0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Gemfibrozil in the Treatment of Dyslipidemia:  An 18-Year Mortality Follow-up of the Helsinki Heart Study FREE

Leena Tenkanen, PhD; Matti Mänttäri, MD; Petri T. Kovanen, MD; Hanna Virkkunen, MSc; Vesa Manninen, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Helsinki Heart Study, Helsinki, Finland (Drs Tenkanen, Mänttäri, and Manninen and Ms Virkkunen); School of Public Health, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland (Dr Tenkanen and Ms Virkkunen); Helsinki University Jorvi Hospital, Espoo, Finland (Dr Mänttäri); Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki (Dr Manninen); and Wihuri Research Institute, Helsinki (Drs Mänttäri and Kovanen).


Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(7):743-748. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.7.743.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  The Helsinki Heart Study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial among 4081 dyslipidemic middle-aged men to test the efficacy of gemfibrozil in the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). After the 5-year trial, the participants were notified of their treatment group and invited to continue or start gemfibrozil therapy free of charge through 1995. Approximately two thirds of participants in both groups chose gemfibrozil therapy. In this 18-year follow-up through 2000, we compared the CHD, cancer, and all-cause mortality among subjects in the original gemfibrozil (OG) group (n = 2046) with those in the original placebo (OP) group (n = 2035).

Methods  To provide an overview of the absolute risks in the 2 treatment groups as well as risk differences between them, we calculated crude mortality rates and presented Kaplan-Meier plots of survival with log-rank tests. We also estimated the relative risks (RRs) using Cox proportional hazards models with and without covariates.

Results  During the follow-up until 1995, subjects in the OG group had a 32% lower RR of CHD mortality (P = .03) compared with those in the OP group, and when followed up until 2000, the RR was 23% lower (P = .05). Overall, there were no differences in all-cause or cancer mortality. However, those in the OG group with both body mass index and triglyceride level in the highest tertiles had a 71% lower RR of CHD mortality (P<.001), a 33% lower RR of all-cause mortality (P = .03), and a 36% lower RR of cancer mortality (P = .22) compared with those in the OP group.

Conclusion  Long-term mortality follow-up showed that patients with dyslipidemia benefited from beginning treatment with gemfibrozil early, especially if their dyslipidemia entailed factors related to the metabolic syndrome.

Figures in this Article

The Helsinki Heart Study was a 5-year primary prevention trial to test the hypothesis that gemfibrozil use reduces coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. During the original 5-year, double-blind phase of the trial, a 34% reduction in cardiac end points, but no difference in all-cause mortality,1,2 was seen. When the 5-year trial ended, the participants in both treatment groups were offered gemfibrozil for the following 3.5 years. At the end of the 3.5-year open-label phase, the effect of long-term vs short-term treatment with gemfibrozil was studied. No material differences in all-cause or coronary mortality were seen between the original treatment groups,3 whereas cancer mortality was slightly (nonsignificantly) higher in the original gemfibrozil group.4

Subsequent subgroup analyses of the double-blind trial data showed that the group that obtained the greatest benefit from the treatment was characterized by a high baseline triglyceride (TG) level and an elevated ratio of LDL-C to HDL-C.5 Further analyses indicated that gemfibrozil use reduced CHD risk especially in overweight subjects with additional risk factors known to contribute or predispose to the metabolic syndrome.6 The effect of gemfibrozil therapy in subjects with insulin resistance was later confirmed in the Veterans Affairs High Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial (VA-HIT).7

The present study is an 18-year follow-up of the original gemfibrozil (OG) and original placebo (OP) groups of the Helsinki Heart Study to examine the effects of a 5-year earlier start of gemfibrozil treatment on all-cause, CHD, and cancer mortality. We also investigated whether the findings from the subgroup analyses of the double-blind trial phase would persist in the long-term analysis of mortality.

DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE HELSINKI HEART STUDY
Double-blind Trial

The Helsinki Heart Study was a 5-year, double-blind clinical trial to test the hypothesis that lowering serum LDL-C and triglyceride levels and elevating serum HDL-C levels with gemfibrozil reduces CHD risk in middle-aged dyslipidemic men. The design, conduct, and main results of the study have been described in detail.1,2 Briefly, the volunteers for the trial were selected in 1980 through 1982 by 2 successive screenings from men aged 40 to 55 years, employed by 2 government agencies and 5 industrial companies. To be eligible for the second screening or for the trial, the subjects' non–HDL-C level had to be 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/L) or higher, and for the trial they also had to be without evidence of CHD or any other major illness. Of 18 936 men at the first screening, 4081 met these criteria and were willing to participate in the trial. Of these, 2035 were randomized to receive placebo and 2046 to receive gemfibrozil, 1200 mg/d, 2 capsules twice daily. Compliance with medication was studied by several methods (eg, capsule counting).8

Open-Label Phase

At the end of the 5-year trial, all subjects (including dropouts) were informed about their lipid values during the trial and invited to participate in an open 3.5-year trial extension with 2 annual visits and a choice to take gemfibrozil (Figure 1). About the same proportion of subjects in the 2 original treatment groups chose to take gemfibrozil: 66.3% in the OG group and 68.5% in the OP group. Compliance monitoring showed that in both groups the participant took, on average, 3.5 capsules of gemfibrozil per day.3

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Schematic presentation of the different phases of the 18-year follow-up of the Helsinki Heart Study. OG indicates original gemfibrozil; OP, original placebo.

Graphic Jump Location
Register-Based Follow-up Phase

At the end of the open-label phase in June 1990, subjects taking gemfibrozil were offered a free drug supply through a central pharmacy through 1995, but no regular follow-up visits. The trial cohort was then followed up for all-cause, CHD, and cancer mortality by linkage to population-based registers, especially the Cause-of-Death Register kept by Statistics Finland, Helsinki. In Finland, there is a centralized nationwide population registration system based on personal identification numbers, kept since 1966. This system ensures that the registration of deaths is virtually complete. The Cause-of-Death Register was found to be very reliable in terms of CHD deaths compared with the World Health Organization Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease (WHO MONICA) project data9 and the Helsinki Heart Study data.10

Present Mortality Follow-up

This study extends the follow-up from the beginning of the double-blind trial in 1980-1982 through 2000 (18-year follow-up) and is fully register based. The following CHD codes were monitored: International Classification of Diseases, Eighth Revision codes 410 to 414 through 1986; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes 4100 to 4199 from 1987 through 1995; and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes I20 to I25 from 1996 through 2000. These codes imply the presence of 1 or several of the following conditions: angina, myocardial infarction, myocardial infarction with complications, other ischemic heart diseases, and chronic ischemic heart disease.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

The analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat principle (ie, by comparing mortality risks in the original treatment groups). We thus estimated the mortality risk in approximately 18 years of follow-up among subjects belonging to the OG group compared with those in the original OP group. To provide an overview of the absolute risks in the 2 treatment groups as well as risk differences between them, we calculated crude mortality rates and presented Kaplan-Meier plots of survival with log-rank tests. We also tested the statistical significances of the differences using Cox proportional hazards models with and without covariates. The P values were based on the likelihood ratio test. To study whether age, baseline levels of lipids, or body mass index (BMI) would modify the treatment effect, we formed a new variable representing combinations of treatment group and levels of the other factor (eg, tertiles of TG: [OP, TGI], [OP, TGII], [OP, TGIII], [OG, TGI], [OG, TGII], [OG, TGIII]). In this way, all data were included in the model, and spurious results originating in analyses of separate subgroups were avoided. The analyses were performed using the statistical package Egret for Windows (Cytel Software Corp, Cambridge, Mass).

LIPID LEVELS DURING THE DOUBLE-BLIND AND OPEN-LABEL TRIALS

As background information, Figure 2 shows the development of the annual mean values of TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C by treatment group during the 8.5-year follow-up. Owing to successful randomization, the baseline values were closely similar in the 2 treatment groups. During the double-blind phase, the treatment soon led to substantial differences in the lipid levels. After the beginning of the open label phase, the lipid levels in both groups settled at a level that was between that in the OP and OG groups during the double-blind trial, mirroring the fact that approximately two thirds of subjects in both groups were receiving gemfibrozil.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Development of annual mean values of triglyceride (TG) (A), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (B), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (C) in the original placebo (OP) and original gemfibrozil (OG) groups during the double-blind and open-label trials. To convert to milligrams per deciliter, divide by 0.0113 for TG and by 0.0259 for HDL-C and LDL-C.

Graphic Jump Location
MORTALITY IN THE OP AND OG GROUPS

Table 1 presents mortality data for 2 periods: the 13-year follow-up from 1980-1982 until the end of the free gemfibrozil treatment at the end of 1995 (mean, 13.7 years) and the 18-year follow-up from the beginning of the study through 2000 (mean 18.1 years). Trends for all-cause and cancer mortality favored patients in the OG group but were significant only for CHD mortality: P = .03 for the 13-year follow-up and P = .05 for the 18-year follow-up. In all these comparisons, the differences between the OP and the OG groups decreased when the follow-up was extended beyond 1995.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. All-Cause, Cancer, and CHD Mortality (per 10000 Person-Years) During the 13- and 18-Year Follow-up Periods by the OP and OG Groups

Adjustment for age slightly decreased the risk differences between the OP and the OG groups. We therefore also estimated the mortality when the study group was divided into 2 groups by median age (47 years). The younger age group benefited slightly more from an early start of treatment than did the older group, particularly during the 13-year follow-up (data not shown).

Thus, among those aged 40 to 47 years at the beginning of the study, the relative risk (RR) of CHD mortality was 42% lower in the OG group compared with the OP group (P = .07), but it was only 24% lower among those who were 48 to 57 years old at that time. During the 18-year follow-up, the corresponding figures were 31% (P = .08) and 17% (data not shown).

The Kaplan-Meier plots of Figure 3 give an overview of the time-dependent trends in the mortality risks of the OP and OG groups. Coronary heart disease mortality was consistently lower in the OG group than in the OP group, whereas no such trend was seen in all-cause or cancer mortality.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival functions describing mortality from coronary heart disease (A), cancer (B), and all causes (C) during the 18-year follow-up. NS indicates not significant; OG, original gemfibrozil; OP, original placebo.

Graphic Jump Location
CHD MORTALITY BY BASELINE LIPID AND BMI LEVELS

To study if the observed difference in CHD risks between the OP and OG groups depended on factors related to the metabolic syndrome, we calculated CHD mortality by tertiles of baseline lipid and BMI levels in the OP and OG groups during the 18-year follow-up. The CHD mortality increased with increasing TG tertiles in the OP group but not in the OG group. Indeed, in the OG group the CHD mortality in the last tertile was 50% lower (P = .001) than in the corresponding tertile in the OP group. A similar difference between the 2 groups was noted for HDL-C but not for LDL-C. For comparison, we also estimated the corresponding mortality data for BMI: there was no consistent pattern of risk across the 2 lowest tertiles, but the highest tertile yielded a risk peak in the OP group and a 52% lower mortality in the OG group (P<.001) (data not shown).

CHD, ALL-CAUSE, AND CANCER MORTALITY BY COMBINED LEVELS OF BASELINE TG AND BMI

Table 2 gives the CHD and all-cause mortalities in combinations of tertiles of baseline levels of TG and BMI. In the OG group, the subjects with both high BMI and high TG level at baseline had a 71% lower CHD mortality (P<.001) and a 33% lower all-cause mortality (P = .03) compared with those in the OP group. They also had 36% lower risk of cancer mortality (P =.22) (data not shown). The baseline combinations of high BMI and low HDL-C level or high TG and low HDL-C levels yielded similar patterns of risk in terms of CHD or all-cause mortality (data not shown).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and All-Cause Mortality (per 10000 Person-Years) During the 18-Year Follow-up by Subgroups of the OP and OG Groups

In this long-term mortality follow-up study based on the intention-to-treat principle, we compared mortalities in the 2 original treatment groups of the Helsinki Heart Study (ie, those randomized to receive placebo or gemfibrozil). The only manifest difference in treatment between the groups concerned the 5-year double-blind trial, after which the same proportion of subjects in both groups continued gemfibrozil therapy at least through 1995. The major findings were a significant reduction in CHD mortality in the OG group compared with the OP group and some statistically nonsignificant reductions in all-cause and cancer mortalities. Subgroup analyses showed that participants with high BMI, high TG level, or low HDL-C level at baseline benefited most from an early start of treatment. For instance, participants with a combination of high BMI and high TG level had a 71% lower risk of CHD mortality in the OG group compared with those in the OP group.

PARTICIPANTS WHO BENEFITED FROM THE TREATMENT

The finding that, at baseline, a combination of high BMI and high TG level or high BMI and low HDL-C level predicts good treatment effect with gemfibrozil is consistent with our previous report from the double-blind trial phase, in which we found that gemfibrozil use reduced the risk of coronary events mainly in overweight subjects with additional risk factors known to contribute to the metabolic syndrome.6 In addition, a recent article from the VA-HIT trial reports that the reduction of events with gemfibrozil use was greater in subjects with insulin resistance than in those without, despite the finding that an increase in HDL-C level and a decrease in TG level with gemfibrozil use was less in subjects with insulin resistance than in those without.7 Actually, the authors of this article conclude that “the benefit of fibrate therapy was much less dependent on levels of HDL-C or TG than on the presence or absence of insulin resistance.”7 In the Helsinki Heart Study trial, insulin resistance was not measured, but BMI plays a central role in the metabolic syndrome.11

Several trials have studied the putative effects of gemfibrozil on insulin resistance, insulin level, or factors known to be related to the metabolic syndrome. In most studies, no effect of gemfibrozil has been found on insulin resistance, serum insulin levels, or glucose metabolism,1214 whereas both insulin action and glucose metabolism were improved by gemfibrozil use in a study by Avogaro et al.15 Gemfibrozil has been reported to improve the fibrinolytic system by decreasing plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 activity,16,17 but contrasting findings have also been reported.13 It is interesting that in the VA-HIT secondary prevention trial in subjects with low HDL-C level, gemfibrozil was found to be most effective in subjects with diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with high fasting plasma insulin levels.18

The studies on the actions of fibrates at the molecular level may provide a broader understanding for the observed multiple beneficial effects of gemfibrozil on CHD risk factors. The fibrates have been found to activate transcription factors, the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) (particularly the PPAR-α that controls lipoprotein metabolism),19 and atherosclerotic plaque thrombogenicity.20

LESSONS FROM THE LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP

Because compliance was monitored in several ways during the double-blind trial phase, we know that most subjects in the OG and OP groups were compliant.8 During the open-label phase, a similar proportion (approximately two thirds) of subjects in both groups chose to take gemfibrozil, which was offered free of charge through 1995. We do not know whether they continued using gemfibrozil after that date, but there is no reason to assume that the 2 groups differed substantially in their choice of therapy for dyslipidemia. Two differences thus remain between the 2 groups: first, the subjects in the OG group had a longer period of active treatment, and second, they started active treatment at a younger age. The finding that in the follow-up until 1995 the younger subjects (age, 40-47 years) in the OG group had a 42% lower CHD incidence compared with the corresponding subjects in the OP group, while the difference was only 24% for the older subjects (age, 48-57 years), lends some support to the hypothesis that not only an early start of the treatment but also the age when treatment is started may be of importance. How could we explain the benefit of an early start of gemfibrozil treatment on CHD mortality? One reasonable mechanism is drug-related prevention of the conversion of early, clinically innocent coronary lesions (fatty streaks) into clinically significant more complex lesions. This conversion already starts in coronary arteries during the second decade of life, and by the end of the fourth decade, most male subjects have intermediate or advanced lesions in their coronary tree.21

SAFETY OF TREATMENT

The earlier start of the treatment with gemfibrozil in the OG group was not associated with increased risk of cancer or all-cause mortality. Rather, the earlier start of gemfibrozil treatment significantly reduced all-cause mortality among subjects with high BMI and high TG level at baseline. In this subgroup, cancer mortality was also reduced, albeit not significantly. It is noteworthy that high BMI is a risk factor for several types of cancer, and there is much ongoing research on the association of insulin resistance and some cancers.22,23

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The design of the follow-up study inherently restricts the interpretation. Because there was no placebo group after the double-blind phase, there was no opportunity to evaluate the effect of gemfibrozil therapy after the initial trial phase. We could only compare the effect of a 5-year earlier start of gemfibrozil treatment in 2 randomized groups of dyslipidemic men (no women), and we could only speculate on the possible reasons for a difference in effect of this 5-year earlier start of treatment with gemfibrozil.

We had no clinical data on the participants after the 8.5-year trial, and especially after 1995 we have no information on their choice of medication. However, it seems plausible that whether they continued using any medication or chose another drug, the study groups did not differ essentially in their choice of treatment.

In conclusion, the long-term follow-up of mortality in Helsinki Heart Study treatment groups revealed significantly reduced CHD mortality among subjects who started gemfibrozil therapy at age 40 to 47 years than among those who started the treatment 5 years later at age 48 to 57 years. Subgroup analyses showed that those with dyslipidemia related to the metabolic syndrome especially benefited from an earlier start of treatment, with significantly reduced CHD and all-cause mortality.

Correspondence: Leena Tenkanen, PhD, Helsinki Heart Study, Kalliolinnantie 4, 00140 Helsinki, Finland (leena.tenkanen@uta.fi).

Accepted for Publication: November 29, 2005.

Financial Disclosure: None.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by grants from the Aarne Koskelo Foundation and the Paavo Nurmi Foundation, Helsinki, Finland, and EVO research funds of the Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki. The Wihuri Research Institute is maintained by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, Helsinki.

Group Information: Drs Tenkanen, Mänttäri, and Manninen and Ms Virkkunen are members of the Helsinki Heart Study Group.

Frick  MHElo  OHaapa  K  et al.  Helsinki Heart Study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia; safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1987;3171237- 1245
PubMed Link to Article
Manninen  VElo  OFrick  MH  et al.  Lipid alterations and decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA 1988;260641- 651
PubMed Link to Article
Heinonen  OPHuttunen  JKManninen  V  et al.  The Helsinki Heart Study: coronary heart disease incidence during an extended follow-up. J Intern Med 1994;23541- 49
PubMed Link to Article
Huttunen  JKHeinonen  OPManninen  V  et al.  The Helsinki Heart Study: an 8.5 year safety and mortality follow-up. J Intern Med 1994;23531- 39
PubMed Link to Article
Manninen  VTenkanen  LKoskinen  P  et al.  Joint effects of serum triglyceride and LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol concentrations on coronary heart disease risk in the Helsinki Heart Study. Circulation 1992;8537- 45
PubMed Link to Article
Tenkanen  LMänttäri  MManninen  V Some coronary risk factors related to the insulin resistance syndrome and treatment with gemfibrozil: experience from the Helsinki Heart Study. Circulation 1995;921779- 1785
PubMed Link to Article
Robins  SJRubins  HBFaas  FH  et al.  Insulin resistance and cardiovascular events with low HDL cholesterol: the Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial (VA-HIT). Diabetes Care 2003;261513- 1517
PubMed Link to Article
Mäenpää  HManninen  VHeinonen  OP Compliance with medication in the Helsinki Heart Study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992;4215- 19
PubMed Link to Article
Mähönen  MSalomaa  VTorppa  J  et al.  The validity of the routine mortality statistics on coronary heart disease in Finland: comparison with the FINMONICA MI register data for the years 1983-1992: Finnish multinational MONItoring of trends and determinants in CArdiovascular disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52157- 166
PubMed Link to Article
Pietilä  KTenkanen  LMänttäri  MManninen  V How to define coronary heart disease in register-based follow-up studies: experience from the Helsinki Heart Study. Ann Med 1997;29253- 259
PubMed Link to Article
Grundy  SMBrewer  HB  JrCleeman  JISmith  SC  JrLenfant  C Definition of metabolic syndrome: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scientific issues related to definition. Circulation 2004;109433- 438
PubMed Link to Article
Sane  TKnudsen  PVuorinen-Markkola  HYki-Järvinen  HTaskinen  MR Decreasing triglycerides by gemfibrozil therapy does not affect the glucoregulatory or antilipolytic effect of insulin in nondiabetic subjects with mild hypertriglyceridemia. Metabolism 1995;44589- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Asplund-Carlson  A Effects of gemfibrozil therapy on glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity and plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor activity in hypertriglyceridaemia. J Cardiovasc Risk 1996;3385- 390
PubMed Link to Article
Jeng  CYSheu  WHFuh  MMShich  SMChen  YDReaven  GM Gemfibrozil treatment of endogenous hypertriglyceridemia: effect on insulin-mediated glucose disposal and plasma insulin concentrations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;812550- 2553
PubMed
Avogaro  ABeltramello  PMarin  R  et al.  Insulin action and glucose metabolism are improved by gemfibrozil treatment in hypertriglyceridemic patients. Atherosclerosis 1995;113117- 124
PubMed Link to Article
Jeng  JRJeng  CYSheu  WHLee  MMHuang  SHShich  SM Gemfibrozil treatment of hypertriglyceridemia: improvement on fibrinolysis without change of insulin resistance. Am Heart J 1997;134565- 571
PubMed Link to Article
Nordt  TKLutzi  SRuef  J  et al.  Attenuation by fibrates of plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 expression in human arterial smooth muscle cells. Thromb Haemost 2001;861305- 1313
PubMed
Rubins  HBRobins  SJCollins  D  et al.  Diabetes, plasma insulin, and cardiovascular disease: subgroup analysis from the Department of Veterans Affairs high-density lipoprotein intervention trial (VA-HIT). Arch Intern Med 2002;1622597- 2604
PubMed Link to Article
Staels  BDallongeville  JAuwerx  JSchoonjans  KLeitersdorf  EFruchart  JC Mechanism of action of fibrates on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Circulation 1998;982088- 2093
PubMed Link to Article
Neve  BPCorseaux  DChinetti  G  et al.  PPARalpha agonists inhibit tissue factor expression in human monocytes and acrophages. Circulation 2001;103207- 212
PubMed Link to Article
Stary  HC Evolution and progression of atherosclerotic lesions in coronary arteries of children and young adults. Arteriosclerosis 1989;9 ((1)(suppl)) I19- I32
PubMed
Hsing  AWGao  YTChua  S  JrDeng  JStanczyk  FZ Insulin resistance and prostate cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;9567- 71
PubMed Link to Article
Colangelo  LAGapstur  SMGann  PHDyer  ARLiu  K Colorectal cancer mortality and factors related to the insulin resistance syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11385- 391
PubMed

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Schematic presentation of the different phases of the 18-year follow-up of the Helsinki Heart Study. OG indicates original gemfibrozil; OP, original placebo.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Development of annual mean values of triglyceride (TG) (A), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (B), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (C) in the original placebo (OP) and original gemfibrozil (OG) groups during the double-blind and open-label trials. To convert to milligrams per deciliter, divide by 0.0113 for TG and by 0.0259 for HDL-C and LDL-C.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.

Kaplan-Meier survival functions describing mortality from coronary heart disease (A), cancer (B), and all causes (C) during the 18-year follow-up. NS indicates not significant; OG, original gemfibrozil; OP, original placebo.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. All-Cause, Cancer, and CHD Mortality (per 10000 Person-Years) During the 13- and 18-Year Follow-up Periods by the OP and OG Groups
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) and All-Cause Mortality (per 10000 Person-Years) During the 18-Year Follow-up by Subgroups of the OP and OG Groups

References

Frick  MHElo  OHaapa  K  et al.  Helsinki Heart Study: primary prevention trial with gemfibrozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia; safety of treatment, changes in risk factors, and incidence of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 1987;3171237- 1245
PubMed Link to Article
Manninen  VElo  OFrick  MH  et al.  Lipid alterations and decline in the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Helsinki Heart Study. JAMA 1988;260641- 651
PubMed Link to Article
Heinonen  OPHuttunen  JKManninen  V  et al.  The Helsinki Heart Study: coronary heart disease incidence during an extended follow-up. J Intern Med 1994;23541- 49
PubMed Link to Article
Huttunen  JKHeinonen  OPManninen  V  et al.  The Helsinki Heart Study: an 8.5 year safety and mortality follow-up. J Intern Med 1994;23531- 39
PubMed Link to Article
Manninen  VTenkanen  LKoskinen  P  et al.  Joint effects of serum triglyceride and LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol concentrations on coronary heart disease risk in the Helsinki Heart Study. Circulation 1992;8537- 45
PubMed Link to Article
Tenkanen  LMänttäri  MManninen  V Some coronary risk factors related to the insulin resistance syndrome and treatment with gemfibrozil: experience from the Helsinki Heart Study. Circulation 1995;921779- 1785
PubMed Link to Article
Robins  SJRubins  HBFaas  FH  et al.  Insulin resistance and cardiovascular events with low HDL cholesterol: the Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial (VA-HIT). Diabetes Care 2003;261513- 1517
PubMed Link to Article
Mäenpää  HManninen  VHeinonen  OP Compliance with medication in the Helsinki Heart Study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992;4215- 19
PubMed Link to Article
Mähönen  MSalomaa  VTorppa  J  et al.  The validity of the routine mortality statistics on coronary heart disease in Finland: comparison with the FINMONICA MI register data for the years 1983-1992: Finnish multinational MONItoring of trends and determinants in CArdiovascular disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52157- 166
PubMed Link to Article
Pietilä  KTenkanen  LMänttäri  MManninen  V How to define coronary heart disease in register-based follow-up studies: experience from the Helsinki Heart Study. Ann Med 1997;29253- 259
PubMed Link to Article
Grundy  SMBrewer  HB  JrCleeman  JISmith  SC  JrLenfant  C Definition of metabolic syndrome: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scientific issues related to definition. Circulation 2004;109433- 438
PubMed Link to Article
Sane  TKnudsen  PVuorinen-Markkola  HYki-Järvinen  HTaskinen  MR Decreasing triglycerides by gemfibrozil therapy does not affect the glucoregulatory or antilipolytic effect of insulin in nondiabetic subjects with mild hypertriglyceridemia. Metabolism 1995;44589- 596
PubMed Link to Article
Asplund-Carlson  A Effects of gemfibrozil therapy on glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity and plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor activity in hypertriglyceridaemia. J Cardiovasc Risk 1996;3385- 390
PubMed Link to Article
Jeng  CYSheu  WHFuh  MMShich  SMChen  YDReaven  GM Gemfibrozil treatment of endogenous hypertriglyceridemia: effect on insulin-mediated glucose disposal and plasma insulin concentrations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;812550- 2553
PubMed
Avogaro  ABeltramello  PMarin  R  et al.  Insulin action and glucose metabolism are improved by gemfibrozil treatment in hypertriglyceridemic patients. Atherosclerosis 1995;113117- 124
PubMed Link to Article
Jeng  JRJeng  CYSheu  WHLee  MMHuang  SHShich  SM Gemfibrozil treatment of hypertriglyceridemia: improvement on fibrinolysis without change of insulin resistance. Am Heart J 1997;134565- 571
PubMed Link to Article
Nordt  TKLutzi  SRuef  J  et al.  Attenuation by fibrates of plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 expression in human arterial smooth muscle cells. Thromb Haemost 2001;861305- 1313
PubMed
Rubins  HBRobins  SJCollins  D  et al.  Diabetes, plasma insulin, and cardiovascular disease: subgroup analysis from the Department of Veterans Affairs high-density lipoprotein intervention trial (VA-HIT). Arch Intern Med 2002;1622597- 2604
PubMed Link to Article
Staels  BDallongeville  JAuwerx  JSchoonjans  KLeitersdorf  EFruchart  JC Mechanism of action of fibrates on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism. Circulation 1998;982088- 2093
PubMed Link to Article
Neve  BPCorseaux  DChinetti  G  et al.  PPARalpha agonists inhibit tissue factor expression in human monocytes and acrophages. Circulation 2001;103207- 212
PubMed Link to Article
Stary  HC Evolution and progression of atherosclerotic lesions in coronary arteries of children and young adults. Arteriosclerosis 1989;9 ((1)(suppl)) I19- I32
PubMed
Hsing  AWGao  YTChua  S  JrDeng  JStanczyk  FZ Insulin resistance and prostate cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;9567- 71
PubMed Link to Article
Colangelo  LAGapstur  SMGann  PHDyer  ARLiu  K Colorectal cancer mortality and factors related to the insulin resistance syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11385- 391
PubMed

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 65

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles