HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Statin's role on blood pressure levels: Meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Statins have been proven to be effective in minimizing the risk of cardiovascular adverse events, however, their effect on BP variability is debatable with respect to their significance and their use as a potential anti-hypertensive. Using a meta-analysis approach, the aim of this study was to explore whether certain statins have the potential to lower blood pressure (BP). For the period 2002-2022, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for the studies that examined the effect of statins on blood pressure in normotensive or hypertensive individuals. Randomized controlled clinical trials that investigated this effect were included based on our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The final analysis of the study included 49 RCTs involving 45 173 participants randomized to receive either statins or placebo. Among the two groups, the total weighted mean difference (WMD) for systolic blood pressure (ΔSBP) was -1.42 (95% CI: -2.38, -0.46; p = .004) and diastolic blood pressure (ΔDBP) was 0.82 (95% CI: -1.28, -0.36; p = .0005). Despite various studies suggesting the efficacy of statins in blood pressure lowering to be significant and non-significant both, we observed a decrease in SBP and DBP both, although the change was not as large and could be considered significant. A large multicenter, multi-ethnic, large sample pool size, and a long period follow-up study is still required to assert these claims.

Effect of Statins on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Coronary Artery Spasm: A Meta-Analysis of the Asia Region

Background

Whether statins can reduce major cardiovascular adverse events (MACE) in patients with coronary artery spasm (CAS) is controversial. And most of the relevant research to date has been conducted in Asia.

Methods

We systematically searched electronic databases for studies on the effect of statins on MACE in patients with CAS in Asia and published up to September 2022. We included data on MACE in a statin therapy patient group and a no-statin therapy control group. We then evaluated the effect of statin therapy on MACE in patients with CAS in Asia by meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). All statistical analyses were performed using Stata 16.0 software and TSA software.

Results

A total of 10 studies (n = 9333 patients) were included in the final analysis. Meta-analysis showed that the use of statins had a significant effect on MACE in CAS patients (with RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99), and the sensitivity analysis further confirmed this finding. Subgroup analysis suggested that the correlation between statin therapy and reduced MACE endpoint was stronger in Japanese patients and patients followed up for more than 4 years. But our TSA results indicated that the available samples were insufficient and further research is needed.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggests that statin therapy can reduce MACE in patients with CAS in Asia, and the correlation between the two was stronger in Japanese patients and patients followed up for more than 4 years.

Projections of incident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and incident type 2 diabetes across evolving statin treatment guidelines and recommendations: A modelling study

BACKGROUND

Experimental and observational research has suggested the potential for increased type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk among populations taking statins for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, few studies have directly compared statin-associated benefits and harms or examined heterogeneity by population subgroups or assumed treatment effect. Thus, we compared ASCVD risk reduction and T2D incidence increases across 3 statin treatment guidelines or recommendations among adults without a history of ASCVD or T2D who were eligible for statin treatment initiation.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Simulations were conducted using Markov models that integrated data from contemporary population-based studies of non-Hispanic African American and white adults aged 40-75 years with published meta-analyses. Statin treatment eligibility was determined by predicted 10-year ASCVD risk (5%, 7.5%, or 10%). We calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one ASCVD event and the number needed to harm (NNH) to incur one incident case of T2D. The likelihood to be helped or harmed (LHH) was calculated as ratio of NNH to NNT. Heterogeneity in statin-associated benefit was examined by sex, age, and statin-associated T2D relative risk (RR) (range: 1.11-1.55). A total of 61,125,042 U.S. adults (58.5% female; 89.4% white; mean age = 54.7 years) composed our primary prevention population, among whom 13-28 million adults were eligible for statin initiation. Overall, the number of ASCVD events prevented was at least twice as large as the number of incident cases of T2D incurred (LHH range: 2.26-2.90). However, the number of T2D cases incurred surpassed the number of ASCVD events prevented when higher statin-associated T2D RRs were assumed (LHH range: 0.72-0.94). In addition, females (LHH range: 1.74-2.40) and adults aged 40-50 years (LHH range: 1.00-1.14) received lower absolute benefits of statin treatment compared with males (LHH range: 2.55-3.00) and adults aged 70-75 years (LHH range: 3.95-3.96). Projected differences in LHH by age and sex became more pronounced as statin-associated T2D RR increased, with a majority of scenarios projecting LHHs < 1 for females and adults aged 40-50 years. This study's primary limitation was uncertainty in estimates of statin-associated T2D risk, highlighting areas in which additional clinical and public health research is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our projections suggest that females and younger adult populations shoulder the highest relative burden of statin-associated T2D risk.

Effect of inter-individual blood pressure variability on the progression of atherosclerosis in carotid and coronary arteries: a post hoc analysis of the NORMALISE and PREVENT studies

Aims

To investigate the relationship between visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) and the progression of both carotid and coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods and results

Data from two cardiovascular endpoint studies [Norvasc for Regression of Manifest Atherosclerotic Lesions by Intravascular Sonographic Evaluation (NORMALISE) and Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Vascular Effects of Norvasc Trial (PREVENT)] were analysed separately. Systolic BPV was assessed as within-subject standard deviation of systolic BP across visits from 12-weeks onwards. Follow-up was 24 months (NORMALISE) or 36 months (PREVENT). Any association between BPV and progression of atherosclerosis was assessed using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or B-mode ultrasound (depending on study). Patients from NORMALISE (n = 261) and PREVENT (n = 688 for QCA; n = 364 for ultrasound) were stratified within study according to median systolic BPV. No significant difference in change of minimal luminal diameter (by QCA in PREVENT) or change in percent atheroma volume or normalized total atheroma volume (by IVUS in NORMALISE) was detected for subjects with low BPV (BPV < median) compared with high BPV (BPV ≥ median), regardless of treatment. In PREVENT, a significantly greater reduction in maximum carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) (left and right common carotid artery far wall) was observed for patients with BPV < median compared with those with BPV ≥ median [least squares mean difference 0.06 (95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.11); P = 0.0271], after adjusting for treatment, carotid artery segment (left or right), baseline maximum carotid IMT, and other baseline and cardiovascular risk factors/covariates.

Conclusions

In patients with existing CAD and well-controlled BP, visit-to-visit BPV was not associated with progression of coronary atherosclerosis; however, a significantly greater reduction in maximum carotid IMT was observed for patients with low BPV.

Long-term mortality after blood pressure-lowering and lipid-lowering treatment in patients with hypertension in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) Legacy study: 16-year follow-up results of a randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with hypertension, the long-term cardiovascular and all-cause mortality effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens and lipid-lowering treatment are not well documented, particularly in clinical trial settings. The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) Legacy Study reports mortality outcomes after 16 years of follow-up of the UK participants in the original ASCOT trial.

METHODS

ASCOT was a multicentre randomised trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. UK-based patients with hypertension were followed up for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality for a median of 15·7 years (IQR 9·7-16·4 years). At baseline, all patients enrolled into the blood pressure-lowering arm (BPLA) of ASCOT were randomly assigned to receive either amlodipine-based or atenolol-based blood pressure-lowering treatment. Of these patients, those who had total cholesterol of 6·5 mmol/L or lower and no previous lipid-lowering treatment underwent further randomisation to receive either atorvastatin or placebo as part of the lipid-lowering arm (LLA) of ASCOT. The remaining patients formed the non-LLA group. A team of two physicians independently adjudicated all causes of death.

FINDINGS

Of 8580 UK-based patients in ASCOT, 3282 (38·3%) died, including 1640 (38·4%) of 4275 assigned to atenolol-based treatment and 1642 (38·1%) of 4305 assigned to amlodipine-based treatment. 1768 of the 4605 patients in the LLA died, including 903 (39·5%) of 2288 assigned placebo and 865 (37·3%) of 2317 assigned atorvastatin. Of all deaths, 1210 (36·9%) were from cardiovascular-related causes. Among patients in the BPLA, there was no overall difference in all-cause mortality between treatments (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·81-1·01, p=0·0776]), although significantly fewer deaths from stroke (adjusted HR 0·71, 0·53-0·97, p=0·0305) occurred in the amlodipine-based treatment group than in the atenolol-based treatment group. There was no interaction between treatment allocation in the BPLA and in the LLA. However, in the 3975 patients in the non-LLA group, there were fewer cardiovascular deaths (adjusted HR 0·79, 0·67-0·93, p=0·0046) among those assigned to amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment (p=0·022 for the test for interaction between the two blood pressure treatments and allocation to LLA or not). In the LLA, significantly fewer cardiovascular deaths (HR 0·85, 0·72-0·99, p=0·0395) occurred among patients assigned to statin than among those assigned placebo.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings show the long-term beneficial effects on mortality of antihypertensive treatment with a calcium channel blocker-based treatment regimen and lipid-lowering with a statin: patients on amlodipine-based treatment had fewer stroke deaths and patients on atorvastatin had fewer cardiovascular deaths more than 10 years after trial closure. Overall, the ASCOT Legacy study supports the notion that interventions for blood pressure and cholesterol are associated with long-term benefits on cardiovascular outcomes.

FUNDING

Pfizer.

ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are more likely to achieve lipid-lowering treatment goals: A retrospective analysis of patients presenting with first acute coronary syndromes

Statin nonadherence or discontinuation is associated with increased cardiovascular events. Many factors related to the physicians or the patients are influential in this. We aimed to compare the compliance with statin therapy between the patients who first presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina pectoris (UA) based on the target achievement according to the current dyslipidemia guidelines.We retrospectively acquired all the information about demographic characteristics, in-hospital revascularization procedures, prescribed treatments, and index and up to 6-month follow-up laboratory results of the first acute coronary syndrome patients. Acute coronary syndrome patients were divided into 3 groups as STEMI, NSTEMI, and UA.The STEMI group consisted of 260 patients, NSTEMI group consisted of 560 patients, and UA group consisted of 206 patients. Seventy-six percent of patients underwent percutaneous coronary interventions, 18.3% were managed medically, and 5.7% were referred for coronary artery bypass grafting. There was a significant decrease in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) values with the statin treatment at the follow-up in all 3 groups (for all P < .001). In the STEMI group, the percentage of those achieving the target LDL-C level was significantly higher than those who did not achieve the target according to both The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology dyslipidemia guidelines. The LDL-C target achievement rates were also higher in the STEMI group than in the NSTEMI and UA groups.Our study concluded that statin treatment goals were more attained in STEMI patients than NSTEMI and UA. All physicians should encourage lifelong intensive statin treatment in UA and NSTEMI patients such as STEMI patients.

Good adherence to therapy with statins reduces the risk of adverse clinical outcomes even among very elderly. Evidence from an Italian real-life investigation

AIM

To assess whether in individuals aged 80years or older adherence to statins is accompanied by a reduced risk of all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was carried out on a cohort of patients aged 80years or older (very elderly individuals), who were under treatment with statins between 2008 and 2009, using the database available for all citizenship (about 10 million) of Lombardy (Italy). Cases were the cohort members who experienced death or hospitalization for stroke, myocardial infarction or heart failure from the initial prescription until 2012. Up to five controls were randomly selected for each case. Logistic regression was used to model the outcome risk associated with the adherence to therapy with statins. Two younger patient cohorts aged 60 to 69years and 70 to 79years were taken for comparison. A set of sensitivity analyses was performed in order to account for sources of systematic uncertainty.

RESULTS

Among very elderly individuals, those who had high adherence to statins showed significant risk reductions of death (56%; 95% Confidence Interval, 54% to 59%), myocardial infarction (15%; 5% to 24%), stroke (13%; 0% to 24%) and heart failure (30%; 23% to 36%) with respect to those at very low adherence. Adherence-related risk reductions were only slightly better for younger cohort members.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to therapy with statins reduced the risk of both death and cardiovascular morbidity in patients aged 80years or older.

Adverse events associated with unblinded, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase

BACKGROUND

In blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has been associated with few adverse events (AEs). By contrast, in observational studies, larger increases in many different AEs have been reported than in blinded trials.

METHODS

In the Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, patients aged 40-79 years with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, and fasting total cholesterol concentrations of 6·5 mmol/L or lower, and who were not taking a statin or fibrate, had no history of myocardial infarction, and were not being treated for angina were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or matching placebo in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase. In a subsequent non-randomised non-blind extension phase (initiated because of early termination of the trial because efficacy of atorvastatin was shown), all patients were offered atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label. We classified AEs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. We blindly adjudicated all reports of four prespecified AEs of interest-muscle-related, erectile dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment-and analysed all remaining AEs grouped by system organ class. Rates of AEs are given as percentages per annum.

RESULTS

The blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998, and December, 2002; we included 101 80 patients in this analysis (5101 [50%] in the atorvastatin group and 5079 [50%] in the placebo group), with a median follow-up of 3·3 years (IQR 2·7-3·7). The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December, 2002, and June, 2005; we included 9899 patients in this analysis (6409 [65%] atorvastatin users and 3490 [35%] non-users), with a median follow-up of 2·3 years (2·2-2·4). During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2·03% per annum] vs 283 [2·00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·88-1·21]; p=0·72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1·86% per annum] vs 302 [2·14% per annum]; 0·88 [0·75-1·04]; p=0·13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo. The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 [1·00% per annum] vs 210 [1·46% per annum]; 0·69 [0·56-0·85]; p=0·0005). Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 [0·20% per annum] vs 32 [0·22% per annum]; 0·94 [0·57-1·54]; p=0·81). We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 [1·87%] per annum vs 392 [1·51%] per annum; 1·23 [1·08-1·41]; p=0·002). By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 [1·26% per annum] vs 124 [1·00% per annum]; 1·41 [1·10-1·79]; p=0·006). We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8·69% per annum] vs 831 [7·45% per annum]; 1·17 [1·06-1·29]; p=0·001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0·88% per annum] vs 80 [0·64% per annum]; 1·40 [1·04-1·88]; p=0·03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users.

INTERPRETATION

These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. These results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects.

FUNDING

Pfizer, Servier Research Group, and Leo Laboratories.

Clinical significance of 'cardiometabolic memory': a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

'Cardiometabolic memory' has been proposed based on clinical evidence to explain how, even after the cessation of a clinical trial, the superiority of one treatment over the outcome persists. To understand the cardiometabolic memory phenomenon, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using PubMed in August 2016. The search terms 'randomized controlled trial', 'post-trial follow-up' and 'diabetes, hypertension or dyslipidemia' were used, and articles published after the year 2000 were searched. We judged the memory phenomenon to be positive when the cardiovascular outcome at the end of the post-trial follow-up period in the intervention group was significantly superior even though the favorable control of a risk factor (blood glucose, blood pressure or lipid level) during the trial period was lost after the cessation of the intervention. Among 907 articles retrieved in the initial screening, 21 articles were judged as describing a positive memory phenomenon. Eight, six and seven of the articles concerned diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia, respectively. Transient intensive glucose lowering rather easily induced memory for the suppression of diabetic microangiopathies, while memory for the suppression of macroangiopathies tended to be first evident in the post-trial follow-up period. Transient intensive blood pressure lowering was generally effective in the formation of memory for the suppression of cardiovascular events and had an especially strong impact on risk reduction of chronic heart failure. Transient intensive LDL cholesterol lowering clearly had a long-term beneficial effect on risk reduction of cardiovascular events. Our systematic review revealed the clinical relevance of cardiometabolic memory.

Statin therapy/lipid lowering therapy among Indian adults with first acute coronary event: The dyslipidemia Residual and Mixed Abnormalities IN spite of Statin therapy (REMAINS) study

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to evaluate the effect of statin therapy/lipid lowering therapy (LLT) on lipid profile, in adults presenting with first acute coronary event.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

A multicentre, observational, prospective cohort study of lipid profiles pre- and post-statin therapy/LLT, among adult patients with confirmed diagnosis of first acute coronary event. The primary outcome measures were low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in mg/dl, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in mg/dl and triglycerides (TG) in mg/dl at baseline and end of study (EOS, 12 weeks [mean: 13.5 weeks]).

RESULTS

Totally 474 patients completed the study. Number of patients with any LDL-C abnormality (LDL-C [all; LDL was abnormal, either alone or along with other lipid parameter(s)]) decreased from 118 (24.9%) to 27 (5.7%), and for LDL-C (only; only the LDL was abnormal), from 46 (9.7%) to 13 (2.7%), both from baseline to EOS. Of 118 patients with high LDL-C (all) at baseline, 91 (77.1%) had reduction in LDL-C to <100mg/dl, of which 54 (45.8%) had LDL-C <70mg/dl at EOS. The patients with LDL-C fraction abnormalities decreased, while HDL-C abnormalities increased at EOS from baseline. No major difference was observed at baseline and EOS in levels of TG (all [TG was abnormal, either alone or along with other lipid parameter(s)]) and TG (only [only the TG was abnormal]). Six (1.3%) had seven serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Though statin therapy is effective in lowering LDL-C, there still remains residual dyslipidemia, which probably should be tackled with therapeutic and non-therapeutic options.

Effect of visit-to-visit blood pressure variability on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease and well-controlled blood pressure

This post hoc analysis of CAMELOT and PREVENT analyzed the impact of blood pressure variability (BPV, assessed as within-subject standard deviation of SBP from 12 weeks onward) on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, defined according to original studies). Patients (n = 1677 CAMELOT; n = 776 PREVENT) were stratified by BPV quartile. Regardless of study, BPV was significantly lower for amlodipine versus other treatments. In CAMELOT, a significant association between BPV quartile and MACE was observed with amlodipine treatment. Significant associations between BPV quartile and MACE were observed for both studies, when analyzed overall (adjusting for treatment). In CAMELOT, with amlodipine treatment, an increased risk for MACE was observed with high (BPV ≥ Q3) versus low BPV (< Q1; adjusting for characteristics and risk factors). In both studies, increased risk for MACE was observed for BPV ≥ Q3 versus BPV < Q1 (analyzed overall, adjusting for treatment and covariates). For both studies, BPV, but not mean SBP, was associated with cardiovascular events. BPV was associated with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with CAD and well-controlled BP.

Distribution of lifespan gain from primary prevention intervention

Objective

When advising patients about possible initiation of primary prevention treatment, clinicians currently do not have information on expected impact on lifespan, nor how much this increment differs between individuals.

Methods

First, UK cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality data were used to calculate the mean lifespan gain from an intervention (such as a statin) that reduces cardiovascular mortality by 30%. Second, a new method was developed to calculate the probability distribution of lifespan gain. Third, we performed a survey in three UK cities on 11 days between May–June 2014 involving 396 participants (mean age 40 years, 55% male) to assess how individuals evaluate potential benefit from primary prevention therapies.

Results

Among numerous identical patients, the lifespan gain, from an intervention that reduces cardiovascular mortality by 30%, is concentrated within an unpredictable minority. For example, men aged 50 years with national average cardiovascular risk have mean lifespan gain of 7 months. However, 93% of these identical individuals gain no lifespan, while the remaining 7% gain a mean of 99 months. Many survey respondents preferred a chance of large lifespan gain to the equivalent life expectancy gain given as certainty. Indeed, 33% preferred a 2% probability of 10 years to fivefold more gain, expressed as certainty of 1 year.

Conclusions

People who gain lifespan from preventative therapy gain far more than the average for their risk stratum, even if perfectly defined. This may be important in patient decision-making. Looking beyond mortality reduction alone from preventative therapy, the benefits are likely to be even larger.

Long-term effects following 4 years of randomized treatment with atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on hemodialysis

The 4D (Die Deutsche Diabetes Dialyse) Study was a randomized, double-blind trial comparing 4 years of treatment with atorvastatin to placebo in 1255 hemodialysis patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary end point of cardiovascular events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was non-significantly reduced by 8%. However, long-term effects remained uncertain. Therefore, surviving patients were invited to a follow-up survey done by questionnaire. Post-trial statin therapy was at nephrologist discretion, and outcomes were centrally adjudicated and analyzed by intention to treat and time to first event in the original treatment groups. Median overall follow-up was 11.5 years. Post-trial statin use and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels did not differ between groups. Statin treatment non-significantly affected the former primary outcome (relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.07). The risk of all cardiac events combined and the risk of cardiac death were significantly lower in the original statin group compared to placebo (0.83, 0.70-0.97, and 0.80, 0.66-0.97). No significant effect was detected on cerebrovascular events, fatal stroke, fatal cancer, non-vascular, or all-cause death. No rhabdomyolysis was reported. Thus, after 4 years of atorvastatin treatment in diabetic hemodialysis patients, similar effects on outcomes were found after 11.5 years of follow-up as were found at the end of the original study. There was no evidence of emerging hazards in the long term, confirming current clinical practice guidelines.

Long-term follow-up of lipid-lowering trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Most LDL-lowering trials are limited in duration while the disease process occurs over decades. It is informative, therefore, to evaluate the long-term effects of treatment by undertaking extended observation beyond the formal double-blind phase of intervention studies. The current review brings together the findings of major trials that have conducted such long-term follow-up.

RECENT FINDINGS

Extended observation of trial cohorts has reinforced the long-term safety of LDL-lowering therapy (with statins and other agents), with no evidence of late development of cancers or other adverse outcomes. Post-trial follow-up reveals also legacy benefits in terms of improved survival (due principally to decreased cardiovascular death rates), and lower hospitalization rates for cardiovascular disease. A number of trials report further risk reduction even after the formal intervention has ceased, and the appearance of delayed benefits such as reduced rate of heart failure.

SUMMARY

The perceived value of LDL lowering is enhanced significantly by the legacy benefits that persist after administration of treatment to individuals with established coronary heart disease or to those at high risk of developing disease. Safety, efficacy and the economics of intervention can be judged more fully in light of the knowledge gained from extended observation in clinical trials.

The activation of PI 3-kinase/Akt pathway is involved in the acute effects of simvastatin against ischaemia and reperfusion-induced arrhythmias in anaesthetised dogs

The objective of this study was to examine whether the PI3-kinase/Akt pathway is involved in the activation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and in the subsequent increase of nitric oxide (NO) production that has been proved to play a role in the antiarrhythmic effect of acute simvastatin treatment in anaesthetised dogs, subjected to a 25min occlusion and reperfusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Using the same model, 12 dogs out of the 26 controls (given the solvent of simvastatin) and 11 dogs out of the 23 animals treated with intracoronary administered simvastatin (0.1mg/kg), were now received wortmannin (1.5mg/kg, ic.), a selective inhibitor of PI3-kinase. In another 13 dogs the effects of DMSO (0.1%), the vehicle of wortmannin, were examined. Compared to the controls, simvastatin markedly reduced the severity of ischaemia (epicardial ST-segment, inhomogeneity) and ventricular arrhythmias that were reversed (except the occlusion-induced ventricular fibrillation [VF; 50%, 0%, 0%]) by the administration of wortmannin. Thus in these groups there were 310±45, 62±14, 307±59 ectopic beats, 7.1±1.4, 0.3± 0.2, 4.3±1.3 tachycardiac episodes that occurred 93%, 17% and 73% of the dogs during occlusion, whereas survival following reperfusion was 0%, 67% and 0%, respectively. Simvastatin also increased the phosphorylation of eNOS and the plasma nitrate/nitrite levels, but reduced myocardial superoxide production on reperfusion. These effects of simvastatin were also abolished in the presence of wortmannin. We conclude that the NO-dependent antiarrhythmic effect of simvastatin involves the rapid activation of eNOS through the stimulation of the PI3-kinase/Akt pathway.

Is it cost-effective to use a test to decide which individuals with an intermediate cardiovascular disease risk would benefit from statin treatment?

BACKGROUND

The 2012 European guidelines recommend statins for intermediate-risk individuals with elevated cholesterol levels. Improved discrimination of intermediate-risk individuals is needed to prevent both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and statin side-effects (e.g. myopathy) efficiently since only 3-15 in every 100 individuals actually experience a cardiovascular event in the next 10 years. We estimated the potential cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical test which helps to determine which individuals will benefit from statins.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prognosis of different age- and gender-specific cohorts with an intermediate risk was simulated with a Markov model to estimate the potential costs and quality-adjusted life-years for four strategies: treat all with statins, treat none with statins, treat according to the European guidelines, or use a test to select individuals for statin treatment. The test-first strategy dominated the other strategies if the hypothetical test was 100% accurate and cost no more than €237. This strategy and the treat-all strategy were equally effective but the test generated lower costs by reducing statin usage and side-effects. The treat-none strategy was the least effective strategy. Threshold analyses show that the test must be highly accurate (especially sensitive) and inexpensive to be the most cost-effective strategy, since myopathy has a negligible impact on cost-effectiveness and statin costs are low.

CONCLUSION

Use of a highly accurate prognostic test could reduce overall CVD risk, frequency of drug side-effects and lifetime costs. However, no additional test would add usefully to risk prediction over SCORE when it does not satisfy the costs and accuracy requirements.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), for whom the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people who have existing coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review published in 2009, and includes evidence from 27 new studies (25,068 participants) in addition to the 26 studies (20,324 participants) assessed previously; and excludes three previously included studies (107 participants). This updated review includes 50 studies (45,285 participants); of these 38 (37,274 participants) were meta-analysed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits (such as reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, MI and stroke; and slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)) and harms (muscle and liver dysfunction, withdrawal, and cancer) of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD who were not on dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 5 June 2012 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on mortality, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD not on dialysis were the focus of our literature searches.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (lipids, creatinine clearance and proteinuria) and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or non-fatal stroke, ESKD, elevated liver enzymes, rhabdomyolysis, cancer and withdrawal rates) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies (45,285 participants): 47 studies (39,820 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment and three studies (5547 participants) compared two different statin regimens in adults with CKD who were not yet on dialysis. We were able to meta-analyse 38 studies (37,274 participants).The risk of bias in the included studies was high. Seven studies comparing statins with placebo or no treatment had lower risk of bias overall; and were conducted according to published protocols, outcomes were adjudicated by a committee, specified outcomes were reported, and analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat methods. In placebo or no treatment controlled studies, adverse events were reported in 32 studies (68%) and systematically evaluated in 16 studies (34%).Compared with placebo, statin therapy consistently prevented major cardiovascular events (13 studies, 36,033 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), all-cause mortality (10 studies, 28,276 participants; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91), cardiovascular death (7 studies, 19,059 participants; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87) and MI (8 studies, 9018 participants; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72). Statins had uncertain effects on stroke (5 studies, 8658 participants; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.12).Potential harms from statin therapy were limited by lack of systematic reporting and were uncertain in analyses that had few events: elevated creatine kinase (7 studies, 4514 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.48), liver function abnormalities (7 studies, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 130).Statins had uncertain effects on progression of CKD. Data for relative effects of intensive cholesterol lowering in people with early stages of kidney disease were sparse. Statins clearly reduced risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and MI in people with CKD who did not have CVD at baseline (primary prevention).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins consistently lower death and major cardiovascular events by 20% in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Statin-related effects on stroke and kidney function were found to be uncertain and adverse effects of treatment are incompletely understood. Statins have an important role in primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality in people who have CKD.

Statins for the prevention of stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a frequently encountered clinical event that has a detrimental impact on the quality of life. Evidence has increasingly shown that statins can substantially reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. However, it remains to be determined whether statins are definitively effective in preventing stroke.

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Central databases for studies that compared the effects of statins and placebo in patients at high risk for stroke. The outcome measures were overall incidence of stroke, incidence of fatal stroke, and incidence of hemorrhagic stroke.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials satisfied all the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed that statins reduced the overall incidence of stroke than placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.87; P<0.00001). In particular, statins showed efficacy in reducing the incidence of fatal stroke (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.67-1.21; P = 0.47) and hemorrhagic stroke (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.25; P = 0.45). On the contrary, they were found to increase the overall incidence of stroke (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.89-1.41; P = 0.32) and fatal stroke (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.93-2.03; P = 0.11) in renal transplant recipients and patients undergoing regular hemodialysis.

CONCLUSION

The results of this analysis suggest that statins may be beneficial in reducing the overall incidence of stroke and they may decrease the risk of fatal stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. However, statins should be used with caution in patients with a history of renal transplantation, regular hemodialysis, transient ischemic attack, or stroke. Further analyses should focus on multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials with data stratification according to the nature of primary diseases and dose-effect relationship, to clarify the benefits of statins in protection against stroke.

Long-term efficacy and safety of statin treatment beyond six years: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with extended follow-up

Large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have well demonstrated the beneficial effects of cholesterol-lowering treatment with statins in patients at high risk of vascular disease. However, large statin RCTs were usually restricted to the typical 5-6 years. Moreover, non-cardiovascular events, especially the risk of cancer, probably failed to emerge within a restricted period of 6 years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of statin treatment by performing a meta-analysis of statin RCTs with extended follow-up beyond 6 years. Six RCTs with post-trial follow-up were eligible for inclusion, involving 47,296 patients with total follow-up ranging from 6.7 to 14.7 years. During the post-trial period, all the surviving participants were advised to take a statin and the cholesterol level were almost identical between the original statin group and the original placebo group. Over the entire 6.7-14.7 years of follow-up, a significant reduction in the rates of all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.85-0.96; P=0.0009), cardiovascular mortality (0.87, 0.81-0.93; P<0.0001) and major coronary events (0.79, 0.72-0.86; P<0.00001) was observed in favour of the original statin group. During 2-year post-trial period, further reduction in all-cause mortality (0.83, 0.74-0.93; P=0.001), cardiovascular mortality (0.81, 0.69-0.95; P=0.01) and major coronary events (0.77, 0.63-0.95; P=0.01) was observed among initially statin-treated patients. Over the entire follow-up period, statin treatment did not increase the incidence of cancers (0.99, 0.95-1.04; P=0.79), deaths from cancers (1.00, 0.93-1.07; P=0.98) and non-cardiovascular mortality (0.95, 0.90-1.00; P=0.07). In conclusion, statin treatment beyond 6 years is effective and safe in patients at high risk of vascular events. Moreover, earlier treatment with statin may not only preserve the initial benefit but also have further survival benefit for additional 2 years. Further studies are called for to explore the underlying mechanisms.

LDL cholesterol: should guidelines include targets?

Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. The strategy of target-based LDL-C lowering to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease and secondary event rates is now well established. However, the strategy for treating to a target LDL-C, and whether there is a lower threshold level for LDL-C continues to be debated. We present, and critically analyze the evidence for a target-based LDL-C lowering strategy, and the safety and efficacy of intensive plasma LDL-C-lowering with traditional, and novel LDL-lowering therapies below current guideline targets.

Antiplatelet and Lipid-lowering Drugs in Hypertension

Antiplatelet therapy, and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in particular, is recommended in hypertensive patients with previous cardiovascular events and is considered in hypertensive patients with reduced renal function or a high cardiovascular (CV) risk, provided blood pressure is well-controlled. Acetylsalicylic acid is not recommended in low-to-moderate risk hypertensive patients in whom absolute benefit and harm are equivalent. Further trials evaluating antithrombotic therapy including newer agents in hypertension are needed. Women at high and moderate risk of pre-eclampsia are advised to take a low dose of ASA daily from 12 weeks of gestation until delivery. In addition to their lipid-lowering effects, statins induce a small blood pressure reduction. The 2013 European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend using statin therapy in hypertensive patients at moderate-to-high CV risk to achieve the target low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol value <3 mmol/l (115 mg/dl). For individuals with manifest CV disease or at very high CV risk, a more aggressive LDL target of <1.8 mmol/l (70 mg/dl) is recommended.

Statins in heart failure--With preserved and reduced ejection fraction. An update

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors or statins beyond their lipid lowering properties and mevalonate inhibition exert also their actions through a multiplicity of mechanisms. In heart failure (HF) the inhibition of isoprenoid intermediates and small GTPases, which control cellular function such as cell shape, secretion and proliferation, is of clinical significance. Statins share also the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor pathway and inactivate extracellular-signal-regulated kinase phosphorylation suppressing inflammatory cascade. By down-regulating Rho/Rho kinase signaling pathways, statins increase the stability of eNOS mRNA and induce activation of eNOS through phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt/eNOS pathway restoring endothelial function. Statins change also myocardial action potential plateau by modulation of Kv1.5 and Kv4.3 channel activity and inhibit sympathetic nerve activity suppressing arrhythmogenesis. Less documented evidence proposes also that statins have anti-hypertrophic effects - through p21ras/mitogen activated protein kinase pathway - which modulate synthesis of matrix metalloproteinases and procollagen 1 expression affecting interstitial fibrosis and diastolic dysfunction. Clinical studies have partly confirmed the experimental findings and despite current guidelines new evidence supports the notion that statins can be beneficial in some cases of HF. In subjects with diastolic HF, moderately impaired systolic function, low b-type natriuretic peptide levels, exacerbated inflammatory response and mild interstitial fibrosis evidence supports that statins can favorably affect the outcome. Under the lights of this evidence in this review article we discuss the current knowledge on the mechanisms of statins' actions and we link current experimental and clinical data to further understand the possible impact of statins' treatment on HF syndrome.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: how low can we go?

Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an established cause of cardiovascular disease and subsequent adverse events. The efficacy and safety of lowering plasma LDL-C to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and secondary event rates are now well established. What has not been established, however, is a plasma LDL-C lower threshold level of safety and efficacy. Here we review intensive plasma LDL-C-lowering with statins and argue that even further reductions of plasma LDL-C than current guideline targets is likely to safely reduce cardiovascular event rates. We discuss how to achieve very low levels of plasma LDL-C using both traditional and novel LDL-lowering therapies.

Long-term follow-up of moderately hypercholesterolemic hypertensive patients following randomization to pravastatin vs usual care: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT)

The authors conducted a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial, in which they assigned well-controlled hypertensive participants aged 55 years and older with moderate hypercholesterolemia to receive pravastatin (n=5170) or usual care (n=5185) for 4 to 8 years, when trial therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance using national databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years to assess whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed. During the post-trial period, fatal and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 64% of participants, respectively. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. No significant differences appeared in mortality for pravastatin vs usual care (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.03) or other secondary outcomes. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment effect for CHD in black patients (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98). However, the in-trial result showing a significant treatment by race effect did not remain significant during the entire follow-up (P=.08). These findings are consistent with evidence from other large trials that show statins prevent CHD and add evidence that they are effective for CHD prevention in black patients.

Post hoc analysis of the Cluster Randomized Usual Care versus Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term risk (CRUCIAL) trial

OBJECTIVE

A proactive, multifactorial intervention strategy incorporating single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (SPAA) (5-10/10 mg up-titrated to 5-10/20 mg, where approved) is more effective than physician's usual care (UC) for reducing calculated 10 year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors (CRUCIAL trial: Curr Med Res Opin 2011;27:821--33). As SPAA combinations containing atorvastatin 20 mg are not approved in some countries, this post hoc analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of a proactive intervention strategy incorporating low-dose SPAA (5/10 or 10/10 mg) only (low-dose PI) versus UC.

METHODS

Of 1461 CRUCIAL participants (35-79 years; hypertension and ≥3 additional risk factors; no CHD; total cholesterol ≤6.5 mmol/L), 105 were prescribed SPAA containing 20 mg atorvastatin and excluded. The primary endpoint was difference between treatment arms in Framingham 10 year CHD risk after 52 weeks; secondary assessments included difference in calculated CHD risk at Week 16; SCORE cardiovascular mortality (Week 16 and 52); blood pressure (BP)/lipid parameters; adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Baseline BP (149.2/89.2 vs. 144.3/86.5 mmHg) and calculated CHD risk (19.6% vs. 18.1%) were higher for low-dose PI (n = 655) versus UC (n = 657) patients. Least-squares mean treatment difference (low-dose PI vs. UC) in calculated 10 year CHD risk was -26.8 (95% CI: -31.7, -22.0; p < 0.001) after 52 weeks' follow-up and -24.8 (-29.8, -19.9; p < 0.001) after 16 weeks' follow-up. Treatment difference in SCORE mortality was -20.1 (-24.7, -15.6; p < 0.001) and -22.4 (-26.8, -18.0; p < 0.001) after 16 and 52 weeks' follow-up. Risk calculations are surrogate endpoints and may not translate into actual reductions in cardiovascular events. Overall, 49.1% (low-dose PI) and 44.0% (UC) reported AEs.

CONCLUSION

A proactive, multifactorial approach to cardiovascular management based on low-dose SPAA led to statistically significant improvements in calculated 10 year CHD risk versus physician's UC, comparable to that reported in the full CRUCIAL trial. These data will inform healthcare providers in countries where SPAA (5/10 or 10/10 mg) only are licensed.

The effects of statins on blood pressure in normotensive or hypertensive subjects--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether statin therapy is associated with blood pressure (BP)-lowering in patients with or without hypertension.

BACKGROUND

The beneficial effects of statins on the cardiovascular system may in part be related to effects beyond lipid-lowering. It has been suggested that statins may reduce BP; however the available data are still ambiguous and often conflicting.

METHODS

Data from Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1966-January 2012 were searched for studies that investigated the effect of statins on BP in normotensive or in hypertensive subjects. We included all randomized controlled clinical trials that investigated this effect. Changes in systolic and diastolic BP were the key outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 18 trials and 5628 subjects (4692 normotensive and 936 hypertensive patients) randomized to receive either statins or placebo. The weighted mean difference of systolic (∆SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (∆DBP) in normotensive patients for the 11 statin trials included were 0.03 (95% CI: -0.95-1.02; p = 0.95) and -0.28 (95% CI: -0.80-0.24; p = 0.29), respectively. For hypertensive patients treated with statins (8 trials) the weighted mean difference of ∆SBP and ∆DBP were 1.45 (95% CI: -0.49-3.39; p = 0.14) and -1.32 (95% CI: -3.93-1.28; p = 0.32) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite previous suggestions statin therapy in normotensive or hypertensive patients does not lead to significant reductions in systolic or diastolic BP.

LDL cholesterol targets--how low to go?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) reduces vascular risk. Current guidelines recommend initiating statin therapy in patients with a yearly coronary heart disease risk of around 1.5-2%, and most clinicians prescribe standard statin regimens (e.g. 40 mg simvastatin daily). However, there is some uncertainty about whether patients at somewhat lower vascular risk should receive lipid-lowering therapy and also how intensive statin treatment should be.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lowering LDL-C by around 1 mmol/l reduces vascular mortality and major morbidity by about one-fifth, and more recent randomized trials comparing intensive versus standard statin regimens confirm that a further LDL-C reduction of 0.5 mmol/l results in an additional 15% reduction in the risk of a major vascular event. Furthermore, statin therapy significantly reduces vascular mortality and morbidity in patients with less than 1% annual risk of a major vascular event. In general, statins are safe and well tolerated, but 80 mg simvastatin is associated with an unacceptably high risk of statin-induced myopathy.

SUMMARY

Lipid-lowering therapy with statins is cost-effective for a wider range of patients than currently recommended. Intensive statin therapy is associated with larger reductions in vascular risk, and lower LDL-C targets (particularly for higher-risk individuals) should help reduce vascular mortality and major vascular morbidity substantially.

Evidence-based use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Three-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, commonly known as statins, are widely available, inexpensive, and represent a potent therapy for treating elevated cholesterol. Current national guidelines put forth by the Adult Treatment Panel III recommend statins as part of a comprehensive primary prevention strategy for patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at increased risk for developing coronary heart disease within 10 years. Lack of a clear-cut mortality benefit in primary prevention has caused some to question the use of statins for patients without known coronary heart disease. On review of the literature, we conclude that current data support only a modest mortality benefit for statin primary prevention when assessed in the short term (<5 years). Of note, statin primary prevention results in a significant decrease in cardiovascular morbidity over the short and long term and a trend toward increased reduction in mortality over the long term. When appraised together, these data provide compelling evidence to support the use of statins for primary prevention in patients with risk factors for developing coronary heart disease over the next 10 years.

Vascular memory: can we broaden the concept of the metabolic memory?

Based on the results of recent randomized, controlled clinical trials and analyses of their follow-up periods the concept of metabolic memory cannot be restricted to antihyperglycaemic treatment only, rather it can be extended to lipid-lowering and antihypertensive treatment and even life-style modification. This broadened concept can be designated as vascular memory. According to this new concept, not only immediate and short-term but long-term effects of the metabolic and cardiovascular risk milieu are of great importance. Consequently, early and intensive lifestyle interventions, treatment of hyperglycaemia, lipid abnormalities and hypertension can result in beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes even in the long run. On the contrary, failing in target-oriented treatment from early detection of abnormalities can be associated with life-threatening cardiovascular events subsequently. Additional experimental studies are needed to characterize the exact pathomechanism of vascular memory and further clinical trials are also essential to explore its real clinical significance.

Statins in the management of dyslipidemia associated with chronic kidney disease

The cause of death in the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is accelerated cardiovascular disease and not renal failure per se, suggesting a role for statin therapy in this setting. During the past 6 years three large, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of three different statins have been conducted in the dialysis population-but two of these studies did not demonstrate any benefits of statin therapy, and the third study showed only marginally positive results. To understand why statins have failed to reduce cardiovascular events in patients with ESRD, the basic mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of dyslipidemia in CKD must be critically examined. The observed negative results in the clinical trials of statin therapy might also reflect the biomarkers and targets that were chosen to be evaluated. The characteristics of dyslipidemia in patients with CKD not yet requiring dialysis treatment differ markedly from those of individuals with established ESRD and form the basis for therapeutic recommendations. The potential adverse effects associated with statin therapy are important to consider in the management of dyslipidemia in patients with CKD.

Effects on 11-year mortality and morbidity of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin for about 5 years in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Findings of large randomised trials have shown that lowering LDL cholesterol with statins reduces vascular morbidity and mortality rapidly, but limited evidence exists about the long-term efficacy and safety of statin treatment. The aim of the extended follow-up of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) is to assess long-term efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol with statins, and here we report cause-specific mortality and major morbidity in the in-trial and post-trial periods.

METHODS

20,536 patients at high risk of vascular and non-vascular outcomes were allocated either 40 mg simvastatin daily or placebo, using minimised randomisation. Mean in-trial follow-up was 5·3 years (SD 1·2), and post-trial follow-up of surviving patients yielded a mean total duration of 11·0 years (SD 0·6). The primary outcome of the long-term follow-up of HPS was first post-randomisation major vascular event, and analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 48489393.

FINDINGS

During the in-trial period, allocation to simvastatin yielded an average reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1·0 mmol/L and a proportional decrease in major vascular events of 23% (95% CI 19-28; p<0·0001), with significant divergence each year after the first. During the post-trial period (when statin use and lipid concentrations were similar in both groups), no further significant reductions were noted in either major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] 0·95 [0·89-1·02]) or vascular mortality (0·98 [0·90-1·07]). During the combined in-trial and post-trial periods, no significant differences were recorded in cancer incidence at all sites (0·98 [0·92-1·05]) or any particular site, or in mortality attributed to cancer (1·01 [0·92-1·11]) or to non-vascular causes (0·96 [0·89-1·03]).

INTERPRETATION

More prolonged LDL-lowering statin treatment produces larger absolute reductions in vascular events. Moreover, even after study treatment stopped in HPS, benefits persisted for at least 5 years without any evidence of emerging hazards. These findings provide further support for the prompt initiation and long-term continuation of statin treatment.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Merck & Co, Roche Vitamins.

Subjects at risk of discontinuation of lipid-lowering agents: a 6-month cohort study among 12,875 patients in a chinese population

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a significant health problem, and persistent use of lipid-lowering agents among dyslipidemic patients is clinically important. However, few studies have evaluated the profiles of medication discontinuation among ethnic Chinese patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the level of medication adherence among Chinese patients who were prescribed a lipid-lowering drug and to investigate factors that could help physicians identify patients at risk for discontinuing their medication.

METHODS

All patients who attended any primary care clinic in 1 territory of Hong Kong and were prescribed at least 1 lipid-lowering agent from January 2004 to June 2007 were included. The incidences of drug discontinuation within 180 days after drug prescriptions were measured, and the factors associated with discontinuation using binary logistic regression analyzes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 12,875 eligible patients, the majority were prescribed fibrates (54.4%) and statins (45.1%). Among the patients, 17.0% discontinued their medication. Older patients (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.72-0.79 for patients >50 years), male subjects (aOR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.97; P = 0.009), fee payers (aOR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P = 0.029), attendees in family medicine specialist clinics (aOR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96; P = 0.013), residents in rural districts (aOR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P < 0.001), follow-up visitors (aOR = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.54-0.66; P < 0.001), patients with comorbidities (aOR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.44; P < 0.001 for 1 comorbidity and aOR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.25-0.33; P < 0.001 for at least 2 comorbidities), and persons who use fibrates (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.49-0.64; P < 0.001) were significantly less likely to discontinue their medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of these associated factors were new for ethnic Chinese patients. These findings could help physicians identify patients who had been prescribed a lipid-lowering agent who were at higher risk of discontinuing their medication. Their medication-taking behavior should be monitored more closely, and future studies should evaluate the reasons of drug discontinuation.

Evaluation of C-reactive protein prior to and on-treatment as a predictor of benefit from atorvastatin: observations from the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial

Aims

We tested whether on-statin C-reactive protein is associated with cardiovascular (CV) outcome in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT).

Methods and results

ASCOT randomized a subset of 4853 patients with total cholesterol ≤6.5 mmol/L (250 mg/dL) to atorvastatin or placebo. In a case–control study during 5.5-year follow-up, 485 CV cases were age- and sex-matched with 1367 controls. Baseline LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) and log-transformed C-reactive protein predicted CV events [odds ratio (OR) per 1 standard deviation (SD) 1.31 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.10, 1.56), P = 0.002 and OR 1.19 (1.05, 1.34), P = 0.006, respectively]. Including baseline C-reactive protein into a Framingham risk model very modestly improved risk prediction. Baseline C-reactive protein did not indicate the magnitude of the atorvastatin effect on CV outcome (P = 0.54). At 6 months, atorvastatin reduced median LDL-c by 40.3% and median C-reactive protein by 27.4%. In those randomized to atorvastatin, lower on-treatment LDL-c at 6 months was associated with a significant reduction in subsequent CV events [OR 0.41 (0.22, 0.75), P = 0.004] comparing those above and below the median (2.1 mmol/L). In contrast, C-reactive protein below the median (1.83 mg/L) compared with C-reactive protein above the median was not associated with a significant reduction in CV events [OR 0.86 (0.49, 1.51), P = 0.60]. Consequently, addition of on-treatment C-reactive protein to LDL-c did not improve prediction of statin efficacy.

Conclusion

Among these hypertensive patients selected on the basis of traditional CV risk factors, C-reactive protein did not usefully improve the prediction of CV events and, critically, reduction in C-reactive protein associated with statin therapy was not a predictor of CV outcome alone or in combination with LDL-c.

Impact of atorvastatin among older and younger patients in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Lipid-Lowering Arm

OBJECTIVE

Older patients experience higher rates of cardiovascular disease than younger patients, but may be undertreated with statins due to doubts about efficacy and safety. The Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial allowed an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin among older (≥ 65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with hypertension.

METHODS

A total of 10 305 patients with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, total cholesterol concentrations of 251 mg/dl or less, and no known coronary heart disease (CHD) were randomized to receive atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD.

RESULTS

There were 4445 patients in the older group (mean 71 years) and 5860 patients (mean 57 years) in the younger group. Among those taking placebo, the older group experienced a higher rate of primary endpoints than the younger group (11.7 vs. 7.6 events per 1000 patient years, respectively). After a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the primary endpoint was reduced by a similar proportion in both older and younger patients (37 vs. 33%, respectively). Although older patients reported more serious adverse events than younger patients, there were no significant differences between atorvastatin and placebo within each age group.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events to a similar relative extent in both older and younger patients with treated hypertension. However, given that event rates were higher in older patients, the absolute benefits of atorvastatin were greater for older than younger patients.

Pleiotropic effects of statins: evidence for benefits beyond LDL-cholesterol lowering

Evidence is mounting that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) have a number of pleiotropic effects over and above their lipid-lowering properties in patients with cardiovascular disease and heart failure. In addition to lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels, several studies have shown statins to improve survival and reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors. Statins have also been shown to have beneficial effects, including a reduction in all-cause mortality, in patients with ischemic and non-ischemic congestive heart failure, and have been associated with a reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, statins have been associated with improvements in renal function in patients with pre-existing renal disease or the prevention of new-onset renal dysfunction, as well as improvements in lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or age-related decline in lung function. The pleiotropic effects of statins appear to result from improvements in endothelial function, a reduction in inflammatory mediators, a decline in the development of atheroma through the stabilization of atheromatous plaques, and the inhibition of cardiac hypertrophy through an antioxidant mechanism. Long-term statin use may reduce morbidity and mortality rates in a broad range of patients, and most patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease may benefit from statin treatment; however, further data are required to demonstrate conclusively whether these trends are truly independent of the lipid-lowering effects of statins.

Are cardiovascular benefits in statin lipid effects dependent on baseline lipid levels?

Statins reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality over a wide range of patients. The Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) in subjects with elevated C-reactive protein, without vascular disease and below average low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) showed a 50% reduction in LDL-C with 20 mg/d of rosuvastatin and a reduction in cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.56 [95% CI, 0.46-0.69]; P < 0.00001), and a reduction in total mortality (20%; P < 0.02). Recent commentary has criticized perceived JUPITER design flaws and inappropriate influence. However, the Canadian 2009 guidelines cite JUPITER as class I evidence for statin benefit. Although the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators showed that, regardless of pre-treatment levels, statins can significantly reduce CHD, major vascular events, and overall mortality, a recent primary prevention meta-analysis showed no decrease in all-cause mortality. Preconceived notions on statin benefit or harm do not enhance patient care and clinicians should individualize long-term statin therapy.

The economic consequences of non-adherence to lipid-lowering therapy: results from the Anglo-Scandinavian-Cardiac Outcomes Trial

BACKGROUND

Adherence to lipid-lowering therapy in clinical practice is less than ideal. Analysis of registry data has indicated that this is associated with poor outcomes. The objective of the present analysis was to assess the impact of high adherence to drug (defined as > 80% of days covered), compared with low adherence to drug (< 50% of days covered) in terms of risk of events and long-term economic consequences.

DESIGN

Open-label follow up of a randomised placebo-controlled trial in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

Cox proportional hazards and Poisson regression models were used to assess the hazard ratio of patients with high adherence compared with low adherence while controlling for cardiovascular risk. A Markov model was used to predict the long-term costs and health outcomes associated with poor adherence during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Both statistical models indicated that high adherence is associated with improved prognosis [Cox model: 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.98, Poisson model hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98]. Discounted at 3.5% per year, the Markov model predicts that as a consequence of higher adherence during the follow-up period, costs would be higher (1689 pounds per patient compared with 1323 pounds per patient) because of higher drug costs, but the projected survival and quality-adjusted survival (QALY) would also be longer (10.83 compared with 10.81 life years and 8.13 compared with 8.11 QALYs).

CONCLUSION

Given the higher risk of cardiovascular events associated with low adherence shown here, measures to improve adherence are an important part of the prevention of cardiovascular disease.