Intensive versus Guideline Blood Pressure and Lipid Lowering in Patients with Previous Stroke: Main Results from the Pilot 'Prevention of Decline in Cognition after Stroke Trial' (PODCAST) Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia. We assessed the effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) and/or lipid lowering on cognitive outcomes in patients with recent stroke in a pilot trial. METHODS: In a multicentre, partial-factorial trial, patients with recent stroke, absence of dementia, and systolic BP (SBP) 125-170 mmHg were assigned randomly to at least 6 months of intensive (target SBP <125 mmHg) or guideline (target SBP <140 mmHg) BP lowering. The subset of patients with ischaemic stroke and total cholesterol 3.0-8.0 mmol/l were also assigned randomly to intensive (target LDL-cholesterol <1.3 mmol/l) or guideline (target LDL-c <3.0 mmol/l) lipid lowering. The primary outcome was the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R). RESULTS: We enrolled 83 patients, mean age 74.0 (6.8) years, and median 4.5 months after stroke. The median follow-up was 24 months (range 1-48). Mean BP was significantly reduced with intensive compared to guideline treatment (difference -10·6/-5·5 mmHg; p<0·01), as was total/LDL-cholesterol with intensive lipid lowering compared to guideline (difference -0·54/-0·44 mmol/l; p<0·01). The ACE-R score during treatment did not differ for either treatment comparison; mean difference for BP lowering -3.6 (95% CI -9.7 to 2.4), and lipid lowering 4.4 (95% CI -2.1 to 10.9). However, intensive lipid lowering therapy was significantly associated with improved scores for ACE-R at 6 months, trail making A, modified Rankin Scale and Euro-Qol Visual Analogue Scale. There was no difference in rates of dementia or serious adverse events for either comparison. CONCLUSION: In patients with recent stroke and normal cognition, intensive BP and lipid lowering were feasible and safe, but did not alter cognition over two years. The association between intensive lipid lowering and improved scores for some secondary outcomes suggests further trials are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN85562386.

Baseline characteristics, analysis plan and report on feasibility for the Prevention Of Decline in Cognition After Stroke Trial (PODCAST).

BACKGROUND: A common complication after stroke is development of cognitive impairment and dementia. However, effective strategies for reducing the risk of developing these problems remain undefined. Potential strategies include intensive lowering of blood pressure (BP) and/or lipids. This paper summarises the baseline characteristics, statistical analysis plan and feasibility of a randomised control trial of blood pressure and lipid lowering in patients post-stroke with the primary objective of reducing cognitive impairment and dementia. METHODS: The Prevention Of Decline in Cognition After Stroke Trial (PODCAST) was a multi-centre prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint controlled partial-factorial internal pilot trial running in secondary and primary care. Participants without dementia were enrolled 3-7 months post ischaemic stroke or spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage, and randomised to intensive versus guideline BP lowering (target systolic BP <125 mmHg versus <140 mmHg); patients with ischaemic stroke were also randomised to intensive or guideline lipid lowering (target LDL cholesterol <1.4 mmol/L versus <3 mmol/L). The primary outcome was the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised; a key secondary outcome was to assess feasibility of performing a large trial of one or both interventions. Data are number (%) or mean (standard deviation). The trial was planned to last for 8 years with follow-up between 1 and 8 years. The plan for reporting the main results is included as Additional file 2. RESULTS: 83 patients (of a planned 600) were recruited from 19 UK sites between 7 October 2010 and 31 January 2014. Delays, due to difficulties in the provision of excess treatment costs and to complexity of follow-up, led to few centres taking part and a much lower recruitment rate than planned. Patient characteristics at baseline were: age 74 (SD 7) years, male 64 (77 %), index stroke ischaemic 77 (93 %), stroke onset to randomisation 4.5 [SD 1.3] months, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised 86 (of 100, SD 8), Montreal Cognitive Assessment 24 (of 30, SD 3), BP 147/82 (SD 19/11) mmHg, total cholesterol 4.0 (SD 0.8) mmol/L and LDL cholesterol 2.0 (SD 0.7) mmol/L, modified Rankin Scale 1.1 (SD 0.8). CONCLUSION: Limited recruitment suggests that a large trial is not feasible using the current protocol. The effects of the interventions on BP, lipids, and cognition will be reported in the main publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN85562386 registered on 23 September 2009.

Association of a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with incident cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Although there is overwhelming evidence that reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins leads to reductions in cardiovascular disease, less is known about the effects in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without pre-existing vascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the UK-based General Practice Research Database we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 21,998 T2DM patients aged 35-69 with ≥2 prescriptions for lipid-modifying therapy (2000-2009). We categorized LDL-C change (mmol/l) between last available and baseline lipid values as reduction (≥3.0, 2.0-2.9, 1.0-1.9, 0.3-0.9), no-change (±0.2 of baseline), or increase (>0.2). Outcomes were incident composite cardiovascular (n = 621) and cerebrovascular events (n = 274). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of study outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for LDL-C change compared with the no-change group. Compared to no changes, adjusted HRs of cardiovascular events for a reduction ≥3.0 and a reduction between 2.0-2.9 were 0.41 (95% CI: 0.23-0.71) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34-0.76) (p for linear trend <0.001). LDL-C reduction yielded a decreased cerebrovascular event risk compared to no change, even with the smallest reduction (adjusted HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing LDL-C is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among T2DM patients without such pre-existing events. The magnitude of the protective effect on cerebrovascular events is less certain, and further studies are warranted.

Prevention of Decline in Cognition after Stroke Trial (PODCAST): a study protocol for a factorial randomised controlled trial of intensive versus guideline lowering of blood pressure and lipids.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a common cause of cognitive impairment and dementia. However, effective strategies for reducing the risk of post-stroke dementia remain undefined. Potential strategies include intensive lowering of blood pressure and/or lipids. DESIGN: multi-centre prospective randomised open-label blinded-endpoint controlled partial-factorial phase IV trial in secondary and primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 100 participants from 30 UK Stroke Research Network sites who are post- ischemic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage by three to seven months. Interventions--all patients (1:1): intensive versus guideline blood pressure lowering (target systolic < 125 mmHg versus < 140 mmHg).Interventions--ischemic stroke (1:1): intensive versus guideline lipid lowering (target low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) < 1.4 mmol/l versus < 3 mmol/l). HYPOTHESES: does 'intensive' blood pressure lowering therapy and/or 'intensive' lipid control reduce cognitive decline and dementia in people with ischemic stroke; and does 'intensive' blood pressure lowering therapy reduce cognitive decline and dementia in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: feasibility of recruitment and retention of participants, tolerability and safety of the interventions, achieving and maintaining the blood pressure and lipid targets, maintaining differences in systolic blood pressure (> 10 mmHg) and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (> 1 mmol/l) between the treatment groups, and performing clinic and telephone follow-up of cognition measures. Randomisation: using stratification, minimization and simple randomization. Blinding: participants receive open-label management. Cognition is assessed both unblinded (in clinic) and blinded (by telephone) to treatment. Adjudication of events (dementia, vascular, serious adverse events) is blinded to management. DISCUSSION: The PODCAST trial is ongoing with 78 patients recruited to date from 22 sites. Outcomes of cognitive impairment and dementia are accruing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN85562386.

Feasibility and indicative results from a 12-month low-energy liquid diet treatment and maintenance programme for severe obesity.

BACKGROUND: There is no established primary care solution for the rapidly increasing numbers of severely obese people with body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m(2). AIM: This programme aimed to generate weight losses of ≥15 kg at 12 months, within routine primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Feasibility study in primary care. METHOD: Patients with a BMI ≥40 kg/m(2) commenced a micronutrient-replete 810-833 kcal/day low-energy liquid diet (LELD), delivered in primary care, for a planned 12 weeks or 20 kg weight loss (whichever was the sooner), with structured food reintroduction and then weight-loss maintenance, with optional orlistat to 12 months. RESULT: Of 91 patients (74 females) entering the programme (baseline: weight 131 kg, BMI 48 kg/m(2), age 46 years), 58/91(64%) completed the LELD stage, with a mean duration of 14.4 weeks (standard deviation [SD] = 6.0 weeks), and a mean weight loss of 16.9 kg (SD = 6.0 kg). Four patients commenced weight-loss maintenance omitting the food-reintroduction stage. Of the remaining 54, 37(68%) started and completed food reintroduction over a mean duration of 9.3 weeks (SD = 5.7 weeks), with a further mean weight loss of 2.1 kg (SD = 3.7 kg), before starting a long-term low-fat-diet weight-loss maintenance plan. A total of 44/91 (48%) received orlistat at some stage. At 12 months, weight was recorded for 68/91 (75%) patients, with a mean loss of 12.4 kg (SD = 11.4 kg). Of these, 30 (33% of all 91 patients starting the programme) had a documented maintained weight loss of ≥15 kg at 12 months, six (7%) had a 10-15 kg loss, and 11 (12%) had a 5-10 kg loss. The indicative cost of providing this entire programme for wider implementation would be £861 per patient entered, or £2611 per documented 15 kg loss achieved. CONCLUSION: A care package within routine primary care for severe obesity, including LELD, food reintroduction, and weight-loss maintenance, was well accepted and achieved a 12-month-maintained weight loss of ≥15 kg for one-third of all patients entering the programme.

Projected cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with doubling the statin dose in the United Kingdom: findings from the INFORCE study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) compared with doubling the submaximal statin doses, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in the INFORCE study. METHODS: Lifetime treatment costs and benefits were computed using a Markov model. Model inputs included each patient's cardiovascular risk factor profile and actual lipid values at baseline and 12 weeks (endpoint). Cardiovascular event and drug costs were discounted at 3.5%. Age-specific utilities were based on UK literature values and non-coronary heart disease mortality rates on the Office of National Statistics data. In the INFORCE study, 384 patients taking statins at stable doses for ≥6 weeks before hospital admission were stratified by statin dose/potency (low, medium, and high) and then randomized to doubling the statin dose or switching to Eze/Simva 10/40mg for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The Eze/Simva group (n=195) had a higher mean baseline total cholesterol than the double-statin group (n=189). Analyses were adjusted for baseline characteristics. In the INFORCE study, Eze/Simva reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by ∼30% (vs. 4% with doubling statin doses) and significantly enhanced LDL-C goal attainment. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, Eze/Simva conferred 0.218 incremental discounted quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a discounted incremental cost of £2524, for an ICER of £11,571/QALY (95% confidence interval=£8181-£18,600/QALY). The ICER was £13,552/QALY, £11,930/QALY, and £10,148/QALY in the low-, medium-, and high-potency strata, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to Eze/Simva 10/40 mg is projected to be a cost-effective treatment (vs. double-statin) in UK patients with ACS.

Engaging patients, clinicians and health funders in weight management: the Counterweight Programme.

BACKGROUND: The Counterweight Programme provides an evidence based and effective approach for weight management in routine primary care. Uptake of the programme has been variable for practices and patients. Aim. To explore key barriers and facilitators of practice and patient engagement in the Counterweight Programme and to describe key strategies used to address barriers in the wider implementation of this weight management programme in UK primary care. METHODS: All seven weight management advisers participated in a focus group. In-depth interviews were conducted with purposeful samples of GPs (n = 7) and practice nurses (n = 15) from 11 practices out of the 65 participating in the programme. A total of 37 patients participated through a mixture of in-depth interviews (n = 18) and three focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were analysed for key themes that emerged. RESULTS: Engagement of practice staff was influenced by clinicians' beliefs and attitudes, factors relating to the way the programme was initiated and implemented, the programme content and organizational/contextual factors. Patient engagement was influenced by practice endorsement of the programme, clear understanding of programme goals, structured proactive follow-up and perception of positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Having a clear understanding of programme goals and expectations, enhancing self-efficacy in weight management and providing proactive follow-up is important for engaging both practices and patients. The widespread integration of weight management programmes into routine primary care is likely to require supportive public policy.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg versus atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the POLARIS study.

POLARIS investigated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Patients (n=871) were randomized to rosuvastatin 40 mg/day or atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C levels at 8 weeks. Secondary assessments included safety and tolerability, NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal achievement, change in other lipids and lipoproteins at 8 and 26 weeks, and health economics. Mean LDL-C levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin 40 mg than with atorvastatin 80 mg at 8 weeks (-56% versus -52%, p<0.001). The proportion of patients achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal at 8 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group (80% versus 72%, p<0.01). Significant differences in the change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+9.6% versus +4.4%) and apolipoprotein (Apo)A-I levels (+4.2 versus -0.5) were observed between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin (all p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Based on a US analysis, rosuvastatin used fewer resources and delivered greater efficacy. Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day provided greater LDL-C-lowering efficacy than atorvastatin 80 mg/day, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goals. Rosuvastatin may therefore improve LDL-C goal achievement in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Statin-induced myositis: a commonly encountered or rare side effect?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Statins are well established as first-line agents for cholesterol lowering in cardiovascular disease, with accumulating evidence supporting their initiation and guidelines recommending treatment to lower LDL levels. Although generally well tolerated with few side effects, including headaches and gastrointestinal symptoms, concerns are raised regarding myopathy, which may lead to fatal rhabdomyolysis. This review examines current evidence on statin interactions, mechanism of injury and toxicity. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant myopathy is rare with an incidence of less than 0.5% of patients. Statin side effects may be dose-related, associated with other drug interactions that interfere with statin metabolic pathways through cytochrome p450 pathways or glucuronidation, or related to co-morbidities. Several theories have suggested that statin myotoxicity may be due to intracellular cholesterol depletion, or interference with oxidative phosphorylation pathways. Exact mechanisms are yet to be fully defined. Individuals with mixed dyslipidaemia may require combination therapy to achieve target lipid levels. No large-scale randomized trials have yet reported on the safety of combination therapy, although more recent studies may shed some light when they report. CONCLUSION: As most individuals on statins are 'high-risk' patients, they tend to be on multiple agents for cardiovascular disease which may interact with their statin. Progression of myalgia or myositis to rhabdomyolysis is rare (one in 30-100,000 patient-years of exposure), but if progressive muscle symptoms are ignored then fatalities can occur. When prescribing statins, physicians should be alert to potential risks and educate patients to report any potentially significant symptoms.

Favorable effects of pioglitazone and metformin compared with gliclazide on lipoprotein subfractions in overweight patients with early type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of different oral hypoglycemic drugs as first-line therapy on lipoprotein subfractions in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty overweight type 2 diabetic patients not on lipid-lowering therapy were randomized to metformin, pioglitazone, or gliclazide after a 3-month dietary run-in. Drug doses were uptitrated for 3 months to optimize glycemia and were kept fixed for a further 3 months. LDL subfractions (LDL(1), LDL(2), and LDL(3)) were prepared by density gradient ultracentrifugation at randomization and study end. Triglycerides, cholesterol, total protein, and phospholipids were measured and mass of subfractions calculated. HDL subfractions were prepared by precipitation. The primary end point was change in proportion of LDL as LDL(3). RESULTS: HbA(1c), triglycerides, glucose, and cholesterol were comparable across groups at baseline and over time. LDL(3) mass and the LDL(3)-to-LDL ratio fell with pioglitazone (LDL(3) mass 36.2 to 28.0 mg/dl, P < 0.01; LDL(3)-to-LDL 19.2:13.3%, P < 0.01) and metformin (42.7 to 31.5 mg/dl, P < 0.01; 21.3:16.2%, P < 0.01, respectively) with no change on gliclazide. LDL(3) reductions were associated with reciprocal LDL(1) increases. Changes were independent of BMI, glycemic control, and triglycerides. Total HDL cholesterol increased on pioglitazone (1.28 to 1.36 mmol/l, P = 0.02) but not gliclazide (1.39 to 1.37 mmol/l, P = NS) or metformin (1.26 to 1.18 mmol/l, P = NS), largely due to an HDL(2) increase (0.3 to 0.4 mmol/l, P < 0.05). HDL(3) cholesterol fell on metformin (0.9 to 0.85 mmol/l, P < 0.01). On pioglitazone and metformin, the HDL(2)-to-HDL(3) ratio increased compared with no change on gliclazide. CONCLUSIONS: For the same improvement in glycemic control, pioglitazone and metformin produce favorable changes in HDL and LDL subfractions compared with gliclazide in overweight type 2 diabetic patients. Such changes may be associated with reduced atherosclerosis risk and may inform the choice of initial oral hypoglycemic agent.

Risk for myopathy with statin therapy in high-risk patients.

Emerging data suggest that the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) offer important benefits for the large population of individuals at high risk for coronary heart disease. This population encompasses a sizable portion of individuals who are also at high risk for drug-drug interactions due to their need for multiple medications. In general, statins are associated with a very small risk for myopathy (which may progress to fatal or nonfatal rhabdomyolysis); however, the potential for drug-drug interactions is known to increase this risk in specific high-risk groups. The incidence of myopathy associated with statin therapy is dose related and is increased when statins are used in combination with agents that share common metabolic pathways. Of particular concern is the potential for interactions with other lipid-lowering agents such as fibrates and niacin (nicotinic acid), which may be used in patients with mixed lipidemia, and with immunosuppressive agents, such as cyclosporine, which are commonly used in patients after transplantation. Clinicians should be alert to the potential for drug-drug interactions to minimize the risk of myopathy during long-term statin therapy in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease.