No abstract

The EAS FHSC is an international initiative involving a network of investigators interested in FH from around 70 countries.• Information on FH prevalence is lacking in most countries; where available, data tend to align with contemporary estimates.• FH diagnosis and management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment.• In most countries diagnosis primarily relies on DLCN criteria, and less frequently on Simon Broom or MEDPED.• Therapy for FH is not universally reimbursed, and criteria vary across countries. Access to PCSK9i and apheresis is limited.

No abstract

No abstract

COVID-19 and diabetes are currently two global pandemics. Epidemiological studies indicate that diabetes is the second most common comorbidity in COVID-19. This review aims to summarize currently available data about prevalence, possible pathophysiological mechanisms and management of patients with diabetes and COVID-19.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are an important asset in the armamentarium for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM). Incretin failure is a critical etiopathogenetic feature of type 2 DM, which, if reversed, results in improved glycaemic control. GLP-1 RAs are injectable peptides that resemble the structure and function of endogenous incretin GLP-1, but as they are not deactivated by the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), their half-life is prolonged compared with native GLP-1. Based on their ability to activate GLP-1 receptor, GLP-1 RAs are classified as short-acting (exenatide twice-daily and lixisenatide once-daily), and long-acting (liraglutide once-daily and the once-weekly formulations of exenatide extended-release, dulaglutide, and albiglutide). Semaglutide, another long-acting, once-weekly GLP-1 RA, was recently approved by the FDA and EMA. Although all of these agents potently reduce haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), there are unique features and fundamental differences among them related to fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia reduction, weight loss potency, cardiovascular protection efficacy, and adverse events profile. It is imperative that current evidence be integrated and applied in the context of an individualised patient-centred approach. This should include not only glucose management but also targeting as many as possible of the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for type 2 DM development and progression.

Objective To evaluate and compare the influences of micronized fenofibrate and atorvastatin on serum lipid profile, including lipoprotein(a) levels, and on fibrinogen levels in a large group of patients with primary mixed hyperlipidemia (serum total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels >240 and 160 mg/dl, respectively, and serum triglyceride level >200mg/dl).Methods This was a 16-week, open-label, parallel-design study conducted in our lipid Clinic. After a 6-week dietary baseline phase, we implemented a treatment phase, during which patients received 10 mg/day atorvastatin (n =45) or 200 mg/day micronized fenofibrate (n = 46) for 16 weeks.Patients were assigned to one of the drugs in sequential orders. Serum lipid profiles, including levels of lipoprotein(a) and fibrinogen, as well as muscle and liver enzymes, were measured during screening, and during weeks -4, -2, 0, 8, and 16 of the treatment period.Results Atorvastatin was more effective than was micronized fenofibrate at lowering levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, whereas fenofibrate was more effective at lowering levels of triglycerides, and raising levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein AI' However, micronized fenofibrate could significantly decrease plasma fibrinogen levels, whereas atorvastatin evoked a small increase. ConclusionBoth atorvastatin in small doses and micronized fenofibrate are effective for improving serum lipid profiles of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. However, there are considerable differences between the two drugs concerning their influences on plasma fibrinogen levels.

IntroductionPatients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) may have lower 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)VitD) serum levels compared with non-MetS individuals. Vitamin D (VitD) deficiency is associated with various cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Yet, the effect of VitD supplementation on MetS remains uncertain. Our aim was to examine the effect of VitD supplementation on CVD risk factors in MetS subjects.Material and methodsThis pilot study had a PROBE (prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point) design. Fifty patients with MetS were included and randomised either to dietary instructions (n = 25) (control group) or dietary instructions plus VitD 2000 IU/day (n = 25) (VitD group) for 3 months. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01237769).ResultsIn both groups a similar small weight reduction was achieved. In the VitD group serum 25(OH)VitD levels significantly increased by 91% (from 16.0 (3.0–35.0) to 30.6 (8.4–67.0) ng/ml, p < 0.001), while in the control group no significant change was observed (from 10.0 (4.0–39.6) to 13.0 (3.5–37.0) ng/ml). In both groups triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, fasting glucose, haemoglobin A1c, homeostasis model assessment index and diastolic blood pressure did not significantly change. Systolic blood pressure decreased by 3.7% (from 134 ±14 to 129 ±13 mm Hg, p = 0.05) in the VitD group, while it decreased by 1.5% (from 132 ±13 to 130 ±16 mm Hg, p = NS) in the control group (p = NS between groups). In the VitD group serum 25(OH)VitD increase was negatively correlated with SBP decrease (r = –0.398, p = 0.049).ConclusionsVitD supplementation (2000 IU/day) did not affect various CVD risk factors in patients with MetS.