Resumo Fundamento: Existe controvérsia sobre a melhor forma de selecionar indivíduos para tratamento hipolipemiante na população. Objetivos: Em indivíduos saudáveis em prevenção primária: avaliar a relação entre o risco cardiovascular segundo a V Diretriz Brasileira de Dislipidemias e o risco calculado pelas pooled cohort equations (PCE); comparar a proporção de indivíduos elegíveis para estatinas, de acordo com diferentes critérios. Métodos: Em indivíduos de 40 a 75 anos submetidos consecutivamente a avaliação rotineira de saúde em um único centro, quatro critérios de elegibilidade para estatina foram definidos: BR-1, BR-2 (LDL-c acima ou pelo menos 30 mg/dL acima da meta preconizada pela diretriz brasileira, respectivamente), EUA-1 e EUA-2 (risco estimado pelas PCE em 10 anos ≥ 5,0% ou ≥ 7,5%, respectivamente). Resultados: Foram estudados 13.947 indivíduos (48 ± 6 anos, 71% homens). A maioria dos indivíduos de risco intermediário ou alto pela V Diretriz apresentou risco calculado pelas PCE baixo e mais de 70% daqueles considerados de alto risco o foram devido à presença de fator agravante. Foram elegíveis para estatina 24%, 17%, 4% e 2% das mulheres pelos critérios BR-1, BR-2, EUA-1 e EUA-2, respectivamente (p < 0,01). Os respectivos valores para os homens foram 75%, 58%, 31% e 17% (p < 0,01). Oitenta e cinco por cento das mulheres e 60% dos homens elegíveis para estatina pelo critério BR-1 não seriam candidatos pelo critério EUA-1. Conclusões: Comparada à diretriz norte-americana, a V Diretriz Brasileira considera uma proporção substancialmente maior da população como elegível para estatina em prevenção primária. Isso se relaciona com discrepâncias entre o risco estratificado pela diretriz brasileira e o calculado pelas PCE, particularmente devido à reclassificação de risco baseada em fatores agravantes.

Abstract Background: The best way to select individuals for lipid-lowering treatment in the population is controversial. Objective: In healthy individuals in primary prevention: to assess the relationship between cardiovascular risk categorized according to the V Brazilian Guideline on Dyslipidemia and the risk calculated by the pooled cohort equations (PCE); to compare the proportion of individuals eligible for statins, according to different criteria. Methods: In individuals aged 40-75 years consecutively submitted to routine health assessment at one single center, four criteria of eligibility for statin were defined: BR-1, BR-2 (LDL-c above or at least 30 mg/dL above the goal recommended by the Brazilian Guideline, respectively), USA-1 and USA-2 (10-year risk estimated by the PCE ≥ 5.0% or ≥ 7.5%, respectively). Results: The final sample consisted of 13,947 individuals (48 ± 6 years, 71% men). Most individuals at intermediate or high risk based on the V Brazilian Guideline had a low risk calculated by the PCE, and more than 70% of those who were considered at high risk had this categorization because of the presence of aggravating factors. Among women, 24%, 17%, 4% and 2% were eligible for statin use according to the BR-1, BR-2, USA-1 and USA-2 criteria, respectively (p < 0.01). The respective figures for men were 75%, 58%, 31% and 17% (p < 0.01). Eighty-five percent of women and 60% of men who were eligible for statin based on the BR-1 criterion would not be candidates for statin based on the USA-1 criterion. Conclusions: As compared to the North American Guideline, the V Brazilian Guideline considers a substantially higher proportion of the population as eligible for statin use in primary prevention. This results from discrepancies between the risk stratified by the Brazilian Guideline and that calculated by the PCE, particularly because of the risk reclassification based on aggravating factors.

Resumo Fundamentos: Há controvérsias sobre se o controle do colesterol plasmático deve ou não se basear em metas de concentração de colesterol LDL (LDL-c). Objetivos: Comparar o impacto estimado de diferentes estratégias hipolipemiantes, baseadas ou não em metas de LDL-c, sobre o risco de eventos cardiovasculares maiores em uma população de risco cardiovascular mais elevado. Métodos: Foram incluídos indivíduos consecutivamente submetidos a uma avaliação rotineira de saúde em um único centro e que apresentavam um risco em 10 anos de doença cardiovascular aterosclerótica (DCVAS) ≥ 7,5% (“pooled cohort equations”, ACC/AHA, 2013). Para cada indivíduo, foram simuladas duas estratégias baseadas em meta de LDL-c (≤ 100 mg/dL [Emeta-100] ou ≤ 70 mg/dL [Emeta-70]) e duas estratégias baseadas em redução percentual do LDL-c (30% [E30%] ou 50% [E50%]). Resultados: Em 1.897 indivíduos (57 ± 7 anos, 96% homens, risco em 10 anos de DCVAS 13,7 ± 7,1%), o LDL-c seria reduzido de 141 ± 33 mg/dL para 99 ± 23 mg/dL na E30%, 71 ± 16 mg/dL na E50%, 98 ± 9 mg/dL na Emeta-100 e 70 ± 2 mg/dL na Emeta-70. O risco em 10 anos de DCVAS seria reduzido para 8,8 ± 4,8% na E50% e para 8,9 ± 5,2 na Emeta-70. O número de eventos cardiovasculares maiores prevenidos em 10 anos por 1.000 indivíduos seria de 32 na E30%, 31 na Emeta-100, 49 na E50% e 48 na Emeta-70. Em comparação com a Emeta-70, a E50% evitaria mais eventos no tercil inferior de LDL-c e menos eventos no tercil superior de LDL-c. Conclusões: As abordagens hipolipemiantes mais agressivas simuladas neste estudo, com base em meta de LDL-c ou redução percentual, podem potencialmente prevenir cerca de 50% mais eventos cardiovasculares graves na população em comparação com os tratamentos menos intensivos. Os níveis basais de LDL-c determinam qual estratégia (baseada ou não em meta de LDL-c) é mais apropriada para cada indivíduo.

Abstract Background: There is controversy whether management of blood cholesterol should be based or not on LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) target concentrations. Objectives: To compare the estimated impact of different lipid-lowering strategies, based or not on LDL-c targets, on the risk of major cardiovascular events in a population with higher cardiovascular risk. Methods: We included consecutive individuals undergoing a routine health screening in a single center who had a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) ≥ 7.5% (pooled cohort equations, ACC/AHA, 2013). For each individual, we simulated two strategies based on LDL-c target (≤ 100 mg/dL [Starget-100] or ≤ 70 mg/dL [Starget-70]) and two strategies based on percent LDL-c reduction (30% [S30%] or 50% [S50%]). Results: In 1,897 subjects (57 ± 7 years, 96% men, 10-year ASCVD risk 13.7 ± 7.1%), LDL-c would be lowered from 141 ± 33 mg/dL to 99 ± 23 mg/dL in S30%, 71 ± 16 mg/dL in S50%, 98 ± 9 mg/dL in Starget-100, and 70 ± 2 mg/dL in Starget-70. Ten-year ASCVD risk would be reduced to 8.8 ± 4.8% in S50% and 8.9 ± 5.2 in Starget-70. The number of major cardiovascular events prevented in 10 years per 1,000 individuals would be 32 in S30%, 31 in Starget-100, 49 in S50%, and 48 in Starget-70. Compared with Starget-70, S50% would prevent more events in the lower LDL-c tertile and fewer events in the higher LDL-c tertile. Conclusions: The more aggressive lipid-lowering approaches simulated in this study, based on LDL-c target or percent reduction, may potentially prevent approximately 50% more hard cardiovascular events in the population compared with the less intensive treatments. Baseline LDL-c determines which strategy (based or not on LDL-c target) is more appropriate at the individual level.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the ERICO study (Strategy of Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome), a prospective cohort to investigate the epidemiology of acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: The ERICO study, which is being performed at a secondary general hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, is enrolling consecutive acute coronary syndrome patients who are 35 years old or older. The sociodemographic information, medical assessments, treatment data and blood samples are collected at admission. After 30 days, the medical history is updated, and additional blood and urinary samples are collected. In addition, a retinography, carotid intima-media thickness, heart rate variability and pulse-wave velocity are performed. Questionnaires about food frequency, physical activity, sleep apnea and depression are also applied. At six months and annually after an acute event, information is collected by telephone. RESULTS: From February 2009 to September 2011, 738 patients with a diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome were enrolled. Of these, 208 (28.2%) had ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 288 (39.0%) had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 242 (32.8%) had unstable angina (UA). The mean age was 62.7 years, 58.5% were men and 77.4% had 8 years or less of education. The most common cardiovascular risk factors were hypertension (76%) and sedentarism (73.4%). Only 29.2% had a prior history of coronary heart disease. Compared with the ST-elevation myocardial infarction subgroup, the unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients had higher frequencies of hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary heart disease (p<0.001) and dyslipidemia (p = 0.03). Smoking was more frequent in the ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other hospital registries, our findings revealed a higher burden of CV risk factors and less frequent prior CHD history.