If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Abhishek Sharma, MD, Downstate Medical Center, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, State University of New York, 450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11203.
Niacin, a potent high-density lipoprotein cholesterol-raising drug, seems an attractive approach to reduce cardiac events in patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, previous evidence for niacin has been challenged recently by negative outcomes in 2 large, randomized, controlled trials comparing niacin to placebo with background statin therapy. We studied the currently available evidence for the role of niacin treatment for reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in current practice.
Methods
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases comparing niacin alone or combined with statin therapy was performed. We extracted trial level data, including basic characteristics and number of patients enrolled, duration of follow up, occurrence of adverse events, and cardiovascular-related outcomes. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the risk ratio (RR) for individual trial endpoints.
Results
Thirteen trials (N = 35,206) were selected for final analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 32.8 months. Overall, niacin led to significant increases in serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from baseline trial enrolment by 21.4%, 9.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.11-13.51) mg/dL. However, we did not observe any differences in all-cause mortality rates (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88-1.12) between niacin and control arms. Further, niacin treatment was associated with a trend toward lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.02), coronary death (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.78-1.10), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-1.0), revascularization (coronary and noncoronary) (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.06), and stroke (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.72-1.10), compared with control.
Conclusion
Niacin therapy does not lead to significant reductions in total or cause-specific mortality or recurrent cardiovascular events among persons with or at risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Niacin therapy leads to a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.
•
Among patients with or at high-risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, niacin does not reduce mortality.
•
Treatment with niacin is not associated with significant reduction in recurrent cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularizations.
•
Niacin is associated with increased risk of new-onset or worsening diabetes or skin, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal adverse effects.
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains a huge burden on global health, despite decades of focused research and intervention.
In large epidemiologic studies and subsequent analyses, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels have been independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).
Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.
In meta-analyses of patient-level data from statin trials, the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' collaborators group observed a 5%-6% reduction in vascular events for every 10-mg/dL decrease in serum LDL-C levels.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialist (CTT) Collaboration Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.
On the basis of these and other findings, major international cardiology and lipid associations recommend statins as the first-line agent for managing dyslipidemia as a risk factor for ASCVD.
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
guidelines recommend that the utilization of beneficial nonstatin drugs may be considered in patients with intolerance or less than anticipated response to statins.
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
Furthermore, there are accumulating data that despite aggressive LDL-C targeted therapy with high-intensity statins, residual cardiovascular burden persists.
Several studies have shown an independent prognostic value of HDL-C levels with a strong inverse relation to HDL-C with incident major cardiac events, even among patients achieving very low levels of LDL-C with statin therapy.
Meta-analysis: statin therapy does not alter the association between low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased cardiovascular risk.
Low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased risk of cardiovascular events in stable ischemic heart disease patients: a post-hoc analysis from the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation).
Thus, targeting HDL-C has been proposed as a potential approach to mitigate a sizeable residual risk of CVD. In clinical use for the past several decades, niacin is one of the most effective agents currently available to increase serum levels of HDL-C.
It exerts multiple other lipid-modulating effects, including decreases in total cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a) levels. In addition, in prior studies niacin has been shown to significantly reduce cardiovascular events.
Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins.
However, 2 recent clinical trials have demonstrated an increase in adverse events with no ischemic benefit (coronary events, stroke, or revascularization) with the addition of niacin to effective statin therapy.
Thus, in the present meta-analysis, we specifically investigated the cumulative evidence for the effects of niacin on different serum cholesterol fractions and several clinical endpoints.
Methods
Study Selection
We performed a systematic literature search for studies testing niacin in comparison with a control agent in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines.
Key words of interest were “niacin,” “nicotinic acid,” “HDL-C,” “cardiovascular,” and “randomized trial,” used in different combinations. The search period was restricted from January 1969 to October 30, 2015. The following criteria were applied for study inclusion: 1) randomized, controlled design with one treatment arm as niacin and the other arm as placebo or other lipid-lowering therapies; 2) median follow-up of at least 6 months; and 3) reporting change in lipid fractions or at least one clinical endpoint at follow-up.
Data Extraction
Two independent reviewers (A.S., A.G.) screened the titles and abstracts for relevance. Discrepancies between reviewers were discussed until consensus was reached. The manuscripts of selected titles/abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Using our selection criteria, these 2 reviewers independently determined the articles to be included, and data from the relevant articles were extracted using predefined extraction forms. The data elements collected for each study were first author, year of publication, sample size in each study and in different treatment arms, treatment in interventional and control arms, duration of follow-up, baseline characteristics, baseline and final levels of LDL-C, HDL-C, and TC, adverse events, and clinical endpoints. Prespecified outcomes of interest were 1) all-cause mortality; 2) cardiovascular mortality (defined as death from coronary heart disease [acute myocardial infarction, sudden death, or ischemic heart failure event], ischemic stroke, or revascularization procedures); 3) coronary heart disease death; 4) myocardial infarction; 5) revascularization (including coronary and noncoronary [peripheral arterial or cerebrovascular] procedures); and 6) cerebrovascular accidents. In addition, data for the following adverse events of clinical significance with niacin were collected: 1) new-onset diabetes or worsening glucose tolerance in patients with pre-existing diabetes; 2) gastrointestinal side effects (abdominal pain, nausea, dyspepsia, diarrhea); 3) liver toxicity (transaminases >3 upper limits normal); 4) musculoskeletal events (myositis with creatine kinase elevation); and 5) skin flushing.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration using Review Manager version 5.1 (2008; The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). We conducted meta-analysis using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird with inverse variance weighting. For each clinical endpoint, pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the treatment effects of niacin compared with control/usual care. The pooled effect of niacin on different lipid fractions (TC, LDL-C, and HDL-C) was also estimated. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistic, which denotes the percentage of total variation across studies that is a result of heterogeneity rather than chance. Heterogeneity was considered significant if the P value was <.05.
Results
Study Characteristics
The initial search identified a total of 1296 publications that were screened at the abstract level. Among these, 13 randomized clinical trials met the aforementioned inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis (Figure 1). These studies included a total of 35,206 patients (with or at-risk of ASCVD), with 16,858 randomized to the niacin arm and 18,348 to the control arm. The mean duration of follow-up was 32.8 months (range, 6-74 months).
Figure 1The PRISMA flow chart for the trial selection process.
Baseline characteristics of subjects and included studies are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Patients included in the final analysis had a mean age of 58 years, and 81% were male. Five studies used placebo as the control arm,
A randomized trial of a strategy for increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels: effects on progression of coronary heart disease and clinical events.
Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins.
Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministered with extended-release niacin in patients with type IIa or type IIb hyperlipidemia.
Table 1Baseline Patient Characteristics in the Included Studies
Study
N
Niacin (n)
Control (n)
Follow-Up (mo)
Age (y)
Male (%)
DM (%)
HTN (%)
BL LDL-C (mg/dl)
Final LDL-C (mg/dl)
BL HDL-C (mg/dl)
Final HDL-C (mg/dl)
CDP
3908
1119
2789
60
44
100
40
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CLAS
188
94
94
24
54
100
0
39
171
97
44.6
60.8
STOCKHOLM
555
279
276
60
60
80
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
USCF-SCOR
72
40
49
26
42
43
NA
15
283
172
47
59
FATS
100
48
52
30
47
100
NA
36
190
129
39
55
HATS
67
33
34
36
53
87
16
49
132
75
31
40
ARBITER 2
149
78
71
12
67
91
27
75
87
85
39
47
AFREGS
143
71
72
30
63
92
NA
71
126
111
34
47
GUYTON
604
391
213
6
57
50
16
64
157
65
50.5
66
SANG
108
52
56
12
71
61
34
67
106
76
49
63
ARBITER 6-HALTS
208
97
111
14
65
80
35
85
80.5
70.5
42.5
50.0
AIM-HIGH
3414
1718
1696
36
64
85
34
71
74
65
34.5
44.0
HPS2-THRIVE
25,673
12,828
12,835
43
65
83
32
NA
64
54
44
50
AFREGS = Armed Forces Regression Study; AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes; ARBITER 2 = Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol; ARBITER 6-HALTS = Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol 6–HDL and LDL Treatment Strategies; BL = baseline; CDP = Coronary Drug Project; CLAS = Cholesterol-Lowering Atherosclerosis Study; DM = diabetes mellitus; FATS = Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study; HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study; HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HPS2-THRIVE = Heart Protection Study 2–Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events; HTN = hypertension; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; UCSF-SCOR = University of California, San Francisco, Arteriosclerosis Specialized Center of Research.
Change in severity of disease in proximal coronary arteries
UCSF-SCOR (1990)
Randomized, multicenter
Niacin + colestipol
Placebo ± colestipol
1) Documented coronary stenosis >10%; 2) Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia with xanthomas, LDL >200 mg/dL 3) Triglycerides <275 mg/dL; 4) Age 18-72 y
1) Previous CABG; PCI; multiple infarcts; 2) Planned revascularization for unstable lesions; 3) Systemic disease other than atherosclerosis or hypertension
Mean change in percent area stenosis
HATS (2001)
Randomized, double-blind, single center
Niacin + simvastatin
Placebo
1) Documented coronary disease with >3 stenosis of 30% or 1 stenosis 50%; 2) HDL <35/40 mg/dL for male/female; 3) LDL <145 mg/dL; 4) TG <400 mg/dL; 5) Age <63 y
1) Liver disease or transaminases >3 ULN; 2) Known niacin intolerance
Change in CIMT
AFREGS (2005)
Randomized, double-blind, single center
Niacin + gemfibrozil
Placebo
1) Documented CAD with 1 angiographic stenosis 30%-80% or >80% with negative treadmill test; 2) Age <76 y; 3) LDL <160 mg/dL; 4) HDL <45 mg/dL
1) Unstable CAD or cardiovascular event within 6 mo; 2) EF <40%; 3) Uncontrolled hypertension; 4) Diabetes; 5) Cardiac immunosuppressive; 6) Thyroid disease; 7) Liver disease; 8. Creatinine >2 mg/dL; 9) Concomitant therapy with heparin, CCS, or immunosuppressive
Change in global angiographic stenosis
Guyton et al (2008)
Randomized, multicenter
Niacin + simvastatin + ezetimibe
Simvastatin + ezetimibe
1) Hyperlipidemia type Iia or Iib (LDL 130-190 mg/dL; triglycerides <500 mg/dL); 2) Age 18-79 y
1) Metabolic or clinical instability; 2) Thyroid disease; 3) Creatinine >2 mg/dL; 4) CK >2× ULN; 5) Transaminases >1.5× ULN
NA
SANG (2009)
Randomized, single center
Niacin ER + atorvastatin
Atorvastatin
1) At least 50% stenosis of one coronary artery; 2) High total cholesterol (>3.5 mmol/L)
1) Serious hepatic or kidney diseases; 2) Hemodynamic instability; 3) Tumor with an expected survival time of less than 1 y; 4) Known intolerance or allergy to niacin or statins; 5) Administration of lipid-lowering drugs within the month before the inclusion
NA
ARBITER 6-HALTS (2009)
Randomized, open-label, multicenter
Niacin + any statin
Ezetimibe + any statin
1) Documented CAD or CAD equivalent 2) Statin therapy >3 mo; 3) LDL <100 mg/dL; 4) HDL <50/55 mg/dL for male/female); 5) Age >30 y
NA
Change in CIMT
AIM-HIGH (2011)
Randomized, double-blind, multicenter
Niacin + simvastatin
Simvastatin
1) Documented CAD or PAD or cerebrovascular disease; 2) HDL <40/50 mg/dL male/female 3) LDL <180 mg/dL without statin therapy or “adjusted” level in statin therapy 4) Triglycerides <400 mg/dL; 5) Age >45 y
1) Acute coronary event within 4 wk; 2) Coronary revascularization within 4 wk or planned; 3) Stroke within 8 wk; 4) Fasting glucose >180; 5) EF <30%; 6) AST/ALT >2 ULN; 7) CKD (creatinine >2.5 mg/dL); 8) Concomitant drugs with increased risk of hepatotoxicity or myopathy
Death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization (for >23 h) for an acute coronary syndrome, or symptom-driven coronary or cerebral revascularization.
HPS2-THRIVE (2013)
Randomized, double-blind, multicenter
Niacin ER+ larpopirant + simvastatin
Simvastatin
1) History of MI, stroke/TIA; PAD or DM with other symptoms of CAD; 2) Age 50-80 y
1) Cardiovascular event within 3 mo or planned revascularization; 2) Liver disease or transaminase >1.5× ULN; 3) Creatinine >2 mg/dL; 4) Myositis or CK >3× ULN; 5) Treatment with other statin or simvastatin >40 mg/d
ALT = alanine transaminase; AST = aspartate transaminase; CABG = coronary artery bypass graft; CAD = coronary artery disease; CCS = corticosteroids; CIMT = carotid intimal media thickness; CK = creatine kinase; CKD = chronic kidney disease; DM = diabetes mellitus; EF = ejection fraction; HDL = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MI = myocardial infarction; NYHA = New York Heart Association; PAD = peripheral arterial disease; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; TG = triglyceride; TIA = transient ischemic attack; ULN = upper limit of normal.
∗ Death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hospitalization (for >23 h) for an acute coronary syndrome, or symptom-driven coronary or cerebral revascularization.
† Major coronary event (nonfatal myocardial infarction or death from coronary causes), stroke of any type, or coronary or noncoronary revascularization.
Results of the clinical outcomes with niacin versus control are summarized in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Table 3. Among the 34,810 subjects in 11 studies, 2841 patients (8.2%) died from any cause (Figure 2). We failed to observe any differences in all-cause mortality rates (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.88-1.12) between the niacin and control arms, and there was no significant heterogeneity between the included studies for this endpoint (I2 = 31.1%).
Figure 2Forest plot showing effect of niacin on risk of all-cause mortality. CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 3Forest plot showing effect of niacin on risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality. CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 5Forest plot showing effect of niacin on myocardial infarction (MI). CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 6Forest plot showing effect of niacin on revascularization rates. CI = confidence interval; RR = risk ratio. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Cardiovascular mortality was reported in 1095 patients (11.8%) among 9 trials involving 9236 patients (Figure 3). Four trials, including 33,543 subjects, reported coronary death as a separate endpoint in 1523 patients (4.5%) (Figure 4). Compared with the control arm, niacin did not result in a significant reduction in cardiovascular related mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.02) or coronary death (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.78-1.10).
Nine studies involving 34,251 patients reported the frequency of myocardial infarction (Figure 5). Among these, 1634 patients (4.8%) experienced this event. Niacin treatment was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-1.0). A total of 2088 patients (7%) underwent revascularization procedures among 29,842 patients across 8 studies (Figure 6). Niacin did not result in a significant risk reduction for revascularization (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.06). Similarly, among 1417 cerebrovascular events (4.6%) in 30,428 patients, randomization to niacin did not affect this outcome (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.72-1.10) (Figure 7). Finally, there was no significant heterogeneity between the included studies for each of the endpoints examined.
Effects on Adverse Events
Results for adverse events with niacin as compared with control are summarized in Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12. Among 4 studies reporting diabetes as an adverse event, patients assigned to niacin therapy were at significantly increased risk for this metabolic disorder compared with control (RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.31-1.59). Treatment with niacin was associated with a cumulative higher risk of gastrointestinal (RR 1.53; 95% CI 1.23-1.90) and musculoskeletal adverse events (RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.09-1.42), as compared with the respective control arms. Subjects receiving niacin therapy experienced a significantly higher risk of skin flushing (RR 18.59; 95% CI 2.52-137.29), whereas the risk of liver toxicity was not significantly elevated (RR 1.66; 95% CI 0.65-4.27) compared with those in the respective control groups.
Figure 8Forest plot showing effect of niacin on new-onset or worse control of pre-existing diabetes mellitus (DM). CI = confidence interval; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 9Forest plot showing effect of niacin on gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. CI = confidence interval; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 10Forest plot showing effect of niacin on musculoskeletal adverse events. CI = confidence interval; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 11Forest plot showing effect of niacin on skin flushing. CI = confidence interval; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Figure 12Forest plot showing effect of niacin on liver toxicity. CI = confidence interval; M-H = Mantel-Haenszel. For full trial names, see Table 1 footnote.
Overall, niacin therapy resulted in a nonsignificant decrease in serum levels of TC (0.39 [95% CI 0.20, 0.98]) and LDL-C (0.43 [95% CI 0.05, 0.91]). There was a significant increase in levels of HDL-C from baseline by 21.4%, 9.31 (95% CI 5.11, 13.51) mg/dL, (0.67 [95% CI 0.86, 0.47]) with niacin compared with the control group.
Discussion
Our results showed that the addition of niacin to statin therapy was associated with a significant increase in serum levels of HDL-C and nonsignificant decreases in TC and LDL-C compared with placebo. However, niacin therapy did not lead to significant reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular-related mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, or stroke among patients with established or at-high risk of ASCVD.
Despite the widespread use of statins as first-line therapy, patients with established ASCVD remain at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialist (CTT) Collaboration Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.
This was further supported by evidence from various clinical studies, which reported an improvement in both surrogate markers of atherosclerosis and the frequency of cardiovascular events with niacin, one of the most effective HDL-C–raising drugs.
Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins.
Prognostic utility of apoB/AI, total cholesterol/HDL, non-HDL cholesterol, or hs-CRP as predictors of clinical risk in patients receiving statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes: results from PROVE IT-TIMI 22.
Two large clinical trials, AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes) and HPS2-THRIVE (Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events), testing niacin in addition to background statin therapy, failed to show any reduction in cardiovascular events.
To our knowledge the present meta-analysis is the largest to date, comprising 13 trials and including 35,206 patients with or at-risk of ASCVD. Because of heterogeneity in the definition and classification of the primary endpoint among the various trials included, we undertook pooling of individual endpoints to detect meaningful differences in outcomes. Our results showed no significant effect on several important clinical outcomes with the addition of niacin therapy. The Coronary drug project (1975), a 6-year prospective trial randomizing patients with established coronary artery disease to either niacin or placebo, showed lower incidence of myocardial infarction among patients on niacin.
Furthermore, the 15-year follow-up of the Coronary drug project trial demonstrated that niacin was associated with benefits on long-term survival despite discontinuation after 5 years, thereby suggesting an alteration of ischemic risk.
With the advent of widespread statin use, the AIM-HIGH and HPS2-THRIVE trials investigated the strategy of niacin in patients already receiving effective statin therapy.
The AIM-HIGH study, which enrolled patients with stable CHD with low levels of mean baseline LDL-C (74 mg/dL) and HDL-C (35 mg/dL) on statin treatment, found no significant decrease in cardiovascular events with niacin-statin combination despite a significant increase in HDL-C levels, as compared with the statin-only group.
In the multicenter HPS2-THRIVE study, which randomized more than 25,000 patients with stable cardiovascular disease receiving effective lipid-lowering therapy to niacin plus statin combination therapy or statins only over a mean follow-up of 3.6 years, the combination therapy with extended-release niacin and statin failed to significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events.
However, these analyses included trials which predated the era of optimal statin therapy and did not include the AIM-HIGH and HPS2-THRIVE studies. A recently conducted meta-analysis of 39 clinical trials involving several HDL-C–directed therapies (niacin, fibrates, cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors) demonstrated results consistent with our study.
Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117,411 patients.
Additionally, 2 randomized trials that investigated the effects of niacin therapy in combination with statin therapy were not included in their analysis, thereby failing to study the cumulative evidence available.
Further, in addition to the larger sample size of our meta-analysis, we attempted to include all the cardiovascular endpoints available in different studies, to broaden the interpretation of these studies, whereas the endpoints of cardiovascular mortality and revascularization have not been evaluated in previous meta-analyses.
Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117,411 patients.
The present analysis is also unique in reporting the safety profile of niacin with respect to different adverse events. Consistent with prior evidence, we found significant increases in the niacin arm, compared with control, on the risks of skin, gastrointestinal, diabetes, and musculoskeletal adverse events. Most importantly, our study coincides with the recent withdrawal of approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for combination use of extended-release niacin with statin therapy based on results from the AIM-HIGH and HPS2-THRIVE trials.
Our study demonstrated no improvement in clinical outcomes despite a significant increase in serum HDL-C levels with niacin therapy. This lack of clinical benefit could have several potential explanations. First, major weightage in our analysis was provided by the AIM-HIGH and HPS2-THRIVE trials, which recruited patients with highly optimized statin-based therapy maintaining below goal LDL-C levels (<70 mg/dL), which is not universally seen in clinical practice.
The beneficial effects of raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol depends upon achieved levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol during statin therapy: implications for coronary atheroma progression and cardiovascular events.
Furthermore, other trials investigating the role of niacin in combination with statins among patients with low serum levels of HDL-C studied surrogate endpoints and had a low number of clinical events.
Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins.
Second, with an evolving understanding of HDL composition and function, it is being increasingly realized that HDL-C's role and clinical effects may extend far beyond simply the concentration levels, and is more related to HDL particle number (HDL-P) and function.
Low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein particle subclasses predict coronary events and are favorably changed by gemfibrozil therapy in the Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial.
As seen in the AIM-HIGH trial, combination of niacin-statin therapy may not lead to a significant increase in HDL-P and thus cholesterol efflux, thereby explaining the negative results.
Further, in a population-based cohort of subjects free from ASCVD, cholesterol efflux activity was inversely associated with incident cardiovascular events over a long-term follow-up of approximately 9 years.
Niacin therapy increases high-density lipoprotein particles and total cholesterol efflux capacity but not ABCA1-specific cholesterol efflux in statin-treated subjects.
In a meta-analysis of statin trials evaluating association of HDL-C and apoA-I with major adverse cardiovascular events in patients reaching LDL-C <70 mg/dL, a reduced incidence of cardiovascular events was seen only with apoA-I increase, but not HDL-C.
Levels and changes of HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I in relation to risk of cardiovascular events among statin-treated patients: a meta-analysis.
Finally, although the effect of niacin in raising HDL-C is well known, it is unclear whether the observed reductions in cardiovascular events in previous studies were related solely to its favorable effect on the patient's lipid profile. In a meta-regression analysis of 11 niacin trials, Lavigne et al
failed to demonstrate an association of serum levels of HDL-C with a reduction in cardiovascular events. This finding could be due to an independent antiatherogenic effect of niacin through its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties.
Anti-inflammatory effects of nicotinic acid in adipocytes demonstrated by suppression of fractalkine, RANTES, and MCP-1 and upregulation of adiponectin.
Recently published trials investigating fibrates and cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors have added to a growing consensus against the hypothesis that HDL-C–raising therapies would be atheroprotective.
Notably, among statin-treated patients, the ACCORD (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes) and dal-OUTCOMES (Study of the Effect of Dalcetrapib on Atherosclerotic Disease in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trials failed to show any reduction in recurrent cardiovascular events, with the addition of fenofibrate and dalcetrapib, respectively.
The major strength of the present analysis is individual pooling of important clinical outcomes from available randomized controlled trials comparing niacin with a control agent. In addition, we evaluated the cumulative adverse effect profile associated with niacin treatment. Our results did not show any benefit in terms of all-cause mortality or other cardiovascular events, while suggesting increased risk of several adverse events, with niacin therapy. Our study has several limitations. The dosages and comparators varied across the studies included, and we were not able to estimate the effect of niacin monotherapy. Although clinical outcomes were adjudicated in individual trials, standardized adjudication was not possible across all included randomized controlled trials included in the present analysis.
Conclusion
Niacin therapy does not lead to a significant reduction in total or cause-specific mortality or recurrent cardiovascular events, despite an improvement in serum HDL-C levels. Additional research is indicated to better understand HDL subfractions and their association with cardiovascular outcomes with targeted therapies, to increase only those subfractions associated with better cardiovascular outcomes.
References
Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics-2015 update: a report from the American Heart Association.
Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.
American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
Meta-analysis: statin therapy does not alter the association between low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased cardiovascular risk.
Low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased risk of cardiovascular events in stable ischemic heart disease patients: a post-hoc analysis from the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation).
Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins.
A randomized trial of a strategy for increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels: effects on progression of coronary heart disease and clinical events.
Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministered with extended-release niacin in patients with type IIa or type IIb hyperlipidemia.
Prognostic utility of apoB/AI, total cholesterol/HDL, non-HDL cholesterol, or hs-CRP as predictors of clinical risk in patients receiving statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes: results from PROVE IT-TIMI 22.
Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates, and CETP inhibitors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117,411 patients.
The beneficial effects of raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol depends upon achieved levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol during statin therapy: implications for coronary atheroma progression and cardiovascular events.
Low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein particle subclasses predict coronary events and are favorably changed by gemfibrozil therapy in the Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial.
Niacin therapy increases high-density lipoprotein particles and total cholesterol efflux capacity but not ABCA1-specific cholesterol efflux in statin-treated subjects.
Levels and changes of HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I in relation to risk of cardiovascular events among statin-treated patients: a meta-analysis.
Anti-inflammatory effects of nicotinic acid in adipocytes demonstrated by suppression of fractalkine, RANTES, and MCP-1 and upregulation of adiponectin.
In their systematic review of the role of niacin in clinical practice, Garg et al1 found that niacin therapy does not reduce all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or adverse cardiovascular events. Garg et al1 included niacin studies with and without a statin as part of the intervention.
31058-0&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr4.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr5.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr6.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr7.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr8.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr9.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr10.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr11.jpg){kind=link}
31058-0&id=gr12.jpg){kind=link}