Long-term safety and efficacy of anacetrapib in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease.

AIMS: REVEAL was the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate that adding cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor therapy to intensive statin therapy reduced the risk of major coronary events. We now report results from extended follow-up beyond the scheduled study treatment period. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 30 449 adults with prior atherosclerotic vascular disease were randomly allocated to anacetrapib 100 mg daily or matching placebo, in addition to open-label atorvastatin therapy. After stopping the randomly allocated treatment, 26 129 survivors entered a post-trial follow-up period, blind to their original treatment allocation. The primary outcome was first post-randomization major coronary event (i.e. coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization) during the in-trial and post-trial treatment periods, with analysis by intention-to-treat. Allocation to anacetrapib conferred a 9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3-15%; P = 0.004] proportional reduction in the incidence of major coronary events during the study treatment period (median 4.1 years). During extended follow-up (median 2.2 years), there was a further 20% (95% CI 10-29%; P < 0.001) reduction. Overall, there was a 12% (95% CI 7-17%, P < 0.001) proportional reduction in major coronary events during the overall follow-up period (median 6.3 years), corresponding to a 1.8% (95% CI 1.0-2.6%) absolute reduction. There were no significant effects on non-vascular mortality, site-specific cancer, or other serious adverse events. Morbidity follow-up was obtained for 25 784 (99%) participants. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effects of anacetrapib on major coronary events increased with longer follow-up, and no adverse effects emerged on non-vascular mortality or morbidity. These findings illustrate the importance of sufficiently long treatment and follow-up duration in randomized trials of lipid-modifying agents to assess their full benefits and potential harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 48678192; ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01252953; EudraCT No. 2010-023467-18.

Effect on non-vascular outcomes of lowering LDL cholesterol in patients with chronic kidney disease: results from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection.

BACKGROUND: Reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with statin-based therapy reduces the risk of major atherosclerotic events among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), with no evidence of an excess risk of cancer or death from any non-vascular cause. However, non-randomized data have suggested that statin therapy may have effects (both adverse and beneficial) on particular non-vascular conditions that do not cause death. METHODS: The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) randomized patients with CKD to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (simvastatin/ezetimibe) daily versus matching placebo. Participants were followed up at least 6 monthly and all post-randomization serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded. This supplementary analysis reports the effects of treatment on non-vascular SAEs, overall, by system of disease, by baseline characteristics, and by duration of follow-up. RESULTS: During a median of 4.9 years follow-up, similar numbers of participants in the two groups experienced at least one non-vascular SAE (3551 [76.4%] simvastatin/ezetimibe vs 3537 [76.6%] placebo; risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.04). There was no good evidence of any significant effect of simvastatin/ezetimibe on SAEs attributed to any particular nonvascular disease system (of 43 comparisons, only 3 yielded an uncorrected p value < 0.05, of which the smallest was p = 0.02). The relative risk of any nonvascular SAE did not vary significantly among particular prognostic subgroups or by duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In the SHARP trial, allocation to simvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy was not associated with any significant non-vascular hazard. TRIALS REGISTRATION: SHARP was retrospectively registered after the first participant was enrolled in 2003 at ISRCTN (ISRCTN54137607 on 31 January 2005: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN54137607) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00125593 on 29 July 2005: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00125593).

Coxibs, Traditional NSAIDs, and Cardiovascular Safety Post-PRECISION: What We Thought We Knew Then and What We Think We Know Now.

The aim of the present review is to analyze how thinking about the cardiovascular safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs has evolved during the past two decades, and discuss to what extent the additional information from the Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen study may alter our current mechanistic understanding and/or clinical practice.

Blood pressure lowering and major cardiovascular events in people with and without chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To define the cardiovascular effects of lowering blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease. DESIGN: Collaborative prospective meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: Participating randomised trials of drugs to lower blood pressure compared with placebo or each other or that compare different blood pressure targets, with at least 1000 patient years of follow-up per arm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Major cardiovascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cardiovascular death) in composite and individually and all cause death. PARTICIPANTS: 26 trials (152,290 participants), including 30,295 individuals with reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which was defined as eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). DATA EXTRACTION: Individual participant data were available for 23 trials, with summary data from another three. Meta-analysis according to baseline kidney function was performed. Pooled hazard ratios per 5 mm Hg lower blood pressure were estimated with a random effects model. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, blood pressure lowering regimens reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about a sixth per 5 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure in individuals with (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.90) and without reduced eGFR (0.83, 0.79 to 0.88), with no evidence for any difference in effect (P=1.00 for homogeneity). The results were similar irrespective of whether blood pressure was reduced by regimens based on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium antagonists, or diuretics/ß blockers. There was no evidence that the effects of different drug classes on major cardiovascular events varied between patients with different eGFR (all P>0.60 for homogeneity). CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure lowering is an effective strategy for preventing cardiovascular events among people with moderately reduced eGFR. There is little evidence from these overviews to support the preferential choice of particular drug classes for the prevention of cardiovascular events in chronic kidney disease.

Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials. METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124,513 participants, 68,342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229,296 participants, 165,456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed). FINDINGS: Major vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14-1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12-1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31-2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19-2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10-4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89-2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69-1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00-2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95-2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56-6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48-2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17-2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16-3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22-7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71-6·56, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

Parenteral anticoagulants in heart disease: current status and perspectives (Section II). Position paper of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis-Task Force on Anticoagulants in Heart Disease.

Anticoagulants are a mainstay of cardiovascular therapy, and parenteral anticoagulants have widespread use in cardiology, especially in acute situations. Parenteral anticoagulants include unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparins, the synthetic pentasaccharides fondaparinux, idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux, and parenteral direct thrombin inhibitors. The several shortcomings of unfractionated heparin and of low-molecular-weight heparins have prompted the development of the other newer agents. Here we review the mechanisms of action, pharmacological properties and side effects of parenteral anticoagulants used in the management of coronary heart disease treated with or without percutaneous coronary interventions, cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, and prosthetic heart valves and valve repair. Using an evidence-based approach, we describe the results of completed clinical trials, highlight ongoing research with currently available agents, and recommend therapeutic options for specific heart diseases.

The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Statins reduce LDL cholesterol and prevent vascular events, but their net effects in people at low risk of vascular events remain uncertain. METHODS: This meta-analysis included individual participant data from 22 trials of statin versus control (n=134,537; mean LDL cholesterol difference 1·08 mmol/L; median follow-up 4·8 years) and five trials of more versus less statin (n=39,612; difference 0·51 mmol/L; 5·1 years). Major vascular events were major coronary events (ie, non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death), strokes, or coronary revascularisations. Participants were separated into five categories of baseline 5-year major vascular event risk on control therapy (no statin or low-intensity statin) (<5%, ≥5% to <10%, ≥10% to <20%, ≥20% to <30%, ≥30%); in each, the rate ratio (RR) per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction was estimated. FINDINGS: Reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin reduced the risk of major vascular events (RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·77-0·81, per 1·0 mmol/L reduction), largely irrespective of age, sex, baseline LDL cholesterol or previous vascular disease, and of vascular and all-cause mortality. The proportional reduction in major vascular events was at least as big in the two lowest risk categories as in the higher risk categories (RR per 1·0 mmol/L reduction from lowest to highest risk: 0·62 [99% CI 0·47-0·81], 0·69 [99% CI 0·60-0·79], 0·79 [99% CI 0·74-0·85], 0·81 [99% CI 0·77-0·86], and 0·79 [99% CI 0·74-0·84]; trend p=0·04), which reflected significant reductions in these two lowest risk categories in major coronary events (RR 0·57, 99% CI 0·36-0·89, p=0·0012, and 0·61, 99% CI 0·50-0·74, p<0·0001) and in coronary revascularisations (RR 0·52, 99% CI 0·35-0·75, and 0·63, 99% CI 0·51-0·79; both p<0·0001). For stroke, the reduction in risk in participants with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10% (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·76, 99% CI 0·61-0·95, p=0·0012) was also similar to that seen in higher risk categories (trend p=0·3). In participants without a history of vascular disease, statins reduced the risks of vascular (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 0·85, 95% CI 0·77-0·95) and all-cause mortality (RR 0·91, 95% CI 0·85-0·97), and the proportional reductions were similar by baseline risk. There was no evidence that reduction of LDL cholesterol with a statin increased cancer incidence (RR per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction 1·00, 95% CI 0·96-1·04), cancer mortality (RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·93-1·06), or other non-vascular mortality. INTERPRETATION: In individuals with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%, each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol produced an absolute reduction in major vascular events of about 11 per 1000 over 5 years. This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council; Cancer Research UK; European Community Biomed Programme; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; National Heart Foundation, Australia.

Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Lowering of LDL cholesterol with standard statin regimens reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in a wide range of individuals. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with statin therapy. METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials involving at least 1000 participants and at least 2 years' treatment duration of more versus less intensive statin regimens (five trials; 39 612 individuals; median follow-up 5·1 years) and of statin versus control (21 trials; 129 526 individuals; median follow-up 4·8 years). For each type of trial, we calculated not only the average risk reduction, but also the average risk reduction per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction at 1 year after randomisation. FINDINGS: In the trials of more versus less intensive statin therapy, the weighted mean further reduction in LDL cholesterol at 1 year was 0·51 mmol/L. Compared with less intensive regimens, more intensive regimens produced a highly significant 15% (95% CI 11-18; p<0·0001) further reduction in major vascular events, consisting of separately significant reductions in coronary death or non-fatal myocardial infarction of 13% (95% CI 7-19; p<0·0001), in coronary revascularisation of 19% (95% CI 15-24; p<0·0001), and in ischaemic stroke of 16% (95% CI 5-26; p=0·005). Per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, these further reductions in risk were similar to the proportional reductions in the trials of statin versus control. When both types of trial were combined, similar proportional reductions in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction were found in all types of patient studied (rate ratio [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·76-0·80; p<0·0001), including those with LDL cholesterol lower than 2 mmol/L on the less intensive or control regimen. Across all 26 trials, all-cause mortality was reduced by 10% per 1·0 mmol/L LDL reduction (RR 0·90, 95% CI 0·87-0·93; p<0·0001), largely reflecting significant reductions in deaths due to coronary heart disease (RR 0·80, 99% CI 0·74-0·87; p<0·0001) and other cardiac causes (RR 0·89, 99% CI 0·81-0·98; p=0·002), with no significant effect on deaths due to stroke (RR 0·96, 95% CI 0·84-1·09; p=0·5) or other vascular causes (RR 0·98, 99% CI 0·81-1·18; p=0·8). No significant effects were observed on deaths due to cancer or other non-vascular causes (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·92-1·03; p=0·3) or on cancer incidence (RR 1·00, 95% CI 0·96-1·04; p=0·9), even at low LDL cholesterol concentrations. INTERPRETATION: Further reductions in LDL cholesterol safely produce definite further reductions in the incidence of heart attack, of revascularisation, and of ischaemic stroke, with each 1·0 mmol/L reduction reducing the annual rate of these major vascular events by just over a fifth. There was no evidence of any threshold within the cholesterol range studied, suggesting that reduction of LDL cholesterol by 2-3 mmol/L would reduce risk by about 40-50%. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, European Community Biomed Programme, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and National Heart Foundation.

Cystatin C and risk of vascular and nonvascular mortality: a prospective cohort study of older men.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relevance of cystatin C, as a marker of mild-to-moderate renal impairment, for vascular and nonvascular mortality in older people. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Re-survey in 1997 to 1998 of survivors in the 1970 Whitehall study of London civil servants. SUBJECTS: Five thousand three hundred and seventy-one men (mean age at resurvey: 77 years) who took part in the resurvey and had plasma cystatin C concentration measured. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cause-specific mortality over subsequent 11 years (1997 to 2008). METHODS: Cox regression was used to estimate the associations of cystatin C with vascular and nonvascular mortality, before and after adjustment for prior disease and other risk factors (including lifetime blood pressure). RESULTS: During an 11.0-year follow-up period, there were 1171 deaths from vascular causes [26 per 1000 per year (py)] and 1615 deaths from nonvascular causes (36 per 1000 py). Compared with men with cystatin C in the bottom fifth of the distribution, men in the top 10th had about two-fold higher mortality rates from vascular and nonvascular mortality (fully adjusted P both <0.001) even after adjustment for prior disease and all measured confounders, including lifetime blood pressure. The fully adjusted relative risks per 50% higher cystatin C concentrations were 1.66 [95% CI 1.48 to 1.85] for vascular mortality, 1.92 [95% CI 1.66 to 2.22] for ischaemic heart disease mortality and 1.46 [95% CI 1.31 to 1.61] for nonvascular mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In older men, plasma concentration of cystatin C, probably as a marker of mild renal disease, is a strong independent predictor of both vascular and nonvascular mortality.

Efficacy of cholesterol-lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in people with diabetes mellitus, there is uncertainty about the effects on particular outcomes and whether such effects depend on the type of diabetes, lipid profile, or other factors. We undertook a prospective meta-analysis to help resolve these uncertainties. METHODS: We analysed data from 18 686 individuals with diabetes (1466 with type 1 and 17,220 with type 2) in the context of a further 71,370 without diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statin therapy. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS: During a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, there were 3247 major vascular events in people with diabetes. There was a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in participants with diabetes (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 99% CI 0.82-1.01; p=0.02), which was similar to the 13% reduction in those without diabetes (0.87, 0.82-0.92; p<0.0001). This finding reflected a significant reduction in vascular mortality (0.87, 0.76-1.00; p=0.008) and no effect on non-vascular mortality (0.97, 0.82-1.16; p=0.7) in participants with diabetes. There was a significant 21% proportional reduction in major vascular events per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in people with diabetes (0.79, 0.72-0.86; p<0.0001), which was similar to the effect observed in those without diabetes (0.79, 0.76-0.82; p<0.0001). In diabetic participants there were reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.78, 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001), coronary revascularisation (0.75, 0.64-0.88; p<0.0001), and stroke (0.79, 0.67-0.93; p=0.0002). Among people with diabetes the proportional effects of statin therapy were similar irrespective of whether there was a prior history of vascular disease and irrespective of other baseline characteristics. After 5 years, 42 (95% CI 30-55) fewer people with diabetes had major vascular events per 1000 allocated statin therapy. INTERPRETATION: Statin therapy should be considered for all diabetic individuals who are at sufficiently high risk of vascular events.

Towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic reviews of mechanical methods, oral anticoagulation, dextran and regional anaesthesia as thromboprophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits in terms of reductions in the risks of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and of pulmonary embolism (PE), and hazards in terms of major bleeding, of: (i) mechanical compression; (ii) oral anticoagulants; (iii) dextran; and (iv) regional anaesthesia (as an alternative to general anaesthesia) in surgical and medical patients. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, search of Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration database, contact with trialists and manufacturers. REVIEW METHODS: All trials identified as fitting the selection criteria were independently assessed. The primary outcomes were DVT, PE and major bleeding events, and proximal venous thrombosis (PVT) and fatal PE were secondary outcomes. Trials were subdivided into those that had assessed a method as the only means of thromboprophylaxis ('monotherapy') and those that had assessed the effects of adding a method to another form of thromboprophylaxis ('adjunctive therapy'). RESULTS: Mechanical compression methods reduced the risk of DVT by about two-thirds when used as monotherapy and by about half when added to a pharmacological method. These benefits were similar irrespective of the particular method used (graduated compression stockings, intermittent pneumatic compression or footpumps) and were similar in each of the surgical groups studied. Mechanical methods reduced the risk of PVT by about half and the risk of PE by two-fifths. Oral anticoagulants, when used as monotherapy, reduced the risk of DVT and of PVT by about half, and this protective effect appeared similar in each of the surgical groups studied. There was an apparently large four-fifths reduction in the role of PE, but not only was the magnitude of this reduction statistically uncertain, but also pulmonary embolism was reported by a minority of trials, so it may be subject to selection bias. Oral anticoagulant regimens approximately doubled the risk of major bleeding and appeared less effective at preventing DVT than heparin regimens, although were associated with less major bleeding. Dextran reduced the risk of DVT and of PVT by about half, again irrespective of the type of surgery, but too few studies had reported PE to provide reliable estimates of effect on this outcome. Dextran appeared to be less effective at preventing DVT than the heparin regimens studied. Dextran was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, but too few bleeds had occurred for the size of this excess risk to be estimated reliably. Compared with general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia reduced the risk of DVT by about half, and this benefit appeared similar in each of the surgical settings studied. Regional anaesthesia was associated with less major bleeding than general anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a clear contraindication (such as severe peripheral arterial disease), patients undergoing a surgical procedure would be expected to derive net benefit from a mechanical compression method of thromboprophylaxis (such as graduated compression stockings), irrespective of their absolute risk of venous thromboembolism. Patients who are considered to be at particularly high risk of venous thromboembolism may also benefit from a pharmacological thromboprophylactic agent, but since oral anticoagulant and dextran regimens appear less effective at preventing DVT than standard low-dose unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin regimens, they may be less suitable for patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism, even though they are associated with less bleeding. Whenever feasible, the use of regional anaesthesia as an alternative to general anaesthesia may also provide additional protection against venous thromboembolism. There is little information on the prevention of venous thromboembolism among high-risk medical patients (such as those with stroke), so further randomised trials in this area would be helpful.

Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins.

BACKGROUND: Results of previous randomised trials have shown that interventions that lower LDL cholesterol concentrations can significantly reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other major vascular events in a wide range of individuals. But each separate trial has limited power to assess particular outcomes or particular categories of participant. METHODS: A prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 individuals in 14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol. FINDINGS: During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths, 14,348 individuals had major vascular events, and 5103 developed cancer. Mean LDL cholesterol differences at 1 year ranged from 0.35 mmol/L to 1.77 mmol/L (mean 1.09) in these trials. There was a 12% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (rate ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.91; p<0.0001). This reflected a 19% reduction in coronary mortality (0.81, 0.76-0.85; p<0.0001), and non-significant reductions in non-coronary vascular mortality (0.93, 0.83-1.03; p=0.2) and non-vascular mortality (0.95, 0.90-1.01; p=0.1). There were corresponding reductions in myocardial infarction or coronary death (0.77, 0.74-0.80; p<0.0001), in the need for coronary revascularisation (0.76, 0.73-0.80; p<0.0001), in fatal or non-fatal stroke (0.83, 0.78-0.88; p<0.0001), and, combining these, of 21% in any such major vascular event (0.79, 0.77-0.81; p<0.0001). The proportional reduction in major vascular events differed significantly (p<0.0001) according to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved, but not otherwise. These benefits were significant within the first year, but were greater in subsequent years. Taking all years together, the overall reduction of about one fifth per mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction translated into 48 (95% CI 39-57) fewer participants having major vascular events per 1000 among those with pre-existing CHD at baseline, compared with 25 (19-31) per 1000 among participants with no such history. There was no evidence that statins increased the incidence of cancer overall (1.00, 0.95-1.06; p=0.9) or at any particular site. INTERPRETATION: Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an individual's absolute risk of such events and to the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of major vascular event.

Epidemiological evaluation of known and suspected cardiovascular risk factors in chronic renal impairment.

Patients with chronic renal impairment (CRI) are at greatly increased risk for premature vascular disease; however, little is known about its evolution. This paper describes a cohort of patients with CRI and reports study design, baseline demographic and biochemical data, and comparisons with two contemporaneous age- and sex-matched control groups, one with established coronary artery disease and the other without overt vascular disease. Among 369 individuals (median age, 63 years; range, 18 to 88 years; 67% men) with CRI, 34% had a history of vascular disease and 21% had electrocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Even in those with mild renal impairment (serum creatinine < 2.1 mg/dL), approximately one third had vascular disease and 12% had LVH. A history of hypertension was present in 76% of the CRI group, but as compared with controls, systolic and diastolic blood pressures were not elevated. Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration also was not elevated, but CRI was associated with elevated serum triglyceride and plasma homocysteine levels and reduced high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hemoglobin, and serum albumin concentrations. Across the spectrum of CRI, more severe renal dysfunction was associated with lower levels of diastolic blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, albumin, and hemoglobin, but increased levels of plasma homocysteine. This cross-sectional analysis shows that vascular disease is common in individuals with mild CRI attending a nephrology program and also suggests trends in the levels of a number of potential vascular risk factors with respect to severity of renal dysfunction. These results will be further quantified in a prospective biennial follow-up.

Premature cardiovascular disease in chronic renal failure.

There is a remarkable lack of reliable information about the determinants of risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with chronic renal failure. Indeed, such patients have often been deliberately excluded from randomised trials of treatments of CVD, perhaps because of concerns about drug safety. But the absolute risk of CVD among them may be large, so the potential absolute benefits of treatments may also be large, and may well exceed any increased hazards. Hence, as well as further investigation of the underlying mechanisms of cardiac disease, it would be helpful to have some large-scale randomised trials in a wide range of renal patients of interventions (such as cholesterol-lowering drugs, antihypertensives, aspirin, B-vitamins, and antioxidant vitamins) that are of proven or suspected benefit in other settings. If safe and effective treatments can be identified, and started early in the natural history of renal failure, the exceptionally high risk of CVD experienced by these patients could be decreased before and after end-stage renal failure has occurred.

Clinical effects of early angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment for acute myocardial infarction are similar in the presence and absence of aspirin: systematic overview of individual data from 96,712 randomized patients. Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitor Myocardial Infarction Collaborative Group.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the clinical effects of early angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ACEi) treatment for acute myocardial infarction (MI) are influenced by the concomitant use of aspirin (ASA). BACKGROUND: Aspirin and ACEi both reduce mortality when given early after MI. Aspirin inhibits the synthesis of vasodilating prostaglandins, and, in principle, this inhibition might antagonize some of the effects of ACEi. But it is uncertain whether, in practice, this influences the effects of ACEi on mortality and major morbidity after MI. METHODS: This overview sought individual patient data from all trials involving more than 1,000 patients randomly allocated to receive ACEi or control starting in the acute phase of MI (0-36 h from onset) and continuing for four to six weeks. Data on concomitant ASA use were available for 96,712 of 98,496 patients in four eligible trials (and for none of 1,556 patients in the one other eligible trial). RESULTS: Overall 30-day mortality was 7.1% among patients allocated to ACEi and 7.6% among those allocated to control, corresponding to a 7% (standard deviation [SD], 2%) proportional reduction (95% confidence interval 2% to 11%, p = 0.004). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was associated with similar proportional reductions in 30-day mortality among the 86,484 patients who were taking ASA (6% [SD, 3%] reduction) and among the 10,228 patients who were not (10% [SD, 5%] reduction: chi-squared test of heterogeneity between these reductions = 0.4; p = 0.5). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor produced definite increases in the incidence of persistent hypotension (17.9% ACEi vs. 9.4% control) and of renal dysfunction (1.3% ACEi vs. 0.6% control), but there was no good evidence that these effects were different in the presence or absence of ASA (chi-squared for heterogeneity = 0.4 and 0.0, respectively; both not significant). Nor was there good evidence that the effects of ACEi on other clinical outcomes were changed by concomitant ASA use. CONCLUSIONS: Both ASA and ACEi are beneficial in acute MI. The present results support the early use of ACEi in acute MI, irrespective of whether or not ASA is being given.