION

A thorough history and physical exam are crucial in the diagnosis of DD. In this particular case, inquiry into family history was the key to proper diagnosis. That information, paired with a thorough physical exam, led to the correct diagnosis of this rare genetic skin disorder. A skin biopsy provided definitive confirmation.

This patient had a mild-to-moderate manifestation of DD. He was prescribed retinoid therapy, and routine follow-up visits were recommended to monitor the efficacy of medical therapy and to screen for secondary infections or neuropsychiatric disorders.

This case illustrates the importance of taking a full history and performing an in-depth physical exam when a patient presents with an unfamiliar complaint. Being thorough reduces the risk of missing a crucial element that can guide the diagnostic process.

REFERENCES

1. Creamer D, Barker J, Kerdel FA. Papular and papulosquamous dermatoses. In: Acute Adult Dermatology: Diagnosis and Management (A Colour Handbook). London, UK: Manson Publishing Ltd; 2011:48.

2. Kelly EB. Darier disease (DAR). In: Encyclopedia of Human Genetics and Disease. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO; 2013:186-187.

3. Klausegger A, Laimer M, Bauer JW. Darier disease. [In German.] Haut­arzt. 2013;64:22-25.

4. Ringpfeil F. Dermatologic disorders. In: NORD Guide to Rare Disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003:101.

5. Disorders of keratinization. In: Ostler HB, Maibach HI, Hoke AW, Schwab IR, eds. Diseases of the Eye and Skin: A Color Atlas. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:23-34.

6. Baran R, de Berker D, Holzberg M, Thomas L, eds. Baran & Dawber’s Diseases of the Nails and their Management. 4th ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012:295-296.

7. Thiagarajan MK, Narasimhan M, Sankarasubramanian A. Darier disease with oral and esophageal involvement: a case report. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:843-846.

8. Medansky RS, Woloshin AA. Darier’s disease: an evaluation of its neuropsychiatric component. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84:482-484.

9. Jacobsen NJ, Lyons I, Hoogendoorn B, et al. ATP2A2 mutations in Darier’s disease and their relationship to neuropsychiatric phenotypes. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8:1631-1636.

10. Kamijo M, Nishiyama C, Takagi A, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition restores ultraviolet B-induced downregulation of ATP2A2/SERCA2 in keratinocytes: possible therapeutic approach of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition for treatment of Darier disease. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166: 1017-1022.

11. Brecher AR, Orlow SJ. Oral retinoid therapy for dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:171-182.

12. Beier C, Kaufmann R. Efficacy of erbium:YAG laser ablation in Darier disease and Hailey-Hailey disease. Arch Dermatol. 1999;35:423-427.

A 45-year-old man presented to the dermatology office complaining of a pruritic rash on his neck, chest, abdomen, and upper back. The rash had been present since the patient was 20, intermittently flaring and causing severe pruritus. For the past two weeks, it had become increasingly bothersome.

The patient described the rash as “greasy” brown plaques diffusely scattered on his body. The rash on his neck was the most bothersome, and the patient felt an uncontrollable need to scratch that area.

Since it first developed 25 years ago, he had used OTC hydro­cortisone cream as needed to treat the rash. Although effective for past flares, the cream provided only minimal relief during the current episode.

The patient’s medical history included brittle nails with a worsening of nail quality in recent years. The family history revealed that the patient’s father and sister were affected by the same type of rash, which developed in adolescence for each of them, as well as brittle nails.

On physical examination, the skin was warm and moist to the touch. Flat, slightly elevated, greasy brown papules were scattered on the chest, abdomen, and ­upper back, with mild surrounding erythema (see Figure 1). Excoriated lesions were noted on the anterior surface of the neck, with pinpoint bleeding resulting from constant irritation. The patient’s fingernails were deformed, with longitudinal ridges and v-shaped notching of the free margin. The remainder of the physical exam was unremarkable, and review of systems was negative.

This patient’s symptoms could result from a variety of causes. Seborrheic dermatitis is a common skin condition that presents with brown plaques similar to those on the patient’s trunk. Another possible diagnosis is Grover’s disease, a rare disorder also known as transient acantholytic dermatosis, in which keratotic plaques appear on the torso and are thought to occur from trauma to sun-damaged skin. An additional consideration is Hailey-Hailey disease, a rare genetic disorder also known as benign familial pemphigus, which is characterized by red-brown plaques located predominantly on flexure surfaces.¹ Skin biopsy should be performed for a definitive diagnosis.

Given the family history of a similar rash occurring in first-degree relatives and the distinct physical exam findings, the most likely diagnosis for this patient is keratosis follicularis, also known as Darier disease (DD) or Darier-White disease.

DISCUSSION

Named after Ferdinand-Jean Darier, who discovered this rare genodermatosis, DD is a rare genetic skin disorder caused by mutations of the ATP2A2 gene, located on the long arm of chromosome 12 at position 24,11.^1,2 The mutation disrupts the encoding of the enzyme sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium-ATPase 2 (SERCA2). This enzyme is important in the transport of calcium ions across the cell membrane, and insufficient amounts lead to a defect in intracellular calcium signaling.^2,3

This genetic mutation is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait with complete penetrance. DD affects men and women equally, with progressive skin signs of interfamilial and intrafamilial variability.⁴ Skin manifestations occur from late childhood to early adulthood and are typical during adolescence.⁴ Acute flare-ups can be triggered by heat, perspiration, sunlight, ultraviolet B exposure, stress, or certain medications (in particular, lithium).² DD is not contagious.²

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

The characteristics of DD include yellow or brown, rough, firm papules that are frequently crusted. The papules often appear in seborrheic areas of the body, such as the chest, back, ears, nasolabial fold, forehead, scalp, and groin.⁴ The severity of expression varies from mild, with few lesions, to severe, in which the entire body is covered with disfiguring, macerated plaques emitting a strong odor. On biopsy, the histopathologic findings are typical of dyskeratosis and acantholysis.⁴

Fingernails (and occasionally toenails) display broad, white or red, somewhat translucent, longitudinal bands accompanied by v-shaped notching^1,4,5 (see Figure 2). Such nail changes are diagnostic and occur in 92% to 95% of patients with DD.⁶ They may, in fact, occur in the absence of cutaneous disease. All nails may be affected, but usually only two to three are involved.⁶

Although uncommon in DD, white, umbilicated, or cobblestone plaques may be found on intraoral mucous membranes (ie, tongue, buccal mucosa, palate, epiglottis, pharyngeal wall, and esophagus); due to confluence, papules may mimic leukoplakia.⁷ Lesions may also appear on the vulva or rectum.^1,5 In severe cases, the salivary glands can become blocked, and the gums can hypertrophy.⁵

Since epidermal and brain tissue both derive from ectoderm, pathologic processes that affect one organ system may also affect the other.⁸ Indeed, among patients with DD, neuropsychiatric problems—including epilepsy, learning difficulties, and schizoaffective disorder—are commonly reported.¹ To confirm an association between DD and ATP2A2 mutations, Jacobsen and colleagues performed an analysis of 19 unrelated DD patients with neuropsychiatric phenotypes. They discovered evidence to support the gene’s pleiotropic effects in the brain and hypothesized that mutations in the enzyme SERCA2 correlate with these phenotypes, most specifically for mood disorders.⁹

TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT

Although no cure is currently available for DD, both short- and long-term treatment options are available; the choice should be based on the severity of an individual patient’s signs and symptoms. For mild cases, topical therapy, such as general emollients, corticosteroid ointments, and high sun protection factor sunscreen, is sufficient.¹

For moderate cases, topical retinoids, including tretinoin cream, adapalene gel or cream, and tazarotene gel, may be necessary.⁴ Keratolytics, including salicylic acid in propylene glycol gel, may be used to regulate hyperkeratosis.⁴ Celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor, is another option that may restore the down regulation of SERCA2. This can prevent progression of the disease.¹⁰

 Long-term management includes use of oral retinoid therapy (eg, acitretin), which might reduce the frequency of inflammatory flares.¹ Systemic adverse effects from long-term use of oral retinoids are cause for concern, however. Close monitoring along with patient education can limit the occurrence of complications.¹¹

If DD is uncontrolled with medication, dermabrasion and erbium:YAG laser ablation have been used to successfully treat chronic cases.¹² Although these treatment options may remove existing lesions, it is important to inform patients that the disease has not been cured, that remission is difficult to attain, and that lesions may recur.

Because viral, bacterial, and fungal superinfections are common and may exacerbate the disease, be sure to check for signs of infection while examining the patient.⁴ Patients should be advised to avoid hot environments, and if that is not possible, to dress in cool cotton clothing to allow for proper ventilation and avoid the build-up of perspiration. Excessive perspiration along with poor hygiene can contribute to the formation of infections as well as trigger a flare-up. If an infection develops, patients should consult a health care provider.

Keeping the skin well moisturized can alleviate the constant pruritus that many patients experience. Daily sunscreen use is essential to avoid skin irritation caused by the sun, which can trigger an acute flare-up. Patients should be advised to avoid the long-term use of corticosteroid ointment. They should also contact their health care provider before using OTC treatments such as Burow’s solution.

CONCLUSION

A thorough history and physical exam are crucial in the diagnosis of DD. In this particular case, inquiry into family history was the key to proper diagnosis. That information, paired with a thorough physical exam, led to the correct diagnosis of this rare genetic skin disorder. A skin biopsy provided definitive confirmation.

This patient had a mild-to-moderate manifestation of DD. He was prescribed retinoid therapy, and routine follow-up visits were recommended to monitor the efficacy of medical therapy and to screen for secondary infections or neuropsychiatric disorders.

This case illustrates the importance of taking a full history and performing an in-depth physical exam when a patient presents with an unfamiliar complaint. Being thorough reduces the risk of missing a crucial element that can guide the diagnostic process.

REFERENCES

1. Creamer D, Barker J, Kerdel FA. Papular and papulosquamous dermatoses. In: Acute Adult Dermatology: Diagnosis and Management (A Colour Handbook). London, UK: Manson Publishing Ltd; 2011:48.

2. Kelly EB. Darier disease (DAR). In: Encyclopedia of Human Genetics and Disease. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO; 2013:186-187.

3. Klausegger A, Laimer M, Bauer JW. Darier disease. [In German.] Haut­arzt. 2013;64:22-25.

4. Ringpfeil F. Dermatologic disorders. In: NORD Guide to Rare Disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003:101.

5. Disorders of keratinization. In: Ostler HB, Maibach HI, Hoke AW, Schwab IR, eds. Diseases of the Eye and Skin: A Color Atlas. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:23-34.

6. Baran R, de Berker D, Holzberg M, Thomas L, eds. Baran & Dawber’s Diseases of the Nails and their Management. 4th ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2012:295-296.

7. Thiagarajan MK, Narasimhan M, Sankarasubramanian A. Darier disease with oral and esophageal involvement: a case report. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22:843-846.

8. Medansky RS, Woloshin AA. Darier’s disease: an evaluation of its neuropsychiatric component. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84:482-484.

9. Jacobsen NJ, Lyons I, Hoogendoorn B, et al. ATP2A2 mutations in Darier’s disease and their relationship to neuropsychiatric phenotypes. Hum Mol Genet. 1999;8:1631-1636.

10. Kamijo M, Nishiyama C, Takagi A, et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition restores ultraviolet B-induced downregulation of ATP2A2/SERCA2 in keratinocytes: possible therapeutic approach of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition for treatment of Darier disease. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166: 1017-1022.

11. Brecher AR, Orlow SJ. Oral retinoid therapy for dermatologic conditions in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49:171-182.

12. Beier C, Kaufmann R. Efficacy of erbium:YAG laser ablation in Darier disease and Hailey-Hailey disease. Arch Dermatol. 1999;35:423-427.

ANSWER

The correct interpretation of this ECG includes normal sinus rhythm with left atrial enlargement and a left bundle branch block (LBBB). Normal sinus rhythm is evidenced by a P wave associated with each QRS complex with a consistent PR interval.

Left atrial enlargement is evidenced by a P-wave duration ≥ 120 ms in lead II, a notched P wave in the limb leads with a peak duration ≥ 4 ms, and a terminal P-wave negativity in lead V₁ with a duration ≥ 4 ms and a depth ≥ 1 mm.

An LBBB is illustrated by the QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, a dominant S wave in lead V₁, broad monophasic R waves in the lateral leads (including I, aVL, V₅, and V₆), and R-wave peak times of > 60 ms in leads V₅ and V₆.

Further work-up revealed elevated left end-diastolic filling pressures, volume overload, and pulmonary edema consistent with diastolic heart failure. Given the unclear etiology of the LBBB, cardiac catheterization was performed. It revealed no significant coronary artery disease.

ANSWER

The correct interpretation of this ECG includes normal sinus rhythm with left atrial enlargement and a left bundle branch block (LBBB). Normal sinus rhythm is evidenced by a P wave associated with each QRS complex with a consistent PR interval.

Left atrial enlargement is evidenced by a P-wave duration ≥ 120 ms in lead II, a notched P wave in the limb leads with a peak duration ≥ 4 ms, and a terminal P-wave negativity in lead V₁ with a duration ≥ 4 ms and a depth ≥ 1 mm.

An LBBB is illustrated by the QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, a dominant S wave in lead V₁, broad monophasic R waves in the lateral leads (including I, aVL, V₅, and V₆), and R-wave peak times of > 60 ms in leads V₅ and V₆.

Further work-up revealed elevated left end-diastolic filling pressures, volume overload, and pulmonary edema consistent with diastolic heart failure. Given the unclear etiology of the LBBB, cardiac catheterization was performed. It revealed no significant coronary artery disease.

ANSWER

The correct interpretation of this ECG includes normal sinus rhythm with left atrial enlargement and a left bundle branch block (LBBB). Normal sinus rhythm is evidenced by a P wave associated with each QRS complex with a consistent PR interval.

Left atrial enlargement is evidenced by a P-wave duration ≥ 120 ms in lead II, a notched P wave in the limb leads with a peak duration ≥ 4 ms, and a terminal P-wave negativity in lead V₁ with a duration ≥ 4 ms and a depth ≥ 1 mm.

An LBBB is illustrated by the QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, a dominant S wave in lead V₁, broad monophasic R waves in the lateral leads (including I, aVL, V₅, and V₆), and R-wave peak times of > 60 ms in leads V₅ and V₆.

Further work-up revealed elevated left end-diastolic filling pressures, volume overload, and pulmonary edema consistent with diastolic heart failure. Given the unclear etiology of the LBBB, cardiac catheterization was performed. It revealed no significant coronary artery disease.

ANSWER

The correct answer is trichotillomania (choice “c”). See Discussion for more information.

Alopecia mucinosa (choice “a”) is a rare cause of focal hair loss that can occur in children. However, it usually presents with papules or plaques, unlike the smooth skin surface seen here.

Alopecia areata (choice “b”), common in children, typically entails complete hair loss in a given area—or, as hair regrows, with hairs of equal length. The uneven hairs seen in trichotillomania help a great deal in distinguishing it from alopecia areata.

Traction alopecia (choice “d”) is focal hair loss caused by chronic tension related to hairstyling. Most common in African-American women, and typically affecting the frontal periphery of the scalp, it is an unlikely explanation for hair loss in a 10-year-old boy.

DISCUSSION

Trichotillomania (TT) means, literally, “hair-pulling madness.” But in reality, there’s little actual plucking of hairs in this common condition. Instead, patients habitually manipulate hair by twirling and tugging, which weakens the shafts and follicles and renders them more susceptible to everyday wear and tear. In some cases, individual hairs speed through their growth phases and others break off in mid-shaft. All of this contributes to the classic “uneven” look of TT.

Patients with TT tend to be in the 4-to-17 age range, and most have issues with unresolved anxiety that manifest in part with manipulation of the hair. Officially considered an impulse control disorder, TT in most cases belongs to the psychiatrist’s domain.

In this case, it was enormously helpful to have corroboration from the patient and his mother regarding his role in creating and perpetuating the problem. Had that not been the case—or in the event of other doubts as to the correct diagnosis—biopsy could have been performed to rule out most of the other items in the differential, particularly alopecia areata.

Interestingly enough, studies have shown that the more sharply defined the area of hair loss, the more likely the patient is to admit his/her role in its creation. However, as is often the case with scientific research, contradictory findings have also been made.

TREATMENT

Treatment of TT is problematic, since no medications have proven to be completely helpful. Psychiatrists use a combination of medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other behavior modifications that are designed to overcome the habitual component of the problem. Most cases of TT resolve on their own, but in severe cases that persist for years, permanent hair loss can result.

In this case, there was enough insight and motivation on the part of the patient and his family to stop the offending behavior and allow the hair to regrow.

ANSWER

The correct answer is trichotillomania (choice “c”). See Discussion for more information.

Alopecia mucinosa (choice “a”) is a rare cause of focal hair loss that can occur in children. However, it usually presents with papules or plaques, unlike the smooth skin surface seen here.

Alopecia areata (choice “b”), common in children, typically entails complete hair loss in a given area—or, as hair regrows, with hairs of equal length. The uneven hairs seen in trichotillomania help a great deal in distinguishing it from alopecia areata.

Traction alopecia (choice “d”) is focal hair loss caused by chronic tension related to hairstyling. Most common in African-American women, and typically affecting the frontal periphery of the scalp, it is an unlikely explanation for hair loss in a 10-year-old boy.

DISCUSSION

Trichotillomania (TT) means, literally, “hair-pulling madness.” But in reality, there’s little actual plucking of hairs in this common condition. Instead, patients habitually manipulate hair by twirling and tugging, which weakens the shafts and follicles and renders them more susceptible to everyday wear and tear. In some cases, individual hairs speed through their growth phases and others break off in mid-shaft. All of this contributes to the classic “uneven” look of TT.

Patients with TT tend to be in the 4-to-17 age range, and most have issues with unresolved anxiety that manifest in part with manipulation of the hair. Officially considered an impulse control disorder, TT in most cases belongs to the psychiatrist’s domain.

In this case, it was enormously helpful to have corroboration from the patient and his mother regarding his role in creating and perpetuating the problem. Had that not been the case—or in the event of other doubts as to the correct diagnosis—biopsy could have been performed to rule out most of the other items in the differential, particularly alopecia areata.

Interestingly enough, studies have shown that the more sharply defined the area of hair loss, the more likely the patient is to admit his/her role in its creation. However, as is often the case with scientific research, contradictory findings have also been made.

TREATMENT

Treatment of TT is problematic, since no medications have proven to be completely helpful. Psychiatrists use a combination of medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other behavior modifications that are designed to overcome the habitual component of the problem. Most cases of TT resolve on their own, but in severe cases that persist for years, permanent hair loss can result.

In this case, there was enough insight and motivation on the part of the patient and his family to stop the offending behavior and allow the hair to regrow.

ANSWER

The correct answer is trichotillomania (choice “c”). See Discussion for more information.

Alopecia mucinosa (choice “a”) is a rare cause of focal hair loss that can occur in children. However, it usually presents with papules or plaques, unlike the smooth skin surface seen here.

Alopecia areata (choice “b”), common in children, typically entails complete hair loss in a given area—or, as hair regrows, with hairs of equal length. The uneven hairs seen in trichotillomania help a great deal in distinguishing it from alopecia areata.

Traction alopecia (choice “d”) is focal hair loss caused by chronic tension related to hairstyling. Most common in African-American women, and typically affecting the frontal periphery of the scalp, it is an unlikely explanation for hair loss in a 10-year-old boy.

DISCUSSION

Trichotillomania (TT) means, literally, “hair-pulling madness.” But in reality, there’s little actual plucking of hairs in this common condition. Instead, patients habitually manipulate hair by twirling and tugging, which weakens the shafts and follicles and renders them more susceptible to everyday wear and tear. In some cases, individual hairs speed through their growth phases and others break off in mid-shaft. All of this contributes to the classic “uneven” look of TT.

Patients with TT tend to be in the 4-to-17 age range, and most have issues with unresolved anxiety that manifest in part with manipulation of the hair. Officially considered an impulse control disorder, TT in most cases belongs to the psychiatrist’s domain.

In this case, it was enormously helpful to have corroboration from the patient and his mother regarding his role in creating and perpetuating the problem. Had that not been the case—or in the event of other doubts as to the correct diagnosis—biopsy could have been performed to rule out most of the other items in the differential, particularly alopecia areata.

Interestingly enough, studies have shown that the more sharply defined the area of hair loss, the more likely the patient is to admit his/her role in its creation. However, as is often the case with scientific research, contradictory findings have also been made.

TREATMENT

Treatment of TT is problematic, since no medications have proven to be completely helpful. Psychiatrists use a combination of medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other behavior modifications that are designed to overcome the habitual component of the problem. Most cases of TT resolve on their own, but in severe cases that persist for years, permanent hair loss can result.

In this case, there was enough insight and motivation on the part of the patient and his family to stop the offending behavior and allow the hair to regrow.