Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘cardiovascular risk’


Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Reporter, Reposted

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Intelligence

DR ANTHONY MELVIN CRASTO …..FOR BLOG HOME CLICK HERE

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/10/29/2010/larryhbern/Rofecoxib

ROFECOXIB

MK-966, MK-0966, Vioxx

162011-90-7

C17-H14-O4-S
314.3596
\
Percent Composition: C 64.95%, H 4.49%, O 20.36%, S 10.20%
LitRef: Selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor. Prepn: Y. Ducharme et al., WO 9500501; eidem, US5474995 (both 1995 to Merck Frosst).
Therap-Cat: Anti-inflammatory; analgesic.

Rofecoxib /ˌrɒfɨˈkɒksɪb/ is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has now been withdrawn over safety concerns. It was marketed by Merck & Co. to treat osteoarthritisacute pain conditions, and dysmenorrhoea. Rofecoxib was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on May 20, 1999, and was marketed under the brand names VioxxCeoxx, and Ceeoxx.

Rofecoxib

Rofecoxib

Rofecoxib gained widespread acceptance among physicians treating patients with arthritis and other conditions causing chronic or acute pain. Worldwide, over 80 million people were prescribed rofecoxib at some time.[1]

On September 30, 2004, Merck withdrew rofecoxib from the market because of concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke associated with long-term, high-dosage use. Merck withdrew the drug after disclosures that it withheld information about rofecoxib’s risks from doctors and patients for over five years, resulting in between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of serious heart disease.[2] Rofecoxib was one of the most widely used drugs ever to be withdrawn from the market. In the year before withdrawal, Merck had sales revenue of US$2.5 billion from Vioxx.[3] Merck reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through 2007, and have set aside $4.85bn for legal claims from US citizens.

Rofecoxib was available on prescription in both tablet-form and as an oral suspension. It was available by injection for hospital use.

 

 Mode of action
 Cyclooxygenase (COX) has two well-studied isoforms, called COX-1 and COX-2.
  • COX-1 mediates the synthesis of prostaglandins responsible for protection of the stomach lining, while
  • COX-2 mediates the synthesis of prostaglandins responsible for pain and inflammation.
prostaglandin PGE2

prostaglandin PGE2

By creating “selective” NSAIDs that inhibit COX-2, but not COX-1, the same pain relief as traditional NSAIDs is offered, but with greatly reduced risk of fatal or debilitating peptic ulcers. Rofecoxib is a selective COX-2 inhibitor, or “coxib”.

Others include Merck’s etoricoxib (Arcoxia), Pfizer’s celecoxib (Celebrex) and valdecoxib (Bextra). Interestingly, at the time of its withdrawal, rofecoxib was the only coxib with clinical evidence of its superior gastrointestinal adverse effect profile over conventional NSAIDs. This was largely based on the VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen.[4]

Pharmacokinetics

The therapeutic recommended dosages were 12.5, 25, and 50 mg with an approximate bioavailability of 93%.[5][6][7] Rofecoxib crossed the placenta and blood–brain barrier,[5][6][8]and took 1–3 hours to reach peak plasma concentration with an effective half-life (based on steady-state levels) of approximately 17 hours.[5][7][9] The metabolic products are cis-dihydro and trans-dihydro derivatives of rofecoxib[5][9] which are primarily excreted through urine.

Fabricated efficacy studies

On March 11, 2009, Scott S. Reuben, former chief of acute pain at Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass., revealed that data for 21 studies he had authored for the efficacy of the drug (along with others such as celecoxib) had been fabricated in order to augment the analgesic effects of the drugs. There is no evidence that Reuben colluded with Merck in falsifying his data. Reuben was also a former paid spokesperson for the drug company Pfizer (which owns the intellectual property rights for marketing celecoxib in the United States). The retracted studies were not submitted to either the FDA or the European Union’s regulatory agencies prior to the drug’s approval. Drug manufacturer Merckhad no comment on the disclosure.[10]

Adverse drug reactions

VIOXX sample blister pack.jpg

Aside from the reduced incidence of gastric ulceration, rofecoxib exhibits a similar adverse effect profile to other NSAIDs.

Prostaglandin is a large family of lipids. Prostaglandin I2/PGI2/prostacyclin is just one member of it. Prostaglandins other than PGI2 (such as PGE2) also play important roles in vascular tone regulation. Prostacyclin/thromboxane are produced by both COX-1 and COX-2, and rofecoxib suppresses just COX-2 enzyme, so there is no reason to believe that prostacyclin levels are significantly reduced by the drug. And there is no reason to believe that only the balance between quantities of prostacyclin and thromboxane is the determinant factor for vascular tone.[11] Indeed Merck has stated that there was no effect on prostacyclin production in blood vessels in animal testing.[12] Other researchers have speculated that the cardiotoxicity may be associated with maleic anhydride metabolites formed when rofecoxib becomes ionized under physiological conditions. (Reddy & Corey, 2005)

 Adverse cardiovascular events

VIGOR study and publishing controversy

The VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, conducted by Bombardier, et al., which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen, had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in rofecoxib patients when compared with naproxen patients (0.4% vs 0.1%, RR 0.25) over the 12 month span of the study. The elevated risk began during the second month on rofecoxib. There was no significant difference in the mortality from cardiovascular events between the two groups, nor was there any significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen treatment groups in patients without high cardiovascular risk. The difference in overall risk was by the patients at higher risk of heart attack, i.e. those meeting the criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (previous myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular accidenttransient ischemic attack, or coronary artery bypass).

Merck’s scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen, telling the FDA that the difference in heart attacks “is primarily due to” this protective effect (Targum, 2001). Some commentators have noted that naproxen would have to be three times as effective as aspirin to account for all of the difference (Michaels 2005), and some outside scientists warned Merck that this claim was implausible before VIGOR was published.[13] No evidence has since emerged for such a large cardioprotective effect of naproxen, although a number of studies have found protective effects similar in size to those of aspirin.[14][15] Though Dr. Topol’s 2004 paper criticized Merck’s naproxen hypothesis, he himself co-authored a 2001 JAMA article stating “because of the evidence for an antiplatelet effect of naproxen, it is difficult to assess whether the difference in cardiovascular event rates in VIGOR was due to a benefit from naproxen or to a prothrombotic effect from rofecoxib.” (Mukherjee, Nissen and Topol, 2001.)

The results of the VIGOR study were submitted to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in February 2001. In September 2001, the FDA sent a warning letter to the CEO of Merck, stating, “Your promotional campaign discounts the fact that in the VIGOR study, patients on Vioxx were observed to have a four to five fold increase in myocardial infarctions (MIs) compared to patients on the comparator non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), Naprosyn (naproxen).”[16] This led to the introduction, in April 2002, of warnings on Vioxx labeling concerning the increased risk of cardiovascular events (heart attack and stroke).

Months after the preliminary version of VIGOR was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the journal editors learned that certain data reported to the FDA were not included in the NEJM article. Several years later, when they were shown a Merck memo during the depositions for the first federal Vioxx trial, they realized that these data had been available to the authors months before publication. The editors wrote an editorial accusing the authors of deliberately withholding the data.[17] They released the editorial to the media on December 8, 2005, before giving the authors a chance to respond. NEJM editor Gregory Curfman explained that the quick release was due to the imminent presentation of his deposition testimony, which he feared would be misinterpreted in the media. He had earlier denied any relationship between the timing of the editorial and the trial. Although his testimony was not actually used in the December trial, Curfman had testified well before the publication of the editorial.[18]

The editors charged that “more than four months before the article was published, at least two of its authors were aware of critical data on an array of adverse cardiovascular events that were not included in the VIGOR article.” These additional data included three additional heart attacks, and raised the relative risk of Vioxx from 4.25-fold to 5-fold. All the additional heart attacks occurred in the group at low risk of heart attack (the “aspirin not indicated” group) and the editors noted that the omission “resulted in the misleading conclusion that there was a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction between the aspirin indicated and aspirin not indicated groups.” The relative risk for myocardial infarctions among the aspirin not indicated patients increased from 2.25 to 3 (although it remained statitistically insignificant). The editors also noted a statistically significant (2-fold) increase in risk for serious thromboembolic events for this group, an outcome that Merck had not reported in the NEJM, though it had disclosed that information publicly in March 2000, eight months before publication.[19]

The authors of the study, including the non-Merck authors, responded by claiming that the three additional heart attacks had occurred after the prespecified cutoff date for data collection and thus were appropriately not included. (Utilizing the prespecified cutoff date also meant that an additional stroke in the naproxen population was not reported.) Furthermore, they said that the additional data did not qualitatively change any of the conclusions of the study, and the results of the full analyses were disclosed to the FDA and reflected on the Vioxx warning label. They further noted that all of the data in the “omitted” table were printed in the text of the article. The authors stood by the original article.[20]

NEJM stood by its editorial, noting that the cutoff date was never mentioned in the article, nor did the authors report that the cutoff for cardiovascular adverse events was before that for gastrointestinal adverse events. The different cutoffs increased the reported benefits of Vioxx (reduced stomach problems) relative to the risks (increased heart attacks).[19]

Some scientists have accused the NEJM editorial board of making unfounded accusations.[21][22] Others have applauded the editorial. Renowned research cardiologist Eric Topol,[23] a prominent Merck critic, accused Merck of “manipulation of data” and said “I think now the scientific misconduct trial is really fully backed up”.[24] Phil Fontanarosa, executive editor of the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, welcomed the editorial, saying “this is another in the long list of recent examples that have generated real concerns about trust and confidence in industry-sponsored studies”.[25]

On May 15, 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that a late night email, written by an outside public relations specialist and sent to Journal staffers hours before the Expression of Concern was released, predicted that “the rebuke would divert attention to Merck and induce the media to ignore the New England Journal of Medicine‘s own role in aiding Vioxx sales.”[26]

“Internal emails show the New England Journal’s expression of concern was timed to divert attention from a deposition in which Executive Editor Gregory Curfman made potentially damaging admissions about the journal’s handling of the Vioxx study. In the deposition, part of the Vioxx litigation, Dr. Curfman acknowledged that lax editing might have helped the authors make misleading claims in the article.” The Journal stated that NEJM‘s “ambiguous” language misled reporters into incorrectly believing that Merck had deleted data regarding the three additional heart attacks, rather than a blank table that contained no statistical information; “the New England Journal says it didn’t attempt to have these mistakes corrected.”[26]

APPROVe study

In 2001, Merck commenced the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp PRevention On Vioxx) study, a three-year trial with the primary aim of evaluating the efficacy of rofecoxib for theprophylaxis of colorectal polypsCelecoxib had already been approved for this indication, and it was hoped to add this to the indications for rofecoxib as well. An additional aim of the study was to further evaluate the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib.

The APPROVe study was terminated early when the preliminary data from the study showed an increased relative risk of adverse thrombotic cardiovascular events (includingheart attack and stroke), beginning after 18 months of rofecoxib therapy. In patients taking rofecoxib, versus placebo, the relative risk of these events was 1.92 (rofecoxib 1.50 events vs placebo 0.78 events per 100 patient years). The results from the first 18 months of the APPROVe study did not show an increased relative risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Moreover, overall and cardiovascular mortality rates were similar between the rofecoxib and placebo populations.[28]

In summary, the APPROVe study suggested that long-term use of rofecoxib resulted in nearly twice the risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke compared to patients receiving a placebo.

Other studies

Several very large observational studies have also found elevated risk of heart attack from rofecoxib. For example, a recent retrospective study of 113,000 elderly Canadians suggested a borderline statistically significant increased relative risk of heart attacks of 1.24 from Vioxx usage, with a relative risk of 1.73 for higher-dose Vioxx usage. (Levesque, 2005). Another study, using Kaiser Permanente data, found a 1.47 relative risk for low-dose Vioxx usage and 3.58 for high-dose Vioxx usage compared to current use of celecoxib, though the smaller number was not statistically significant, and relative risk compared to other populations was not statistically significant. (Graham, 2005).

Furthermore, a more recent meta-study of 114 randomized trials with a total of 116,000+ participants, published in JAMA, showed that Vioxx uniquely increased risk of renal (kidney) disease, and heart arrhythmia.[31]

Other COX-2 inhibitors

Any increased risk of renal and arrhythmia pathologies associated with the class of COX-2 inhibitors, e.g. celecoxib (Celebrex), valdecoxib (Bextra), parecoxib (Dynastat),lumiracoxib, and etoricoxib is not evident,[31] although smaller studies[32][33] had demonstrated such effects earlier with the use of celecoxib, valdecoxib and parecoxib.

Nevertheless, it is likely that trials of newer drugs in the category will be extended in order to supply additional evidence of cardiovascular safety. Examples are some more specific COX-2 inhibitors, including etoricoxib (Arcoxia) and lumiracoxib (Prexige), which are currently (circa 2005) undergoing Phase III/IV clinical trials.

Besides, regulatory authorities worldwide now require warnings about cardiovascular risk of COX-2 inhibitors still on the market. For example, in 2005, EU regulators required the following changes to the product information and/or packaging of all COX-2 inhibitors:[34]

  • Contraindications stating that COX-2 inhibitors must not be used in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and/or cerebrovascular disease (stroke), and also in patients with peripheral arterial disease
  • Reinforced warnings to healthcare professionals to exercise caution when prescribing COX-2 inhibitors to patients with risk factors for heart disease, such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia (high cholesterol levels), diabetes and smoking
  • Given the association between cardiovascular risk and exposure to COX-2 inhibitors, doctors are advised to use the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible duration of treatment

Other NSAIDs

Since the withdrawal of Vioxx it has come to light that there may be negative cardiovascular effects with not only other COX-2 inhibitiors, but even the majority of other NSAIDs. It is only with the recent development of drugs like Vioxx that drug companies have carried out the kind of well executed trials that could establish such effects and these sort of trials have never been carried out in older “trusted” NSAIDs such as ibuprofendiclofenac and others. The possible exceptions may be aspirin and naproxen due to their anti-platelet aggregation properties.

Withdrawal

Due to the findings of its own APPROVe study, Merck publicly announced its voluntary withdrawal of the drug from the market worldwide on September 30, 2004.[35]

In addition to its own studies, on September 23, 2004 Merck apparently received information about new research by the FDA that supported previous findings of increased risk of heart attack among rofecoxib users (Grassley, 2004). FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.[36]

On November 5, the medical journal The Lancet published a meta-analysis of the available studies on the safety of rofecoxib (Jüni et al., 2004). The authors concluded that, owing to the known cardiovascular risk, rofecoxib should have been withdrawn several years earlier. The Lancet published an editorial which condemned both Merck and the FDA for the continued availability of rofecoxib from 2000 until the recall. Merck responded by issuing a rebuttal of the Jüni et al. meta-analysis that noted that Jüni omitted several studies that showed no increased cardiovascular risk. (Merck & Co., 2004).

In 2005, advisory panels in both the U.S. and Canada encouraged the return of rofecoxib to the market, stating that rofecoxib’s benefits outweighed the risks for some patients. The FDA advisory panel voted 17-15 to allow the drug to return to the market despite being found to increase heart risk. The vote in Canada was 12-1, and the Canadian panel noted that the cardiovascular risks from rofecoxib seemed to be no worse than those from ibuprofen—though the panel recommended that further study was needed for all NSAIDs to fully understand their risk profiles. Notwithstanding these recommendations, Merck has not returned rofecoxib to the market.[37]

In 2005, Merck retained Debevoise & Plimpton LLP to investigate Vioxx study results and communications conducted by Merck. Through the report, it was found that Merck’s senior management acted in good faith, and that the confusion over the clinical safety of Vioxx was due to the sales team’s overzealous behavior. The report that was filed gave a timeline of the events surrounding Vioxx and showed that Merck intended to operate honestly throughout the process. Any mistakes that were made regarding the mishandling of clinical trial results and withholding of information was the result of oversight, not malicious behavior….The report was published in February 2006, and Merck was satisfied with the findings of the report and promised to consider the recommendations contained in the Martin Report. Advisers to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have voted, by a narrow margin, that it should not ban Vioxx — the painkiller withdrawn by drug-maker Merck.

They also said that Pfizer’s Celebrex and Bextra, two other members of the family of painkillers known as COX-2 inhibitors, should remain available, despite the fact that they too boost patients’ risk of heart attack and stroke. url = http://www.nature.com/drugdisc/news/articles/433790b.html The recommendations of the arthritis and drug safety advisory panel offer some measure of relief to the pharmaceutical industry, which has faced a barrage of criticism for its promotion of the painkillers. But the advice of the panel, which met near Washington DC over 16–18 February, comes with several strings attached.

For example, most panel members said that manufacturers should be required to add a prominent warning about the drugs’ risks to their labels; to stop direct-to-consumer advertising of the drugs; and to include detailed, written risk information with each prescription. The panel also unanimously stated that all three painkillers “significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular events”.

External links

For more details and references.. they are provided in the entirety in the original post

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Endothelial Dysfunction (release into the circulation of damaged endothelial cells) as A Risk Marker for Ischemia and MI

Reporter and Curator: Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Endothelial Dysfunction: An Early Cardiovascular Risk Marker in Asymptomatic Obese Individuals with Prediabete

AK Gupta, E Ravussin, DL Johannsen, AJ Stull,WT.Cefalu and WD Johnson at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, LA Brit J Med & Med Res 2012; 2(3):413-423 [www.ScienceDomain.org]

provides an exceedingly interesting insight into the relationship between type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity and risk for cardiovascular disease in patients who are asymptomatic prediabetics, defined as a fasting blood glucose between 1000 and 1240 mg/L, or a Hb A1c (may not accurate for African Americans) between 5.6 and 6.5.  They would be expected to show an abnormal 5-hr GTT.

Obesity is associated with the release from adipocytes of adiponectin, which it has been reported is countered by resistin.  We might also have the effect of the insulin secreting beta cell, that releases insulin without a relationship to an anabolic function, through IGF-1 related to feedback to the pituitary GH, which takes a dominant catabolic role. Thus, insulin resistance. This is an oversimplification, and far greater depth is found elsewhere.

This study is consistent with another study on  Metabolism Influences Cancer

Reuben Shaw, Ph.D., a geneticist and researcher at the Salk Institute: Metabolism Influences Cancer

Recent development on Human Stem Cell Therapies for comorbidity and Cardiovascular disease

Human Stem Cell Therapies: UCSD New Discovery addressing the Limiting Factor and Providing the Solution

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/01/06/human-stem-cell-therapies-ucsd-new-discovery-addressing-the-limiting-factor-and-providing-the-solution/

This study reported a potential early marker of myocardial infarction by the release into the circulation of damaged endothelial cells that are to be measured in patients suspected of severe ischemia in a clinical trial.  The question that I raised in my comment was whether this would have to be a special immunochemical assay of tagged cells, and if that were the case, would it be measured on an automated flow-based hemocytometer, which can differentiate several populations of cells – granulocytes, lymphocytes, red cells, platelets, immature granuloytes, BLASTS.  That would be a very practical extension of the technology for labs worldwide.

Abstract

Aims: To elucidate if endothelial dysfunction is an early CV risk marker in obese men and women with prediabetes.
Study Design: Cross-sectional study.

Place and Duration of Study: Clinical Research Unit, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA. United States.

Background: Overweight and obese status denotes an increasing adipose tissue burden which spills over into ectopic locations, including the visceral compartment, muscle and liver. Associated co-morbidities enhance cardiovascular (CV) risk. Endothelium which is the largest receptor-effector end-organ in our bodies, while responding to numerous physical and chemical stimuli maintains vascular homeostasis. Endothelial dysfunction (ED) is the initial perturbation, which precedes fatty streak known to initiate atherosclerosis: insidious process which often culminates as sudden catastrophic CV adverse event.

Methodology:  Asymptomatic men and women; [n=42] coming in after an overnight fast had demographic, anthropometric, clinical chemistry and

  • resting endothelial function (EF)
  • increased test finger peripheral arterial tone (PAT) relative to control;
    • expressed as relative hyperemia index (RHI)] assessments.

Results: Adults with desirable weight [n=12] and overweight [n=8] state, had normal fasting plasma glucose [Mean(SD)]: FPG [91.1(4.5), 94.8(5.8) mg/dL], insulin [INS, 2.3(4.4), 3.1(4.8) µU/ml], insulin sensitivity by homeostasis model assessment [HOMA-IR, 0.62(1.2), 0.80(1.2)] and desirable resting clinic blood pressure [SBP/DBP, 118(12)/74(5), 118(13)/76(8) mmHg].

Obese adults [n=22] had

  • prediabetes [FPG, 106.5(3.5) g/dL],
  • hyperinsulinemia [INS 18.0(5.2) µU/ml],
  • insulin resistance [HOMA-IR .59(2.3)],
  • prehypertension [PreHTN; SBP/DBP 127(13)/81(7) mmHg] and
  • endothelial dysfunction [ED;
  • reduced RHI 1.7(0.3) vs. 2.4(0.3); all p<0.05].

Age-adjusted RHI correlated with BMI [r=-0.53; p<0.001]; however,

    • BMI-adjusted RHI was not correlated with age [r=-0.01; p=0.89].

Conclusion: Endothelial dysfunction reflective of cardiometabolic changes in obese adults can be an early risk marker for catastrophic CV events.

Keywords: Fasting plasma glucose; healthy adults; reverse cholesterol transport pathway; insulin resistance; body weight; relative hyperemia index.

ABBREVIATIONS

ADA: American Diabetes association; BMI: body mass index; CVD: cardiovascular disease; CV: cardiovascular; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; ED: endothelial dysfunction; EF: resting endothelial function; FPG: fasting plasma glucose; HOMA-IR: homeostasis model assessment; INS: insulin; JNC 7: Joint National Commission 7; LDL-C/HDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol to high density lipoprotein; NCEP ATP III: National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III; PAT: peripheral arterial tone; PreDM: prediabetes; PreHTN: prehypertension; PBRC: Pennington Biomedical Research Center; RHI: relative hyperemia index; SBP: systolic blood pressure; Total-C/HDL-C: total cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholestrol; TG/HDL-C: triglycerides to high density lipoprotein cholesterol; WC: waist circumference.

Introduction

Healthy adults with no chronic medical conditions, on no prescription medications (n=24) and with low cardiovascular risk, in a randomized-order, cross-over clinical trial, with a 2 week washout period, exhibitd improved endothelial function (measured with flow mediated dilatation) with a diet rich in antioxidants (Franzini et al., 2012). Healthy over weight and obese volunteers with normal glucose appear to attenuate flow mediated dilation after high
glycemic index carbohydrate meals (Suessenbacher et al., 2011). In matched (age, work place, physical activity, tobacco use, blood pressure, serum lipids and family history of premature coronary artery disease) male shift and no shift workers, peripheral endothelial function (peripheral arterial tone (PAT) index obtained with the EndoPAT technique) was impaired in shift workers, suggesting elevated cardiovascular risk (Lavi et al., 2009).

Endothelial function thus appears to be an exquisitely sensitive marker for a variety of populations, under various conditions. Although endothelial function has been evaluated in numerous disease conditions and perturbed with a variety of agents, there has, to our knowledge, not been a comparison of resting endothelial function in free living healthy lean, overweight and obese subjects. Using a noninvasive assessment for resting endothelial function (by measuring the peripheral arterial tone, Bonetti et al., 2004), we tested the hypothesis that fasting glucose escalation in otherwise asymptomatic obese men and women is functionally reflected as endothelial dysfunction.

Endothelial Function

Assessment of resting endothelial function was done with the participant in fasting state, after having avoided stimulants (caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, exercise) for 12 hours, at the same fixed clock hour (range 8-10 AM), using the EndoPAT 2000 device manufactured by ITAMAR Medical®. This assessment technique has been previously validated (Bonetti et al., 2004), has been used in numerous (>250) peer reviewed publications (Carty et al., 2012; Kuvin et al., 2003) and has been in routine use in our clinical core. Briefly: subjects coming
in from home, after an overnight fast and having avoided stimulants for 12-hours, were placed in a supine position for 20 minutes in a quiet room before the test. A patented single use finger sleeve was then placed on the index finger of each hand to continuously measure peripheral arterial tone. A blood pressure cuff applied to the upper arm of the non-dominant arm (test arm) was then used to occlude the brachial artery for 5 minutes. This was followed by a rapid release. The dominant arm without any manipulation served as the control. The
built in, validated software integrated the data gathered from the finger sleeves of the control (undisturbed) and the test arms (during the baseline, occlusion and release phases), thus providing the relative hyperemia index (RHI) for the test arm. This flow mediated dilatation induced change in the test arm, relative to the control arm, served as the measure for endothelial function (RHI).

The subjects with desirable and overweight body weight were significantly younger [36.7(19.1) and 27.4(3.9) years, respectively], than those who were obese [53.2(11.6) years]. We performed correlations between the measure for endothelial function (RHI) and confounding factors like BMI, age and gender. Age-adjusted RHI correlated with BMI [r=- 0.53, p<0.001]; however, BMI-adjusted RHI was not associated with age [r=-0.01, p=0.89]. Fig. 1 depicts panels for the regression line for RHI as a function of age, (and BMI, glucose
and HOMA-IR, respectively) superimposed on a scatter plot. No correlation was observed between endothelial function and age (r²=0.07), while endothelial function was highly correlated with body mass index, glucose and insulin sensitivity (r²=0.3).

DISCUSSION

Asymptomatic obese adults with prediabetes (when compared to asymptomatic desirable weight and overweight adults with normal glucose), exhibit above the upper limits for desirable fasting plasma total cholesterol (>200mg/dL) and triglycerides (>150 mg/dL), but due to a relatively lower HDL-C display higher cardiac risk ratios (Total-C/HDL-C; p=0.05 and TG/HDL-C; p=0.02). A lower HDL-C and the elevated cardiac risk ratios are early clinical indicators for an impaired reverse cholesterol transport (RCT) pathway, a process by which cholesterol from the periphery is transported to the liver (Tall, 1998). The RCT pathway has been shown to be a sensitive indicator of the net flux (deposition vs. removal) of cholesterol homeostasis at the endothelium (Gupta et al., 1993; Tall et al., 2000). It is at the endothelium that the first fatty streaks, which over time deteriorate into atherosclerosis, have been shown to develop (Rosenfeld et al., 2000).

Impaired endothelial dysfunction is the first step in the process of atherosclerosis, even before the development of the fatty streak (Davignon, 2004; Ross 1999). These healthy obese men and women with prediabetes, prehypertension and impaired reverse cholesterol transport pathway were assessed to have impaired resting endothelial function, which is consistent with latent early onset cardiovascular disease.

We have demonstrated a high prevalence of isolated prediabetes or prehypertension and co-existing prediabetes and prehypertension, among the otherwise healthy US adults (Gupta et al., 2011). We have also elucidated that asymptomatic obese adults with overly heightened systemic inflammation, tend to have prediabetes and prehypertension (Gupta et al., 2010a). These individuals by various conventional measures (larger waist circumference, exacerbated systemic inflammation, higher insulin resistance, elevated triglycerides, lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, above average cardiac risk ratios and a significant co-existence of two or three concomitant metabolic risk factors) appear to be on an accelerated pathway towards early adverse cardiovascular events (Gupta et al., 2010a, 2010b). With this study we provide a dynamic, non-invasive, functional correlate: significant resting endothelial dysfunction, as an early biomarker for pre-atherosclerosis in obese adults with prediabetes.

Increased organ ectopic adipose burden especially in the muscle and liver appears to drive clinically recognizable adverse cardio metabolic changes (Hamdy et al., 2006). Increased inflammation (local and systemic) along with enhanced insulin resistance (liver, muscle) manifests as dysglycemia, dyslipidemia, excess reactive oxygen species, hyper-coagulablility and loss of blood pressure control (Gastaldelli et al., 2010).

We demonstrate an early impairment in the reverse cholesterol transport pathway, indicating a net deposition versus removal of cholesterol at the endothelium. In asymptomatic obese men and women with predisease  conditions (prediabetes and prehypertension) when contrasted with ideal bodyweight or overweight adults with normoglycemia and normal blood pressure, resting endothelial dysfunction can be an early warning sign for future catastrophic cardiovascular adverse events.

© 2012 Gupta et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

REFERENCES on circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells as Biomarkers for Cardiovascular Disease and their Angiogenesis Potential.

Asahara T, Murohara T, Sullivan A, et al. Isolation of putative progenitor endothelial cells for angiogenesis. Science 1997;275:964-967.

Takahashi T, Kalka C, Masuda H, et al. Ischemia- and cytokine-induced mobilization of bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells for neovascularization. Nat Med 1999;5:434-438.

Kocher AA, Schuster MD, Szabolcs MJ, et al. Neovascularization of ischemic myocardium by human bone-marrow-derived angioblasts prevents cardiomyocyte apoptosis, reduces remodeling and improves cardiac function. Nat Med 2001;7:430-436.

Rauscher FM, Goldschmidt-Clermont PJ, Davis BH, et al. Aging, progenitor cell exhaustion, and atherosclerosis. Circulation 2003;108:457-463.

Hill JM, Zalos G, Halcox JPJ, et al. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells, vascular function, and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med 2003;348:593-600.

Vasa M, Fichtlscherer S, Adler K, et al. Increase in circulating endothelial progenitor cells by statin therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Circulation 2001;103:2885-2890

Laufs U, Werner N, Link A, et al. Physical training increases endothelial progenitor cells, inhibits neointima formation, and enhances angiogenesis. Circulation 2004;109:220-226.

Werner N, Kosiol S, Schiegl T, et al. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells and cardiovascular outcomes. N Engl J Med 2005;353:999-1007.

Aicher A, Heeschen C, Mildner-Rihm C, et al. Essential role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase for mobilization of stem and progenitor cells. Nat Med 2003;9:1370-1376.

Wollert KC, Meyer GP, Lotz J, et al. Intracoronary autologous bone-marrow cell transfer after myocardial infarction: the BOOST randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet 2004;364:141-148.

Zhang H, Vakil V, Braunstein M, et al. Circulating endothelial progenitor cells in multiple myeloma: implications and significance. Blood 2005;105:3286-3294

Lyden D, Hattori K, Dias S, et al. Impaired recruitment of bone-marrow-derived endothelial and hematopoietic precursor cells blocks tumor angiogenesis and growth. Nat Med 2001;7:1194-1201.

Other related articles that were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Lev-Ari, A. 2/28/2013 The Heart: Vasculature Protection – A Concept-based Pharmacological Therapy including THYMOSIN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/02/28/the-heart-vasculature-protection-a-concept-based-pharmacological-therapy-including-thymosin/

Lev-Ari, A. 2/27/2013 Arteriogenesis and Cardiac Repair: Two Biomaterials – Injectable Thymosin beta4 and Myocardial Matrix Hydrogel

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/02/27/arteriogenesis-and-cardiac-repair-two-biomaterials-injectable-thymosin-beta4-and-myocardial-matrix-hydrogel/

Lev-Ari, A. 11/13/2012 Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR-gamma) Receptors Activation: PPARγ transrepression for Angiogenesis in Cardiovascular Disease and PPARγ transactivation for Treatment of Diabetes

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/11/13/peroxisome-proliferator-activated-receptor-ppar-gamma-receptors-activation-pparγ-transrepression-for-angiogenesis-in-cardiovascular-disease-and-pparγ-transactivation-for-treatment-of-dia/

Lev-Ari, A. 8/29/2012 Positioning a Therapeutic Concept for Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs — Therapeutic Indications for Macrovascular Disease: Coronary, Cerebrovascular and Peripheral

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/29/positioning-a-therapeutic-concept-for-endogenous-augmentation-of-cepcs-therapeutic-indications-for-macrovascular-disease-coronary-cerebrovascular-and-peripheral/ 

Lev-Ari, A. 8/28/2012 Cardiovascular Outcomes: Function of circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells (cEPCs): Exploring Pharmaco-therapy targeted at Endogenous Augmentation of cEPCs

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/28/cardiovascular-outcomes-function-of-circulating-endothelial-progenitor-cells-cepcs-exploring-pharmaco-therapy-targeted-at-endogenous-augmentation-of-cepcs/

Lev-Ari, A. 8/27/2012 Endothelial Dysfunction, Diminished Availability of cEPCs, Increasing CVD Risk for Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/27/endothelial-dysfunction-diminished-availability-of-cepcs-increasing-cvd-risk-for-macrovascular-disease-therapeutic-potential-of-cepcs/

Lev-Ari, A. 8/24/2012 Vascular Medicine and Biology: CLASSIFICATION OF FAST ACTING THERAPY FOR PATIENTS AT HIGH RISK FOR MACROVASCULAR EVENTS Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/08/24/vascular-medicine-and-biology-classification-of-fast-acting-therapy-for-patients-at-high-risk-for-macrovascular-events-macrovascular-disease-therapeutic-potential-of-cepcs/

Lev-Ari, A. 7/19/2012 Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) and the Role of agent alternatives in endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Activation and Nitric Oxide Production

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/19/cardiovascular-disease-cvd-and-the-role-of-agent-alternatives-in-endothelial-nitric-oxide-synthase-enos-activation-and-nitric-oxide-production/

Lev-Ari, A. 4/30/2012 Resident-cell-based Therapy in Human Ischaemic Heart Disease: Evolution in the PROMISE of Thymosin beta4 for Cardiac Repair

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/04/30/93/

Lev-Ari, A. 7/2/2012 Macrovascular Disease – Therapeutic Potential of cEPCs: Reduction Methods for CV Risk

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/07/02/macrovascular-disease-therapeutic-potential-of-cepcs-reduction-methods-for-cv-risk/

Read Full Post »