[One year persistence of atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination versus atorvastatin therapy]. / Az atorvastatin/amlodipin fix kombináció versus az atorvastatinterápia a terápiahuség tükrében.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension and dyslipidemia are modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. In Hungary hypertension and dyslipidemia are quite frequent conditions. The patients' adherence is very important factor to reach the targets. AIM: The aim of the authors was to investigate the one-year persistence of the atorvastatin therapy and atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination. METHOD: National Health Insurance Found prescriptions database of Hungary on pharmacy claims between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013 was analyzed. The authors identified patients who filled prescriptions for atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination and atorvastatin prescribed for the first time. Patients did not receive similar drugs for one year before the study. To model the persistence, the apparatus of survival analysis was used, where "survival" was the time to abandon the medication. As it was available to month precision, discrete time survival analysis was applied: a generalized linear model was estimated with complementary log-log link function with the kind of drug being the only explanatory variable. RESULTS: During the trial period, atorvastatin and atorvastatin plus amlodipine fixed dose combination was started in 192,579 and 24,433 patients, respectively. One year persistence rate in patients with atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination was 43%, and 21% in patients with atorvastatin therapy. The 360-days-restricted study period, the mean duration of persistence was 221.4 (SE: 0.894) days in patients on atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination and 153.0 days (SE: 0.297) in those on atorvastatin regimen. The hazard of discontinuation was almost twofold higher during treatment with atorvastatin therapy compared with the use of the atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination (hazard ratio = 1.85, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant difference between the one-year persistence of atorvastatin therapy and atorvastatin plus amlodipine fixed dose combination. The result demonstrate that atorvastatin and amlodipine fixed dose combination is favourable to reach double goals on blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol.

A novel component from citrus, ginger, and mushroom family exhibits antitumor activity on human meningioma cells through suppressing the Wnt/ß-catenin signaling pathway.

Recurrent meningiomas constitute an uncommon but significant problem after standard (surgery and radiation) therapy failure. Current chemotherapies (hydroxyurea, RU-486, and interferon-α) are only of marginal benefit. There is an urgent need for more effective treatments for meningioma patients who have failed surgery and radiation therapy. Limonin, Tangeritin, Zerumbone, 6-Gingerol, Ganoderic Acid A, and Ganoderic Acid DM are some of the plant derivatives that have anti-tumorgenic properties and cause cell death in meningioma cells in vitro. Due to its ease of administration, long-term tolerability, and low incidence of long-term side effects, we explored its potential as a therapeutic agent against meningiomas by examining their efficacy in vitro against meningioma cells. Treatment effects were assessed using MTT assay, Western blot analysis, caspases assay, and DNA fragmentation assay. Results indicated that treatments of IOMM-Lee and CH157MN meningioma cells with Limonin, Tangeritin, Zerumbone, 6-Gingerol, Ganoderic Acid A, and Ganoderic Acid DM induced apoptosis with enhanced phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3 ß (GSK3ß) via inhibition of the Wnt5/ß-catenin pathway. These drugs did not induce apoptosis in normal human neurons. Other events in apoptosis included downregulation of tetraspanin protein (TSPAN12), survival proteins (Bcl-XL and Mcl-1), and overexpression apoptotic factors (Bax and caspase-3). These results provide preliminary strong evidence that medicinal plants containing Limonin, Tangeritin, 6-Gingerol, Zerumbone, Ganoderic Acid A, and Ganoderic Acid DM can be applied to high-grade meningiomas as a therapeutic agent, and suggests that further in vivo studies are necessary to explore its potential as a therapeutic agent against malignant meningiomas.

High-dose atorvastatin is superior to moderate-dose simvastatin in preventing peripheral arterial disease.

OBJECTIVES: To study whether high-dose versus usual-dose statin treatment reduces the incidence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and what is the effect of high-dose statin treatment on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcome in patients with PAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering trial, 8888 post-myocardial infarction patients were randomised to high-dose or usual-dose statin therapy (atorvastatin 80 mg/day vs simvastatin 20-40 mg/day). We investigated the effect of high-dose versus usual-dose statins on the pre-specified outcome PAD incidence, and additionally performed a posthoc analysis of the efficacy of high-dose statins in reducing CVD risk among patients with PAD. During a median follow-up of 4.8 years, 94 patients (2.2%) receiving atorvastatin and 135 patients (3.2%) receiving simvastatin developed PAD (HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.91; p=0.007). The risk of major coronary events was almost twofold higher in patients with PAD at baseline, but was no longer significant after adjusting for the adverse cardiovascular risk profile. In PAD patients, major coronary events occurred in fewer patients in the atorvastatin group (14.4%) than in the simvastatin group (20.1%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. (HR=0.68, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.11; p=0.13). Atorvastatin treatment significantly reduced overall cardiovascular (p=0.046) and coronary events (p=0.004), and coronary revascularisation (p=0.007) in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose statin therapy with atorvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of PAD compared with usual-dose statin therapy with simvastatin. Patients with a history of PAD at baseline were at higher risk of future coronary events and this risk was reduced by high-dose atorvastatin treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00159835 (URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00159835).

Cost-Effectiveness of High, Moderate and Low-Dose Statins in the Prevention of Vascular Events in the Brazilian Public Health System / Efetividade de Estatinas em Dose Alta, Moderada e Baixa na Prevenção de Eventos Vasculares no SUS

Background: Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial. Objective: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective. Methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied. Results: Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios. Conclusions: Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil. .

Fundamento: Estatinas tem eficácia comprovada na redução de eventos cardiovasculares, mas o impacto financeiro de seu uso disseminado pode ser substancial. Objetivo: Conduzir análise de custo-efetividade de três esquemas de doses de estatinas na perspectiva do SUS. Métodos: Foi desenvolvido modelo de Markov para avaliar a razão de custo-efetividade incremental (RCEI) de regimes de dose baixa, intermediária e alta, em prevenção secundária e quatro cenários de prevenção primária (risco em 10 anos de 5%, 10%, 15% e 20%). Regimes com redução de LDL abaixo de 30% (ex: sinvastatina 10mg) foram considerados dose baixa; entre 30-40% (atorvastatina 10mg, sinvastatina 40mg), dose intermediária; e acima de 40% (atorvastatina 20-80 mg, rosuvastatina 20 mg), dose alta. Dados de efetividade foram obtidos de revisão sistemática com aproximadamente 136.000 pacientes. Dados nacionais foram usados para estimar utilidades e custos (expressos em dólares internacionais - Int$). Um limiar de disposição a pagar (LDP) igual ao produto interno bruto per capita nacional (aproximadamente Int$11.770) foi utilizado. Resultados: A dose baixa foi dominada por extensão nos cenários de prevenção primária. Nos cinco cenários, a RCEI da dose intermediária ficou abaixo de Int$10.000 por QALY. A RCEI de dose alta ficou acima de Int$27.000 por QALY em todos os cenários. Nas curvas de aceitabilidade de custo-efetividade, dose intermediária teve probabilidade de ser custo-efetiva acima de 50% com RCEIs entre Int$9.000-20.000 por QALY em todos os cenários. Conclusões: Considerando um LDP razoável, uso de estatinas em doses intermediárias é economicamente atrativo, e deveria ser intervenção prioritária na redução de eventos cardiovasculares no Brasil. .

Meta-analysis of short-term high versus low doses of atorvastatin preventing contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary intervention.

This study aimed to investigate the impact of different doses of atorvastatin on contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) requiring contrast media by performing a meta-analysis. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP database through April 2014. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term high-dose atorvastatin with low-dose atorvastatin on CI-AKI were selected. The main outcomes were the change of acute kidney injury markers and the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN). We combined 14 RCTs consisting of 1,689 patients. Compared with the low-dose atorvastatin, high-dose atorvastatin treatment was associated with a reduction in serum creatinine levels (weighted mean differences [WMD]-0.1 mg/dL; 95%CI -0.14 to -0.05). In addition, high-dose atorvastatin treatment was also associated with a lower incidence of CIN (risk ratios 0.41; 95%CI 0.29-0.56). This meta-analysis suggests that short-term high-dose atorvastatin therapy appears to be superior to the low-dose atorvastatin in preventing CI-AKI among patients undergoing CAG/PCI requiring contrast media.

Cost-effectiveness of high, moderate and low-dose statins in the prevention of vascular events in the Brazilian public health system.

BACKGROUND: Statins have proven efficacy in the reduction of cardiovascular events, but the financial impact of its widespread use can be substantial. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of three statin dosing schemes in the Brazilian Unified National Health System (SUS) perspective. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of low, intermediate and high intensity dose regimens in secondary and four primary scenarios (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% ten-year risk) of prevention of cardiovascular events. Regimens with expected low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below 30% (e.g. simvastatin 10mg) were considered as low dose; between 30-40%, (atorvastatin 10mg, simvastatin 40 mg), intermediate dose; and above 40% (atorvastatin 20-80 mg, rosuvastatin 20mg), high-dose statins. Effectiveness data were obtained from a systematic review with 136,000 patients. National data were used to estimate utilities and costs (expressed as International Dollars - Int$). A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold equal to the Brazilian gross domestic product per capita (circa Int$11,770) was applied. RESULTS: Low dose was dominated by extension in the primary prevention scenarios. In the five scenarios, the ICER of intermediate dose was below Int$10,000 per QALY. The ICER of the high versus intermediate dose comparison was above Int$27,000 per QALY in all scenarios. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, intermediate dose had a probability above 50% of being cost-effective with ICERs between Int$ 9,000-20,000 per QALY in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Considering a reasonable WTP threshold, intermediate dose statin therapy is economically attractive, and should be a priority intervention in prevention of cardiovascular events in Brazil.

Calcifediol improves lipid profile in osteopenicatorvastatin-treated postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Low vitamin D serum levels have been associated with unfavourable lipid profile and poorer response to atorvastatin. Aims of this study were to test the effects of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (calcifediol) compared to parental vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) supplementation on modifications of plasma 25(OH)D levels and lipid profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven postmenopausal women (aged 59.03 ± 6.73 years) who were at low risk of fracture and with basal plasma 25(OH)D < 30 ng/mL were included if they were on atorvastatin treatment prescribed as appropriate. Recruited women were randomized to receive oral calcifediol or cholecalciferol, both at a dose of 140 µg according to a weekly regimen. RESULTS: At baseline, 25(OH)D was negatively associated with BMI (r = -0.37; P = 0.004), total cholesterol (r = -0.31; P = 0.01) and LDL-C (r = -0.32; P = 0.02). After 24 weeks, 25(OH)D increased significantly in both groups (P < 0.001), although higher levels were obtained with calcifediol as compared with cholecalciferol (P < 0.001). Only in the calcifediol group, a significant reduction of LDL-C (P = 0.01) and an increase of HDL-C (P = 0.02) were obtained, even after adjustment for age, and baseline BMI, 25(OH)D and lipid levels (P < 0.05). The percentage changes in 25(OH)D levels were associated with the variations of LDL-C (r = -0.44; P = 0.01) and HDL-C levels (r = 0.30; P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Calcifediol administration in osteopenic and dyslipidemic postmenopausal women with low 25(OH)D improves lipid profile when added to an ongoing atorvastatin treatment.

Severe hepatic injury associated with different statins in patients with chronic liver disease: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The hepatotoxicity of statins in patients with chronic liver diseases remains unclear. In this study, we aimed to estimate the risk of severe hepatic injury associated with different statins in patients with chronic liver disease. METHODS: A nationwide population-based cohort study was conducted by analyzing the Taiwan National Health Insurance database. A total of 37,929 subjects with chronic liver disease who started statin therapy were identified during the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2009. Outcome was defined as hospitalization due to liver injury. RESULTS: During a total of 118,772 person-years of follow-up, 912 incident cases of hospitalization due to hepatic injury are identified. The incidence rate was 2.95, 2.49, 2.92, 1.94, 2.65, and 2.52 per 100,000 person-days for atorvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin, and rosuvastatin initiators, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in the incidence associated with different statins. However, when each statin was further categorized to high (≧ 0.5 defined daily dose) or low (< 0.5 defined daily dose) mean daily dose, only high-dose atorvastatin was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization due to hepatic injury (hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.29, 2.03) as compared with low-dose atorvastatin. CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of hospitalization due to severe hepatic injury was low among statin initiators with chronic liver disease. Only high-dose atorvastatin was associated with increased risk.

[Atorvastatin-meloxicam association inhibits neuroinflammation and attenuates the cellular damage in cerebral ischemia by arterial embolism]. / La combinación de atorvastatina y meloxicam inhibe la neuroinflamación y atenúa el daño celular en la isquemia cerebral experimental por embolia arterial.

INTRODUCTION: Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the first cause of disability in the world, with more than 85% of the cases having ischemic origin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in an embolism model of stroke the effect of atorvastatin and meloxicam on neurons, astrocytes and microglia. This evaluation was done administering each medication individually and in association. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wistar rats were subjected to carotid arterial embolism and treatment with meloxicam and atorvastatin at 6, 24, 48 and 72 hours. Using immunohistochemistry, we evaluated the immunoreactivity of COX-2 protein, GFAP and OX-42 in neurons, astrocytes and microglia by densitometric and morphological studies. Data were evaluated by variance analysis and non-parametric multiple comparison. RESULTS: Cerebral ischemia by arterial embolism increased significantly the reactivity of microglia and astrocytes (p<0.001), whereas it was reduced by atorvastatin, meloxicam and their association. Ischemia produced astrocytic shortening, cellular thickening, protoplasmic rupture expansions (clasmatodendrosis) and microglial morphological changes characteristic of various activity stages. In perifocal areas, immunoreactivity of COX-2 was increased and in the ischemic focus it was reduced, while meloxicam and atorvastatin significantly reduced (p<0.001) perifocal immunoreactivity, restoring the marking of cyclooxygenase in the ischemic focus. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the meloxicam-atorvastatin association attenuates astrocytic and microglial response in the inflammatory process after cerebral ischemia by arterial embolism, reducing neurodegeneration and restoring the morphological and functional balance of nervous tissue .

Atorvastatin combined with poly-unsaturated fatty acid confers better improvement of dyslipidemia and endothelium function.

BACKGROUND: Atorvastatin and poly-unsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) are beneficial for lipid-modification, whether atorvastatin plus PUFA could confer better improvement on dyslipidemia and endothelium function is unknown. METHODS: Dyslipidemia model of 40 rabbits were produced with atherogenic diet, and thereafter saline, atorvastatin, PUFA, or atorvastatin plus PUFA were prescribed for 1 week. Ten rabbits given normal diet served as the sham group. Parameters of interest including lipid profiles, endothelium function (nitric oxide, NO) and activation (solution vascular-cellular adhesion molecule, (sVCAM) and intracellular adhesion molecule, (sICAM)), markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, CRP) and oxidation (malondialdehyde, MDA) were compared among groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of parameters among groups at the initial. With 1 week of atherogenic diet administration, serum levels of lipid profiles, sVCAM and sICAM, CRP and MDA were significantly increased, accompanying with profound NO reduction, as compared to the sham group. After 1 week of medical intervention, as compared to the control group (saline administration), dyslipidemia and endothelium function were modestly improved with either atorvastatin or PUFA therapy. Nevertheless, these efficacies were further and significantly enhanced with combined therapy when compared to the control group (p<0.005), suggesting that there was synergistic effects of atorvastatin and PUFA co-therapy in rabbits with dyslipidemia. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin plus PUFA therapy could immediately contribute to better improvement of lipid-modification and endothelium function in rabbits with dyslipidemia.

La combinación de atorvastatina y meloxicam inhibe la neuroinflamación y atenúa el daño celular en la isquemia cerebral experimental por embolia arterial / Atorvastatin-meloxicam association inhibits neuroinflammation and attenuates the cellular damage in cerebral ischemia by arterial embolism.

Introducción. El accidente cerebrovascular es la segunda causa de muerte y la primera de discapacidad en el mundo, y más de 85 % es de origen isquémico. Objetivo. Evaluar en un modelo de infarto cerebral por embolia arterial el efecto de la atorvastatina y el meloxicam, administrados por separado y de forma conjunta, sobre la respuesta neuronal, los astrocitos y la microglia. Materiales y métodos. Se sometieron ratas Wistar a embolia de la arteria carótida y a tratamiento con meloxicam y atorvastatina, administrados por separado y conjuntamente, a las 6, 24, 48 y 72 horas. Se evaluó la reacción de las proteínas COX-2, GFAP y OX-42 en las neuronas, los astrocitos y la microglia mediante inmunohistoquímica y estudios morfológicos y de densitometría. Los datos obtenidos se evaluaron por medio de un análisis de varianza y de pruebas no paramétricas de comparación múltiple. Resultados. La isquemia cerebral por embolia arterial incrementó significativamente (p<0,001) la reacción de los astrocitos y la microglia, en tanto que la atorvastatina y el meloxicam, administrados por separado y de forma conjunta, la redujeron. La isquemia produjo acortamiento de las proyecciones de los astrocitos, engrosamiento celular, ruptura de las expansiones protoplásmicas (clasmatodendrosis) y cambios morfológicos en la microglia propios de diversas etapas de actividad. En las zonas circundantes del foco se incrementó la reacción inmunológica de la COX-2 y se redujo en el foco isquémico, en tanto que el meloxicam y la atorvastatina redujeron significativamente (p<0,001) la reacción inmunológica en la zona circundante del foco, restableciendo la marcación de la ciclooxigenasa en el foco isquémico. Conclusión. La combinación de meloxicam y atorvastatina atenúa la respuesta de los astrocitos y la microglia en el proceso inflamatorio posterior a la isquemia cerebral por embolia arterial, reduciendo la degeneración neuronal y restableciendo el equilibrio morfológico y funcional del tejido nervioso.

Introduction: Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the first cause of disability in the world, with more than 85% of the cases having ischemic origin. Objective: To evaluate in an embolism model of stroke the effect of atorvastatin and meloxicam on neurons, astrocytes and microglia. This evaluation was done administering each medication individually and in association. Materials and methods: Wistar rats were subjected to carotid arterial embolism and treatment with meloxicam and atorvastatin at 6, 24, 48 and 72 hours. Using immunohistochemistry, we evaluated the immunoreactivity of COX-2 protein, GFAP and OX-42 in neurons, astrocytes and microglia by densitometric and morphological studies. Data were evaluated by variance analysis and non-parametric multiple comparison. Results: Cerebral ischemia by arterial embolism increased significantly the reactivity of microglia and astrocytes (p<0.001), whereas it was reduced by atorvastatin, meloxicam and their association. Ischemia produced astrocytic shortening, cellular thickening, protoplasmic rupture expansions (clasmatodendrosis) and microglial morphological changes characteristic of various activity stages. In perifocal areas, immunoreactivity of COX-2 was increased and in the ischemic focus it was reduced, while meloxicam and atorvastatin significantly reduced (p<0.001) perifocal immunoreactivity, restoring the marking of cyclooxygenase in the ischemic focus. Conclusion: These results suggest that the meloxicam-atorvastatin association attenuates astrocytic and microglial response in the inflammatory process after cerebral ischemia by arterial embolism, reducing neurodegeneration and restoring the morphological and functional balance of nervous tissue .

Effect of high-dose statin loading on biomarkers related to inflammation and renal injury in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure. Randomized, controlled, open-label, prospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: High-dose statin loading is known to reduce periprocedural myocardial infarction and contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the clinical role of high-dose statin loading in patients with acute heart failure (AHF) remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled, open-label pilot study, patients hospitalized with AHF were randomly assigned to receive oral high-dose atorvastatin loading (80 mg for 3 days, followed by 10 mg/day until discharge) or no statin therapy, on top of optimal HF treatment. The primary outcome measures were changes to the level of biomarkers related to inflammation and renal injury from admission to hospital day 4. No significant changes in the levels of NT-proBNP (-2,627±4,956 vs. -2,981±6,951 pg/ml, P=0.845), hsCRP (-6.1±16.4 vs. -2.1±16.2 mg/L, P=0.105), cystatin C (0.002±0.185 vs. 0.009±0.216 mg/L, P=0.904), ACR (-886.3±1,984.9 vs. -165.6±825.2 mg/day, P=0.124) were observed in either group. In-hospital mortality (4.3% vs. 3.8%, P>0.999) and all-cause mortality at 90 days (4.3% vs. 3.8%, P>0.999) were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed that oral high-dose atorvastatin loading may be used safely in patients with AHF, but is not effective in reducing the levels of circulating biomarkers related to inflammation and renal injury during hospitalization.

Clinical- and cost-effectiveness of LDL particle-guided statin therapy: a simulation study.

We used the Archimedes Model, a mathematical simulation model (Model) to estimate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of using LDL particle concentration (LDL-P) as an adjunct or alternative to LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) to guide statin therapy. LDL-P by NMR has been shown to be a better measure of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk than LDL-C, and may therefore be a better gauge of the need for and response to statin treatment. Using the Model, we conducted a virtual clinical trial comparing the use of LDL-C alone, LDL-P alone, and LDL-C and LDL-P together to guide treatment in the general adult population, and in high-risk, dyslipidemic subpopulations. In the general population, the 5-year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) relative risk reduction (RRR) of LDL-P alone compared to the control arm (LDL-C alone) was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.7-5.3; p < .0001); using both LDL-C and LDL-P (dual markers) led to 3.0% RRR compared to the control arm (95% CI, 2.8-3.3; p < .0001). For individuals with diabetes, the RRR was 7.3% (95% CI, 6.4-8.2; p < .0001) for LDL-P alone and 6.9% for dual markers (95% CI, 6.1-7.8; both, p < .0001). In the general population, the costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with the use of LDL-P alone were $76,052 at 5 years and $8913 at 20 years and $142,825 at 5 years and $25,505 at 20 years with the use of both markers. In high-risk subpopulations, the use of LDL-P alone was cost-saving at 5 years; whereas the cost per QALY for the use of both markers was $14,250 at 5 years and $859 at 20 years for high-risk dyslipidemics, $19,192 at 5 years and $649 at 20 years for diabetics, and $9030 at 5 years and $7268 at 20 years for patients with prior CHD. In conclusion, the model estimates that using LDL-P to guide statin therapy may reduce the risk of CVD events to a greater extent than does the use of LDL-C alone and maybe cost-effective or cost-saving for high-risk patients.

Statin and the risk of renal-related serious adverse events: Analysis from the IDEAL, TNT, CARDS, ASPEN, SPARCL, and other placebo-controlled trials.

A recent study has shown an association between high-potency statins and risk of acute kidney injury. However, these data are from observational studies, and it is not clear if similar signal is seen from randomized controlled trials. We evaluated the risk of renal-associated serious adverse events (SAEs) using statins versus placebo trials and the high-dose versus low-dose statin trials that were available to us. The outcome of interest was renal-related SAEs. The incidence of adverse events relating to kidney injury was determined through review of the adverse event database. The following outcomes were evaluated: (1) renal-related SAEs within 120 days of randomization (primary outcome), (2) renal-related SAEs after 120 days of randomization (secondary), and (3) drug discontinuation due to renal-related SAEs (secondary). There was no difference in the incidence of renal-related SAEs at 120 days (0.04% vs 0.10%, p = 0.162) between atorvastatin and placebo in the 24 placebo-controlled trials (10,345 patients on atorvastatin (10 to 80 mg/day) versus 8,945 patients on placebo) or in the high-dose versus low-dose statin trials including the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) study (0.05% vs 0.02%, p = 0.625) or the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial (0.0% vs 0.04%, p = 0.500) trial. Results were similar for renal-related SAEs after 120 days (placebo controlled trials [0.38% vs 0.36%, p = 0.905], IDEAL trial [0.56% vs 0.65%, p = 0.683], or the TNT trial [0.76% vs 1.04%, p = 0.168]) and for drug withdrawal due to renal-related SAE (placebo controlled trials [0.05% vs 0.04%, p = 1.00], IDEAL trial [0.02% vs 0.0%, p = 0.499], or the TNT trial [0.08% vs 0.12%, p = 0.754]). In conclusion, the results from clinical trials with data from 149,882 patient-years of follow-up fail to show any increase in renal-related SAEs with statins compared with controls.

Temporal trends in the use of high-dose potent statins following acute coronary syndrome in Israel.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with the prescription of high-dose potent statin (HDPS) therapy following hospitalization for acute coronary events. STUDY DESIGN: Sub-analysis was made using the data of 3,525 patients enrolled in the 2008 and 2010 Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys (ACSIS). METHODS: Analyses were carried out to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with the prescription of HDPS therapy (atorvastatin 40-80 mg/day or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg/day) at discharge compared with the prescription of lower-dose statins. RESULTS: Among the study patients, 1,387 (39%) were discharged on HDPS, 1,860 (53%) with lower-dose statin regimens and 278 (8%) with no recommendation for statin therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that pre-admission usage of HDPS and participation in the more recent (2010) ACSIS survey were independently associated with a higher likelihood of HDPS prescription at discharge from the index event (odds ratio, OR, 21.07, p < 0.001, and 5.61, p < 0.001, respectively), whereas factors independently associated with a lack of HDPS prescription included age >75 years (OR 0.76, p = 0.03), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl on admission (OR 0.67, p < 0.001) and a history of heart failure prior to the index hospitalization (OR 0.54, p = 0.0018). The 30-day compliance with the HDPS regimen was 98%. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show increased use of HDPS therapy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, although this mode of medical therapy is still underutilized in the important subset of high-risk ACS patients.

Atorvastatin as a stable treatment in bronchiectasis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiectasis is characterised by chronic cough, sputum production, and recurrent chest infections. Pathogenesis is poorly understood, but excess neutrophilic airway inflammation is seen. Accumulating evidence suggests that statins have pleiotropic effects; therefore, these drugs could be a potential anti-inflammatory treatment for patients with bronchiectasis. We did a proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial to establish if atorvastatin could reduce cough in patients with bronchiectasis. METHODS: Patients aged 18-79 years were recruited from a secondary-care clinic in Edinburgh, UK. Participants had clinically significant bronchiectasis (ie, cough and sputum production when clinically stable) confirmed by chest CT and two or more chest infections in the preceding year. Individuals were randomly allocated to receive either high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg) or a placebo, given orally once a day for 6 months. Sequence generation was done with a block randomisation of four. Random allocation was masked to study investigators and patients. The primary endpoint was reduction in cough from baseline to 6 months, measured by the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) score, with a lower score indicating a more severe cough (minimum clinically important difference, 1·3 units). Analysis was done by intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01299181. FINDINGS: Between June 23, 2011, and Jan 30, 2011, 82 patients were screened for inclusion in the study and 22 were excluded before randomisation. 30 individuals were assigned atorvastatin and 30 were allocated placebo. The change from baseline to 6 months in LCQ score differed between groups, with a mean change of 1·5 units in patients allocated atorvastatin versus -0·7 units in those assigned placebo (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI 0·5-3·9; p=0·01). 12 (40%) of 30 patients in the atorvastatin group improved by 1·3 units or more on the LCQ compared with five (17%) of 30 in the placebo group (difference 23%, 95% CI 1-45; p=0·04). Ten (33%) patients assigned atorvastatin had an adverse event versus three (10%) allocated placebo (difference 23%, 95% CI 3-43; p=0·02). No serious adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION: 6 months of atorvastatin improved cough on a quality-of-life scale in patients with bronchiectasis. Multicentre studies are now needed to assess whether long-term statin treatment can reduce exacerbations. FUNDING: Chief Scientist's Office.

Impact of high-dose atorvastatin therapy and clinical risk factors on incident aortic valve stenosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (from TNT, IDEAL, and SPARCL).

Clinical trials have not provided evidence for a role of statin therapy in reducing aortic valve stenosis (AVS) severity in patients with documented AVS. However, whether statin therapy could prevent the onset of AVS is unknown. Our objectives were (1) to compare the incidence rates of AVS among patients treated with high-dose versus usual-dose statin or placebo and (2) to identify clinical risk factors associated with the development of AVS. We conducted post hoc analyses in 23,508 participants from 3 large-scale multicenter atorvastatin randomized blinded clinical trials: Treating to New Targets, the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering, and the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels. The main outcome measure was the incidence of clinical AVS over a median follow-up of 4.9 years (82 cases). Among patients who developed AVS, 39 (47.6%) were treated with atorvastatin 80 mg and 43 (52.4%) were treated with lower dose statin (atorvastatin 10 mg in Treating to New Targets, simvastatin 20 to 40 mg in Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering, or placebo in Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels; hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 1.41, p=0.67). In multivariate analyses forcing treatment, sex, and race into the model, factors that were significantly associated with AVS included age (HR 2.17, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.93, p<0.0001 per 1-SD increment), diabetes (HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.80, p=0.05), vitamin K antagonist use (HR 3.25, 95% CI 2.06 to 5.16, p<0.0001), and previous statin use (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.54 to 4.60, p=0.0008). In conclusion, random allocation to high-dose versus usual-dose statin therapy or placebo did not impact the incidence of AVS among patients without known AVS. Age, diabetes, vitamin K antagonists, and previous statin use were significant predictors of incident AVS in these high-risk patients.