Impact of Fenofibrate on Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Features of the Metabolic Syndrome: Subgroup Analysis From FIELD
(2010) Current Cardiology Reviews — Vol. 6, n° 2, p. 112-118 (2010)
Files
2010-Hermans-CurrCardiolRev.pdf
Open Access - Adobe PDF
- 211.59 KB
Details
- Authors
- Abstract
- Given evidence of increasing prevalence in developed and developing countries, as a result of obesity trends and sedentary lifestyles, the metabolic syndrome represents an increasing burden on healthcare systems. Management guidelines for dyslipidaemia have primarily focused on LDL-C reduction; however, this approach fails to sufficiently address other lipid abnormalities associated with the metabolic syndrome. Atherogenic dyslipidaemia (characterized by elevated triglycerides and low HDL-C) is strongly associated with insulin-resistant states, such as type 2 diabetes and the metabolic syndrome, and is also a common finding among patients receiving treatment for dyslipidaemia. Intervening against atherogenic dyslipidaemia may address a substantial modifiable fraction of residual cardiovascular risk that remains after treatment with a statin. Recent findings from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study support this view. Fenofibrate treatment was shown to be especially effective in treating marked atherogenic dyslipidaemia, with a significant 27% relative risk reduction for cardiovascular events (P=0.0005, vs. 11%, P=0.035 for all patients) relative to placebo. These data, together with the earlier demonstration of significant microvascular benefits associated with this treatment, suggest a role for fenofibrate, in addition to statin therapy and lifestyle intervention, for reducing global vascular risk in type 2 diabetes patients and for impacting atherogenic dyslipidaemia associated with the metabolic syndrome.
- Affiliations
Citations
Hermans, M. (2010). Impact of Fenofibrate on Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Features of the Metabolic Syndrome: Subgroup Analysis From FIELD. Current Cardiology Reviews, 6(2), 112-118. https://doi.org/10.2174/157340310791162686 (Original work published 2010)