Effect of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus in patients treated with high-intensity statin therapy for coronary artery disease: a post-hoc analysis from the LODESTAR randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) among patients treated with high-intensity statin therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains to be clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of NODM in patients with CAD treated with rosuvastatin compared to atorvastatin in the randomized LODESTAR trial. METHODS: In the LODESTAR trial, patients with CAD were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin using a 2-by-2 factorial randomization. In this post-hoc analysis, the 3-year incidence of NODM was compared between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin treatment in the as-treated population with high-intensity statin therapy as the principal population of interest. RESULTS: Among 2932 patients without diabetes mellitus at baseline, 2377 were included in the as-treated population analysis. In the as-treated population with high-intensity statin therapy, the incidence of NODM was not significantly different between the rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups (11.4% [106/948] versus 8.8% [73/856], hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1.77, P = 0.071). When the risk of NODM with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin was assessed according to the achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, the risk of NODM began to increase at a LDL-C level below 70 mg/dL. The incidence of NODM was significantly greater in the rosuvastatin group than it was in the atorvastatin group when the achieved LDL-C level was < 70 mg/dL (13.9% versus 8.0%; HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.73, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among CAD patients receiving high-intensity statin therapy, the incidence of NODM was not significantly different between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. However, a drug effect of the statin type on NODM was observed when the achieved LDL-C level was < 70 mg/dL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02579499.

Treat-to-target or high-intensity statin treatment in older adults with coronary artery disease: a post hoc analysis of the LODESTAR trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal statin treatment strategy that is balanced for both efficacy and safety has not been clearly determined in older adults with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In the post hoc analysis of the LODESTAR (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-targeting statin therapy versus intensity-based statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease) trial, the impact between a treat-to-target strategy versus a high-intensity statin therapy strategy was compared in older adults (aged 75 years or older). The goal of treat-to-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was 50-70 mg/dl. The primary endpoint comprised the three-year composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary revascularisation. RESULTS: Among 4,400 patients with CAD enrolled in the LODESTAR trial, 822 (18.7%) were aged 75 years or older. Poor clinical outcomes and risk factors for atherosclerosis were more frequently observed in older adults than in younger population (<75 years old). Among these older adults with CAD, the prescription rate of high-intensity statin was significantly lower in the treat-to-target strategy group throughout the study period (P < 0.001). The mean LDL-C level for three years was 65 ± 16 mg/dl in the treat-to-target strategy group and 64 ± 18 mg/dl in the high-intensity statin group (P = 0.34). The incidence of primary endpoint occurrence was 10.9% in the treat-to-target strategy group and 12.0% in the high-intensity statin group (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.61-1.38, P = 0.69). CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity statin therapy is theoretically more necessary in older adults because of worse clinical outcomes and greater number of risk factors for atherosclerosis. However, the primary endpoint occurrence with a treat-to-target strategy with an LDL-C goal of 50-70 mg/dl was comparable to that of high-intensity statin therapy and reduced utilisation of a high-intensity statin. Taking efficacy as well as safety into account, adopting a tailored approach may be considered for this high-risk population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579499.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Within and Outside the Instructions for Use in Korean Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been used worldwide to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Outcomes after EVAR within and outside the instruction for use (IFU) remain controversial. We analyzed long-term outcomes of EVAR within-the-IFU compared with that outside-the-IFU and baseline clinical/anatomical characteristics that influence outcomes of EVAR. METHODS: The study included 546 patients who underwent EVAR for infrarenal AAA from 1997 to 2021 at 2 Korean medical centers. The primary endpoint was graft-related adverse events (GRAEs), including type 1 or 3 endoleak, reintervention (included open conversion), aneurysm sac enlargement, aneurysm-related mortality (ARM), rupture, stent-graft migration, and stent thrombotic occlusion. RESULTS: The patients who underwent EVAR outside the IFU were 287 (52.6%). A neck angle of >60° was most common outside the IFU criteria (n=146, 50.9%). This study revealed that patients outside the IFU had a higher rate of GRAEs compared with patients within the IFU (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.879; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.045-2.386). A neck angle of >60° was a significant risk factor for GRAEs (adjusted HR: 2.229; 95% CI: 1.418-3.503), type 1 or 3 endoleak (adjusted HR: 2.640; 95% CI: 1.343-5.189), and reintervention (adjusted HR: 1.891; 95% CI: 1.055-3.388). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed EVAR with outside the IFU was associated with increased GRAEs, mainly attributed to endoleak and ARM, compared with EVAR with within the IFU. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak, and reintervention. CLINICAL IMPACT: Our study revealed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with outside-the-instruction for use (IFU) was associated with increased graft-related adverse events (GRAEs) compared with EVAR with within-the-IFU. In the low-risk population, the incidence of GRAEs and Aneurysm related mortality were higher in the outside-the-IFU group rather than within-the-IFU group. In addition, severe neck angulation was an independent risk factor for GRAEs, type 1 or 3 endoleak and reintervention.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III clinical trial.

This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of the blood pressure (BP) control and cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe versus rosuvastatin and ezetimibe double therapy or telmisartan single therapy in dyslipidemia patients with hypertension. After a wash-out/therapeutic lifestyle change period of ≥4 weeks, a total of 100 eligible patients were randomized and received one of three treatments for 8 weeks: (1) telmisartan 80 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (TRE), (2) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (RE), or (3) telmisartan 80 mg (T). The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluation of TRE by comparing changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and mean percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-C (LDL-C) from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. The least square (LS) mean (SE) changes in msSBP at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -23.02 (3.04) versus -7.18 (3.09) mmHg in the TRE and RE groups, respectively (p < .0001), and -25.80 (2.74) versus -14.92 (2.65) mmHg in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p = .0005). The percentage changes in the mean (SD) LDL-C at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -54.97% (3.49%) versus -0.17% (3.23%) in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p < .0001). No serious adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions occurred among the three groups. TRE therapy significantly decreased msSBP and LDL-C compared to RE or T therapy with comparable safety and tolerability profiles.