Plant sterols and plant stanols in the management of dyslipidaemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE This EAS Consensus Panel critically appraised evidence relevant to the benefit to risk relationship of functional foods with added plant sterols and/or plant stanols, as components of a healthy lifestyle, to reduce plasma low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and thereby lower cardiovascular risk. METHODS AND RESULTS Plant sterols/stanols (when taken at 2 g/day) cause significant inhibition of cholesterol absorption and lower LDL-C levels by between 8 and 10%. The relative proportions of cholesterol versus sterol/stanol levels are similar in both plasma and tissue, with levels of sterols/stanols being 500-/10,000-fold lower than those of cholesterol, suggesting they are handled similarly to cholesterol in most cells. Despite possible atherogenicity of marked elevations in circulating levels of plant sterols/stanols, protective effects have been observed in some animal models of atherosclerosis. Higher plasma levels of plant sterols/stanols associated with intakes of 2 g/day in man have not been linked to adverse effects on health in long-term human studies. Importantly, at this dose, plant sterol/stanol-mediated LDL-C lowering is additive to that of statins in dyslipidaemic subjects, equivalent to doubling the dose of statin. The reported 6-9% lowering of plasma triglyceride by 2 g/day in hypertriglyceridaemic patients warrants further evaluation. CONCLUSION Based on LDL-C lowering and the absence of adverse signals, this EAS Consensus Panel concludes that functional foods with plant sterols/stanols may be considered 1) in individuals with high cholesterol levels at intermediate or low global cardiovascular risk who do not qualify for pharmacotherapy, 2) as an adjunct to pharmacologic therapy in high and very high risk patients who fail to achieve LDL-C targets on statins or are statin- intolerant, 3) and in adults and children (>6 years) with familial hypercholesterolaemia, in line with current guidance. However, it must be acknowledged that there are no randomised, controlled clinical trial data with hard end-points to establish clinical benefit from the use of plant sterols or plant stanols.

Estimating the prevalence of comorbid conditions and their effect on health care costs in patients with diabetes mellitus in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND Estimating the prevalence of comorbidities and their associated costs in patients with diabetes is fundamental to optimizing health care management. This study assesses the prevalence and health care costs of comorbid conditions among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Distinguishing potentially diabetes- and nondiabetes-related comorbidities in patients with diabetes, we also determined the most frequent chronic conditions and estimated their effect on costs across different health care settings in Switzerland. METHODS Using health care claims data from 2011, we calculated the prevalence and average health care costs of comorbidities among patients with and without diabetes in inpatient and outpatient settings. Patients with diabetes and comorbid conditions were identified using pharmacy-based cost groups. Generalized linear models with negative binomial distribution were used to analyze the effect of comorbidities on health care costs. RESULTS A total of 932,612 persons, including 50,751 patients with diabetes, were enrolled. The most frequent potentially diabetes- and nondiabetes-related comorbidities in patients older than 64 years were cardiovascular diseases (91%), rheumatologic conditions (55%), and hyperlipidemia (53%). The mean total health care costs for diabetes patients varied substantially by comorbidity status (US$3,203-$14,223). Patients with diabetes and more than two comorbidities incurred US$10,584 higher total costs than patients without comorbidity. Costs were significantly higher in patients with diabetes and comorbid cardiovascular disease (US$4,788), hyperlipidemia (US$2,163), hyperacidity disorders (US$8,753), and pain (US$8,324) compared with in those without the given disease. CONCLUSION Comorbidities in patients with diabetes are highly prevalent and have substantial consequences for medical expenditures. Interestingly, hyperacidity disorders and pain were the most costly conditions. Our findings highlight the importance of developing strategies that meet the needs of patients with diabetes and comorbidities. Integrated diabetes care such as used in the Chronic Care Model may represent a useful strategy.