Incident venous thromboembolic events in the Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER)

Causal Associations Between Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Venous Thromboembolism

OBJECTIVE

 The aim of the study is to assess the causal effects of cardiovascular risk factors on venous thromboembolism (VTE) and its subtypes including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

 A summary-level Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis was performed by extracting data from public and large-scale genome-wide association studies for cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, systolic blood pressure [SBP], diastolic blood pressure [DBP], total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein [HDL], low-density lipoprotein [LDL], type 2 diabetes, fasting glucose, body mass index [BMI], smoking, alcohol, and physical activity), VTE, DVT, and PE to identify genetic instruments.

RESULTS

 BMI (per standard deviation [SD] increase; odds ratio [OR]: 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.54; p = 8.02 × 10-10) could increase the VTE risk, whereas SBP (per SD increase; OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99; p = 0.0005) could decrease the VTE risk. For DVT, BMI (per SD increase; OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.28-1.72; p = 1.53 × 10-7) could increase the risk, whereas physical activity (per SD increase; OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.33; p = 0.0020) could decrease the risk. For PE, BMI (per SD increase; OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.12-1.49; p = 0.0005) could increase the risk, whereas SBP (per SD increase; OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.98-1.00; p = 0.0032) could decrease the risk. Suggestive evidence between smoking and higher risks of VTE and DVT was also observed.

CONCLUSION

 Our study supports that BMI is a causal risk factor for VTE, DVT, and PE. SBP is a protective factor for VTE and PE. Physical activity is a protective factor for DVT. However, the effects of other cardiovascular risk factors are not identified.

Mendelian Randomization Study Does Not Support a Bidirectional Link between Atherosclerosis and Venous Thromboembolism

AIM

Some observational studies suggested that atherosclerosis increased the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), and vice versa. However, the results were conflicting, and the causal relationship is yet to be established. Therefore, we applied Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses to assess the bidirectional causality between coronary heart disease (CHD) and VTE, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

A total of 184,305 individuals with CHD were included from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium. Information on VTE, DVT, and PE were obtained from the FinnGen biobank. Genetic instruments for CHD and VTE were constructed using 37 and 12 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, respectively. Inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis under a random-effect model was used as the preliminary estimate. Five complementary MR methods were also used, including weighted median, MR-Egger, multivariable MR (adjusted for the body mass index), simple mode, and weighted mode methods.

RESULTS

The genetically instrumented VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-1.11; P=0.06), DVT (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.99-1.08; P=0.19), or PE (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.98-1.16; P=0.11) showed no causal relationships with CHD. There was also no clear evidence showing the causal effects of CHD on VTE (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.82-1.22; P=0.98), DVT (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.79-1.27; P=0.97), or PE (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.18; P=0.87). No pleiotropic bias was found in the MR analyses. As heterogeneity was significant, a random model was used to minimize the effect of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

No causal associations existed between CHD and VTE. Arterial and venous thromboses may represent separate entities.

Statins as a preventative therapy for venous thromboembolism

The anti-inflammatory effects of statins have likely not been used to their fullest extent, particularly in reducing venous thromboembolic events. Current therapy for thrombotic events hinges on anticoagulation via heparin, warfarin or new oral anticoagulants. Interventional procedures with thrombectomy may also play a critical role. Unfortunately, thrombotic events can occur and recur despite meticulous anticoagulation therapy. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) includes both deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two complicated and prevalent diseases that can cause chronic disease states such as post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). In 2009 the JUPITER trial demonstrated that rosuvastatin may be effective when dealing with vascular inflammation by providing an anti-inflammatory effect. Multiple subsequent studies have looked at this association with some promising findings. The mechanism of action for statins is not entirely understood but there has been a variety of proposals and subsequent testing of inflammatory biomarkers. Additional prospective trials are needed to confirm the possible benefit of VTE reduction through an anti-inflammatory effect, but if this can be shown then statins may become a safe adjunctive therapy for VTE prevention.

Inflammation in venous thromboembolism: Cause or consequence?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) is a moderately common disease especially in elderly population with high rate of recurrence and complications. Evidence is accumulating that VTE is not restricted to coagulation system and immune system appears to be involved in formation and resolution of thrombus. The present study was aimed at reviewing current evidences on immune system abnormalities such as alterations in cytokines, chemokines and immune cells. Also, current evidences suggest that; a, inflammation in general functions as a double-edged sword, b, inflammation can be both a cause and a consequence of VTE, and c, current anti-coagulation therapies are not well-equipped with the capacity to selectively inhibit inflammatory cells and pathways. Applying such inferences for selective pharmacological targeting of immune mediators in VTE and thereby for adoption of higher effective anti-thromboinflammatory strategies, either therapeutic or prophylactic, is henceforth to be considered as the line of research for future.

Is lipid lowering therapy an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism? A population-based case-control study

INTRODUCTION

The independent effect of lipid lowering therapy (LLT) on venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To test statin and non-statin LLT as potential VTE risk factors.

METHODS

Using Rochester Epidemiology Project resources, we identified all Olmsted County, MN residents with objectively diagnosed incident VTE (cases) over the 13-year period, 1988-2000 (n=1340), and one to two matched controls (n=1538). We reviewed their complete medical records for baseline characteristics previously identified as independent VTE risk factors, and for statin and non-statin LLT. Using conditional logistic regression, we tested the overall effect of LLT on VTE risk and also separately explored the role of statin versus that of non-statin LLT, adjusting for other baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Among cases and controls, 74 and 111 received statin LLT, and 32 and 50 received non-statin LLT, respectively. Univariately, and after individually controlling for other potential VTE risk factors (i.e., BMI, trauma/fracture, leg paresis, hospitalization for surgery or medical illness, nursing home residence, active cancer, central venous catheter, varicose veins, prior superficial vein thrombosis, diabetes, congestive heart failure, angina/myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, smoking, anticoagulation), LLT was associated with decreased odds of VTE (unadjusted OR=0.73; p=0.03). When considered separately, statin and non-statin LLT were each associated with moderate, non-significant lower odds of VTE. After adjusting for angina/myocardial infarction, each was significantly associated with decreased odds of VTE (OR=0.63, p<0.01 and OR=0.61, p=0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LLT is associated with decreased VTE risk after adjusting for known risk factors.

Statins for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in clinical practice. The efficacy of statins in the primary prevention of VTE remains unproven. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of statins in the primary prevention of VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed statins in the primary prevention of VTE were considered. The outcomes we evaluated were the rates of VTE, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, death and adverse events. Two authors (L Li, JH Tian) independently selected RCTs against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third author (KH Yang).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors (L Li, JH Tian). Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third author (PZ Zhang). Two authors (L Li, JH Tian) independently assessed the risk of bias according to a standard quality checklist provided by the PVD Group.

MAIN RESULTS

For this update we included one RCT with 17,802 participants that assessed rosuvastatin compared with placebo for the prevention of VTE. The quality of the evidence was moderate because of imprecision, as the required sample size for the outcomes of this review was not achieved. Analysis showed that when compared with placebo rosuvastatin reduced the incidence of VTE (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.86) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.79), the risk of any (fatal and non-fatal) myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.69), and any (fatal and non-fatal) stroke (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78). There was no difference in the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46), fatal MI (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.53 to 4.22), fatal stroke (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.09) or death after VTE (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.24). The incidence of any serious adverse events was no different between the rosuvastatin and placebo groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence showed that rosuvastatin was associated with a reduced incidence of VTE, but the evidence was limited to a single RCT and any firm conclusions and suggestions could be not drawn. Randomised controlled trials of statins (including rosuvastatin) are needed to evaluate their efficacy in the prevention of VTE.

Non-cardiovascular effects associated with statins

Statins form the pharmacologic cornerstone of the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In addition to beneficial cardiovascular effects, statins seem to have multiple non-cardiovascular effects. Although early concerns about statin induced hepatotoxicity and cancer have subsided owing to reassuring evidence, two of the most common concerns that clinicians have are myopathy and diabetes. Randomized controlled trials suggest that statins are associated with a modest increase in the risk of myositis but not the risk of myalgia. Severe myopathy (rhabdomyolysis) is rare and often linked to a statin regimen that is no longer recommended (simvastatin 80 mg). Randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses suggest an increase in the risk of diabetes with statins, particularly with higher intensity regimens in people with two or more components of the metabolic syndrome. Other non-cardiovascular effects covered in this review are contrast induced nephropathy, cognition, cataracts, erectile dysfunction, and venous thromboembolism. Currently, systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines indicate that the cardiovascular benefits of statins generally outweigh non-cardiovascular harms in patients above a certain threshold of cardiovascular risk. Literature is also accumulating on the potential non-cardiovascular benefits of statins, which could lead to novel applications of this class of drug in the future.

Clinical evidence of statin therapy in non-dyslipidemic disorders

The clinical benefits of statins are strongly related to their low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering properties. However, considering that the pharmacological target of statins, the 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-3-glutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, is one of the upstream enzyme of the mevalonate pathway, its inhibition may determine a substantial impoverishment of additional lipid moieties required for a proper cellular function. From this hypothesis, several experimental and clinical evidences have been reported indicating additional effects of statins beyond the LDL-C lowering, in particular anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Thus statin therapy, indicated for hyperlipidemic patients for primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) has begun to be considered effective in other diseases not necessarily linked to altered lipid profile. In the present review we summarized the current clinical evidence of the efficacy and safety profile of statins in a variety of diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, venous thromboembolism, liver diseases, polycystic ovary syndrome, and age-related macular degeneration. As discussed in the review, pending large, well designed, randomized trials, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no definitive evidence for the use of statins in the aforementioned diseases.

Anticoagulant effects of statins and their clinical implications

There is evidence indicating that statins (3-hydroxy-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) may produce several cholesterol-independent antithrombotic effects. In this review, we provide an update on the current understanding of the interactions between statins and blood coagulation and their potential relevance to the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulant properties of statins reported in experimental and clinical studies involve decreased tissue factor expression resulting in reduced thrombin generation and attenuation of pro-coagulant reactions catalysed by thrombin, such as fibrinogen cleavage, factor V and factor XIII activation, as well as enhanced endothelial thrombomodulin expression, resulting in increased protein C activation and factor Va inactivation. Observational studies and one randomized trial have shown reduced VTE risk in subjects receiving statins, although their findings still generate much controversy and suggest that the most potent statin rosuvastatin exerts the largest effect.

Effect of statins on venous thromboembolic events: a meta-analysis of published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9%] statin versus 521 [1.0%] control, odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01, p = 0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9%] versus 461 [1.0%], OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.07], p = 0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0%] versus 202 [1.0%], OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.20, p = 0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out.