A randomised study comparing the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin for achieving lipid goals in clinical practice in Asian patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (DISCOVERY-Asia study)

BACKGROUND

Most studies investigating the benefits of statins have focused on North American and European populations. This study focuses on evaluating the lipid-lowering effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in Asian patients.

OBJECTIVES

The DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY)-Asia study is one of nine independently powered studies assessing the efficacy of starting doses of statins in achieving target lipid levels in different countries worldwide. DISCOVERY-Asia was a 12-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study conducted in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand.

RESULTS

A total of 1482 adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia and high cardiovascular risk (> 20%/10 years, type 2 diabetes, or a history of coronary heart disease) were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily (o.d.) or atorvastatin 10 mg o.d. The percentage of patients achieving the 1998 European Joint Task Force low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of < 3.0 mmol/L at 12 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin group (n = 950) compared with the atorvastatin group (n = 471) (79.5 vs. 69.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Similar results were observed for 1998 European goals for total cholesterol (TC), and the 2003 European goals for LDL-C and TC. LDL-C and TC levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin. Both drugs were well-tolerated and the incidence and type of adverse events were similar in each group.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

The trial registry summary is available at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241488

CONCLUSIONS

This 12-week study showed that the starting dose of rosuvastatin 10 mg o.d. was significantly more effective than the starting dose of natorvastatin 10 mg o.d. at enabling patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia to achieve European goals for LDL-C and TC in a largely Asian population in real-life clinical practice. The safety profile of rosuvastatin 10 mg is similar to that of atorvastatin 10 mg in the Asian population studied here, and is consistent with the known safety profile of rosuvastatin in the white population.

Statin-induced liver injury involves cross-talk between cholesterol and selenoprotein biosynthetic pathways

Statins have become the mainstay of hypercholesterolemia treatment. Despite a seemingly clear rationale behind their use, the inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase, these compounds have been shown to elicit a variety of unanticipated and elusive effects and side effects in vivo. Among the most frequently noted side effects of statin treatment are elevations in liver enzymes. Here, we report our finding that atorvastatin, cerivastatin, and lovastatin at clinically common concentrations induce a selective, differential loss of selenoprotein expression in cultured human HepG2 hepatocytes. The primarily affected selenoprotein was glutathione peroxidase (GPx), whose biosynthesis, steady-state expression level, and catalytic activity were significantly reduced with 10 to 100 nM concentrations of the different compounds. Messenger RNA levels of GPx1 and GPx4 were unaffected by statin treatment, pointing at a post-transcriptional mechanism of selenoprotein suppression. Although statins at selenoprotein-modulatory doses were not cytotoxic by themselves, they induced a significantly increased sensitivity of the cells to peroxides, an effect that was largely reversible by supraphysiological concentrations of selenite. We conclude that statins inhibit the expression of inducible selenoproteins by preventing the mevalonate-dependent maturation of the single human selenocysteine-tRNA and may thereby evoke an increased vulnerability of the liver to secondary toxins. Selenoprotein modulation might constitute an important mechanism of statins to bring forth their clinical effects.

Comparison of two methods of presenting risk information to patients about the side effects of medicines

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of verbal descriptors suggested by the European Union (EU) such as "common" (1-10% frequency) and "rare" (0.01-0.1%) effectively conveys the level of risk of side effects to people taking a medicine.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled study with unconcealed allocation.

PARTICIPANTS

120 adults taking simvastatin or atorvastatin after cardiac surgery or myocardial infarction.

SETTING

Cardiac rehabilitation clinics at two hospitals in Leeds, UK.

INTERVENTION

A written statement about one of the side effects of the medicine (either constipation or pancreatitis). Within each side effect condition half the patients were given the information in verbal form and half in numerical form (for constipation, "common" or 2.5%; for pancreatitis, "rare" or 0.04%).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The estimated likelihood of the side effect occurring. Other outcome measures related to the perceived severity of the side effect, its risk to health, and its effect on decisions about whether to take the medicine.

RESULTS

The mean likelihood estimate given for the constipation side effect was 34.2% in the verbal group and 8.1% in the numerical group; for pancreatitis it was 18% in the verbal group and 2.1% in the numerical group. The verbal descriptors were associated with more negative perceptions of the medicine than their equivalent numerical descriptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients want and need understandable information about medicines and their risks and benefits. This is essential if they are to become partners in medicine taking. The use of verbal descriptors to improve the level of information about side effect risk leads to overestimation of the level of harm and may lead patients to make inappropriate decisions about whether or not they take the medicine.

Rhabdomyolysis causing AV blockade due to possible atorvastatin, esomeprazole, and clarithromycin interaction

OBJECTIVE

To report rhabdomyolysis (RML) causing third-degree atrioventricular block secondary to a possible interaction between atorvastatin, esomeprazole, and clarithromycin.

CASE SUMMARY

A 51-year-old white woman presented to the emergency department with severe weakness, near syncope, shortness of breath, and chest pain. On admission, her electrocardiogram demonstrated bradycardia (40 beats/min) and third-degree heart block. A creatine kinase (CK) level was >7000 U/L. Her medication history was significant for long-term use of atorvastatin (>1 y), a 6-week history of esomeprazole use, and three 500-mg doses of clarithromycin just prior to admission. Her symptoms of weakness, shortness of breath, and chest pain coincided with starting the esomeprazole. During her hospitalization, the woman required pacemaker placement and her CK continued to rise to >40,000 U/L. Screening for other causes of RML, such as thyrotoxicosis, infection, and immune or hepatic diseases, was negative. She gradually improved over a 26-day hospitalization.

DISCUSSION

This is a case of RML resulting in third-degree atrioventricular blockade. An objective causality assessment of the adverse reaction via the Naranjo probability scale revealed a probable association with atorvastatin and a possible association with esomeprazole and clarithromycin. The pharmacokinetic profiles of these agents suggest that a possible contribution to this reaction was P-glycoprotein (PGP) inhibition by esomeprazole altering atorvastatin's normally significant first-pass clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

PGP drug interactions with atorvastatin and other hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) may be associated with unreported risks for RML. Further investigation into PGP impact on HMG-CoA appears warranted.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with ongoing atorvastatin therapy in achieving low-density lipoprotein goal in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease

This randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (EZE) co-administered with ongoing atorvastatin (ATV) therapy in 450 hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) who had not achieved their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal < or =2.60 mmol/l while on a stable dose of ATV 10 or 20 mg/day for > or =6 weeks. After a 4-week diet/baseline active run-in period, patients with LDL-C >2.60 mmol/l and < or =4.20 mmol/l were stratified by ATV dose and randomised (1 : 1) to EZE 10 mg or PBO for 6 weeks while continuing open-label ATV. Significantly more patients achieved an LDL-C goal < or =2.6 mmol/l with EZE than PBO (81.3 vs. 21.8%; p < or = 0.001). Compared to PBO, co-administration of EZE with ongoing ATV led to significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B; HDL-C was significantly (p < or = 0.05) increased. Co-administration of EZE and ATV was well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ATV alone.

Efficacy of alternate-day dosing versus daily dosing of atorvastatin

BACKGROUND

Atorvastatin is a synthetic inhibitor of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase. In placebo-controlled trials, it has been shown to achieve significant dose-dependent reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. This trial compared the efficacy of daily atorvastatin administration with that of alternate-day dosing.

METHODS

This was a randomized, prospective, nonblinded, controlled clinical trial. Fifty-four patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 100 to 200 mg/dL were enrolled. Baseline fasting lipid profile (total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglycerides), liver function tests (aspartate transaminase and alanine aminotransferase), and creatine kinase were drawn. Patients were randomized to three atorvastatin dose groups. Group I received 10 mg of atorvastatin every day, Group II received 10 mg every other day, and Group III received 20 mg every other day. After 6 weeks of treatment with atorvastatin, fasting lipid profiles, liver function tests, and creatine kinase concentrations were redrawn. Compliance to treatment was assessed at each visit.

RESULTS

Of the 54 patients enrolled, 46 completed the study. All three regimens significantly reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol compared to baseline. No statistically significant differences existed between the three groups in regards to total, or a percentage, decrease in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol at 6 weeks compared to baseline. All regimens were well tolerated and none of the patients had a significant elevation of liver enzymes or creatine kinase during the course of the study.

CONCLUSION

Alternate-day dosing of atorvastatin is an efficacious and safe alternative to daily dosing.

Atorvastatin compared with simvastatin-based therapies in the management of severe familial hyperlipidaemias

We compared atorvastatin with simvastatin-based therapies in a prospective observational study of 201 patients with severe hyperlipidaemia. Atorvastatin 10 mg therapy was substituted for simvastatin 20 mg, 20 mg for 40 mg, 40 mg for simvastatin 40 mg plus resin, and 80 mg for simvastatin-fibrate-resin therapy. Lipid and safety profiles were assessed. Atorvastatin reduced total cholesterol by 31 +/- 11-40 +/- 14% vs. 25 +/- 12-31 +/- 11%; LDL by 38 +/- 16-45 +/- 18% vs. 31 +/- 18-39 +/- 18% and geometric mean triglycerides by 29.3-37.3% vs. 16.6-24.8%, but reduced HDL 11% +/- 47% at 80 mg compared with a 16% +/- 34% increase with simvastatin-based therapy. Target LDL < 3.5 mmol/l was achieved more often with atorvastatin (63% vs. 50%; p < 0.001). Atorvastatin increased geometric mean fibrinogen by 12-20% vs. a 0-6% fall with simvastatin (p << 0.001). Side effects were noted in 10-36% of patients, including one case of rhabdomyolysis, and 36% discontinued therapy. These data suggest that atorvastatin is more effective than current simvastatin-based therapies in achieving treatment targets in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia but at the expense of a possible increase in side-effects. This issue needs further study in randomized controlled trials.

Atorvastatin in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemias

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in the treatment of dyslipidemias.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (January 1960-April 1998), Current Contents search, additional references listed in articles, and unpublished data obtained from the manufacturer were used to identify data from scientific literature. Studies evaluating atorvastatin (i.e., abstracts, clinical trials, proceedings, data on file with the manufacturer) were considered for inclusion.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language literature was reviewed to evaluate the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, therapeutic use, and adverse effects of atorvastatin. Additional relevant citations were used in the introductory material and discussion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Open and controlled animal and human clinical studies published in the English-language literature were reviewed and evaluated. Clinical trials selected for inclusion were limited to those in human subjects and included data from animals if human data were not available.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Atorvastatin is a recent hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor for the treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia, mixed dyslipidemias, and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. In patients who have not met the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal as recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II guidelines, atorvastatin 10-80 mg/d may be used as monotherapy or as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering agents and dietary modifications. In placebo-controlled clinical trials, atorvastatin 10-80 mg/d lowered LDL-C by 35-61% and triglyceride (TG) concentrations by 14-45%. In comparative trials, atorvastatin 10-80 mg/d showed a greater reduction of serum total cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, TG concentrations, and apolipoprotein B-100 (apo B) compared with pravastatin, simvastatin, or lovastatin. In comparison, currently available HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (lovastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, cerivastatin) lower LDL-C concentrations by approximately 20-40% and TG concentrations by approximately 10-30%. In pooled placebo-controlled clinical trials of up to a duration of 52 weeks, atorvastatin in dosages up to 80 mg/d appeared to be well tolerated. The most common adverse effect of atorvastatin was gastrointestinal upset. The incidence of elevated serum hepatic transaminases may be greater at higher dosages of atorvastatin. The risk of myopathy and/or rhabdomyolysis is increased when an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor is taken concomitantly with cyclosporine, gemfibrozil, niacin, erythromycin, or azole antifungals.

CONCLUSIONS

Atorvastatin appears to reduce TC, LDL-C, TG concentrations, and apo B to a greater extent than do currently available HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Atorvastatin may be preferred in patients requiring greater than a 30% reduction in LDL-C or in patients with both elevated LDL-C and TG concentrations, which may obviate the need for combination lipid-lowering therapy. Adverse effects of atorvastatin appear to be similar to those of other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and should be routinely monitored. Long-term safety data (> 1 y) on atorvastatin compared with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are still needed. Cost-effectiveness studies comparing atorvastatin with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors remain a subject for further investigation. Published clinical studies evaluating the impact of atorvastatin on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are still needed. Additionally, clinical studies evaluating the impact of lipid-lowering therapy in a larger number of women, the elderly (> 70 y), and patients with diabetes for treatment of primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease are needed.

The safety and tolerability of atorvastatin 10 mg in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of atorvastatin 10 mg compared with placebo in 2,838 patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of coronary heart disease who were enrolled in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) and followed for 3.9 years. The percentages of patients experiencing treatment-associated adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs in the atorvastatin (n=1,428) and placebo (n=1,410) groups were 23.0% vs. 25.4%, 1.1% vs. 1.1% and 2.9% vs. 3.4%, respectively. The most common treatment-associated AEs in the atorvastatin and placebo groups were digestive system-related (8.9% vs. 10.0%). All-cause and treatment-associated myalgia were reported in 4.0% and 1.0% of atorvastatin-treated patients, and 4.8% and 1.2% of placebo-treated patients. An analysis of selected AEs by tertiles of baseline low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol showed no relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and the incidence of myalgia, cancer or nervous system AEs in either treatment group. Overall, these data demonstrate that atorvastatin 10 mg was well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes during long-term treatment.

Comparison of benefits and risks of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin from a meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials

The benefit from statin therapy is proportional to the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction. However, adverse events appear to be related to dose rather than LDL cholesterol reduction. Although serious side effects are rare, any comparison of statins requires scrutiny of the relation between therapeutic effect and risk of side effects. This report sought to determine whether the additional LDL cholesterol lowering with rosuvastatin over atorvastatin could be obtained without increased risk of short-term adverse events. Twenty-five studies (approximately 20,000 patients) were identified that provided 28 comparisons of 1:1 dose ratios, 20 comparisons of 1:2 dose ratios, and 6 comparisons of 1:4 dose ratios. Treatment difference in benefit (percentage of LDL cholesterol reduction) and risk (odds ratios for myalgia, increased alanine aminotransferase >3 times the upper limit of normal, creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal, and percentage of change in glomerular filtration rate, as well as deaths, serious adverse events, and withdrawals caused by adverse events) were estimated using meta-analysis and presented in benefit-risk planes. Rosuvastatin was more efficacious than the same dose of atorvastatin (1:1 dose ratio) or a 2 times higher dose (1:2 dose ratio) of atorvastatin. There was no significant difference between rosuvastatin and a 4 times higher dose of atorvastatin (1:4 dose ratio). There were no significant differences between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin at any dose ratio for adverse events. Percentages of change in GFR improved significantly with both treatments. In conclusion, at 1:1 and 1:2 dose ratios, significant additional decreases in LDL cholesterol were obtained using rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin at a similar risk of the adverse events presented.

Dose-dependent hypolipidemic effect of an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, pravastatin (CS-514), in hypercholesterolemic subjects. A double blind test

The hypolipidemic effect of a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, pravastatin, was examined. The reductions of serum cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol were dose-dependent and significant differences were observed between placebo and 10 or 20 mg groups (P less than 0.01), and 10 and 20 mg (P less than 0.05) groups. The reduction rate of cholesterol after 8 weeks during medication was 16.1% in the 10 mg group, 20.5% in the 20 mg group compared to baseline serum cholesterol levels. LDL-cholesterol decreased by 23.9% in the 10 mg group, and 29.8% compared to baseline LDL-cholesterol in the 20 mg group. The lowering of total cholesterol was entirely attributed to a reduction in LDL-cholesterol.

The efficacy of statin monotherapy uptitration versus switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin: results of the EASEGO study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incremental low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering efficacy of doubling the statin dose or switching to the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg combination tablet (EZE/SIMVA) in patients on simvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg not at LDL-C target < 2.5 mmol/L.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with documented coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or type 2 diabetes (DM2) with LDL-C > or = 2.5 and < 5.0 mmol/L despite treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg were randomized to (1) double statin dose or (2) switch to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20, according to a PROBE study design. LDL-C, lipoprotein subfractions and safety data were assessed during the study.

RESULTS

119 of 178 (67%) patients in the EZE/SIMVA group and 49 of 189 (26%) in the doubling statin group reached target LDL-C < 2.5 mmol/L. The odds ratio of success for EZE/SIMVA versus doubling statin treatment in reaching the LDL-C target of < 2.5 mmol/L was 5.7 (95% CI: 3.7-9.0, p < 0.0001). A reduction in total cholesterol (TC), total/high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio and apolipoprotein B was observed in both groups, but this reduction was significantly more pronounced in the EZE/SIMVA group as compared with the doubling statin dose group. Treatment was well tolerated and no difference was observed between the two groups with regard to adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In CHD/DM2 patients treated with simvastatin or atorvastatin with LDL-C persistently > or = 2.5 mmol/L, switching to the EZE/SIMVA was more effective in attaining the LDL-C target of < 2.5 mmol/L than doubling the statin dose.

Peripheral neuropathy and lipid-lowering therapy

We report a case of a peripheral neuropathy induced and exacerbated by several commonly used HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors including lovastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, and atorvastatin, and the vitamin niacin. A review of the literature shows similar cases with individual lipid-lowering drugs, but this case shows the cross-reactivity of the neuropathic process to different HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, and it is the first reported case of a peripheral neuropathy exacerbated by the use of niacin.

Risk factors for rhabdomyolysis with simvastatin and atorvastatin

OBJECTIVE

To assess the frequency of risk factors for rhabdomyolysis with simvastatin and atorvastatin in cases reported to the Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC).

DESIGN

Reports meeting the definition of rhabdomyolysis were reviewed for risk factors including age > or = 70 years, dose > or = 40 mg, hepatic dysfunction, diabetes mellitus, hyperkalaemia, hypothyroidism and the use of concomitant interacting medications.

RESULTS

Only one report associated with simvastatin and five reports associated with atorvastatin did not list any risk factors for rhabdomyolysis. Interacting medicines featured in 77% of reports of rhabdomyolysis associated with simvastatin and 44% of reports associated with atorvastatin. A comparison of the age profile for reports of atorvastatin- and simvastatin-associated rhabdomyolysis with that for all adverse drug reaction reports received, and for all reports of muscle disorders, suggested a trend towards an increasing risk of rhabdomyolysis with increasing age with simvastatin but not with atorvastatin. Similarly, comparing prescribed tablet strengths from Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data with the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor ('statin') doses in reports of rhabdomyolysis suggested a dose-related risk with simvastatin, but a less increased risk with high-dose atorvastatin.

CONCLUSION

Risk factors for rhabdomyolysis featured in nearly all of the reports of statin-associated rhabdomyolysis and the majority of reports listed multiple risk factors, although dependence on risk factors appeared to be stronger with simvastatin than atorvastatin. The multiplication of risk factors in patients taking simvastatin and atorvastatin should be minimised.

Proactive multiple cardiovascular risk factor management compared with usual care in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors: the CRUCIAL trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a proactive multifactorial risk factor intervention strategy using single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10, 10/10 mg) in addition to other antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, as required, resulted in greater reduction in calculated Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk compared with usual care (UC) after 52-weeks treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Prospective, multinational, open-label, cluster randomized trial, with the investigator as the unit of randomization. Eligible hypertensive patients were 35-79 years of age, with ≥3 additional cardiovascular risk factors, but no history of CHD and baseline total cholesterol (TC) ≤6.5 mmol/l.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov ; trial identifier NCT00407537.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary endpoint was calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 140 randomized sites, 136 sites contributed 1461 patients. Mean baseline age and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were comparable between treatment arms. Mean baseline BP (150.3/89.7 vs. 144.3/86.5 mmHg) and Framingham CHD risk (20.0 vs. 18.1%) were higher in the proactive intervention versus the UC arm (p < 0.002 for both). At week 52, mean CHD risk was 12.5% in the proactive intervention arm and 16.3% in the UC arm (p < 0.001). The difference, observed at weeks 16 and 52, was primarily driven by significant differences in systolic BP and in TC between the two arms. Overall, adverse events (AEs) were reported in 48.8% and 44.0% of patients in the proactive intervention and the UC arm, respectively. Although there were differences in the incidence of AEs between the treatment arms, the AE profile in the proactive intervention arm was consistent with previous safety experience for this medication.

CONCLUSIONS

A proactive multifactorial risk factor intervention strategy that simultaneously treated both BP and cholesterol regardless of individual risk factors per se, is more effective in reducing calculated Framingham 10-year CHD risk than UC in patients with hypertension and additional risk factors.

Safety of low-density lipoprotein cholestrol reduction with atorvastatin versus simvastatin in a coronary heart disease population (the TARGET TANGIBLE trial)

Reduction in plasma lipids has been recognized as one of the primary cardiovascular risk reduction strategies in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). The primary end points of TARGET TANGIBLE were the safety (adverse events and laboratory measurements) and efficacy (responder rates) of therapy with atorvastatin versus simvastatin with the aim of achieving low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering to < or =100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/L). A total of 3,748 CHD patients with LDL cholesterol levels > or =130 mg/dl (3.4 mmol/L) entered a run-in diet phase of 6 weeks without any lipid-lowering drug therapy. At the end of the diet phase, 2,856 patients met the lipid criteria and were randomized to active treatment for 14 weeks. Patients received 10 to 40 mg of either drug in an optional titration design at 2:1 randomization for atorvastatin versus simvastatin. Adverse event rates were statistically equivalent (p<0.01) for simvastatin (35.7%) and for atorvastatin patients (36.3%). Both drugs were well tolerated; <5% of patients in both groups were withdrawn due to adverse events. In all, 37 atorvastatin patients (2%) and 27 simvastatin patients (3%) had serious adverse events. Drug-related side effects (elevations in creatine kinase, liver enzymes) occurred in both groups at similar rates with 10 atorvastatin patients (0.5%) and 5 simvastatin patients (0.5%) presenting confirmed transaminase elevations >3 x the upper limit of the normal range. Significantly fewer patients in the atorvastatin group (n = 724) required titration to 40 mg compared with the simvastatin group (n = 514) (38% vs. 54%, respectively; p<0.001). Atorvastatin resulted in a significantly greater number of patients reaching the LDL cholesterol goal than those treated with simvastatin, with 67% of atorvastatin patients and 53% of simvastatin patients reaching the target LDL cholesterol level of < or =100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/L) (p<0.001). Both atorvastatin and simvastatin are safe for use by patients in the secondary prevention of CHD, with patients in both drug groups having similar adverse event rates. Despite the use of concomitant medications there was no drug-induced rhabdomyolysis with either atorvastatin or simvastatin.

Safety profile of atorvastatin-treated patients with low LDL-cholesterol levels

Data pooled from 21 atorvastatin clinical trials have been analyzed to establish the safety of reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels below currently recommended minimum targets in hypercholesterolemic patients. Safety data for atorvastatin-treated patients with at least one LDL-C value < or =80 mg/dl (2.1 mmol/l) (n = 319) during treatment (mean LDL-C level throughout treatment was 91 mg/dl [2.4 mmol/l]) were compared to those from all atorvastatin-treated patients (n = 2502) and patients treated with lovastatin, simvastatin or pravastatin (n = 742). The frequency of treatment-associated adverse events (AEs) in the atorvastatin LDL-C < or =80 mg/dl (2.1 mmol/l) subgroup (24%) was comparable to the frequencies observed for all atorvastatin-treated patients (20%) and for patients receiving the other statins (24%). Patient withdrawals due to treatment-associated AEs (constipation, dyspepsia and flatulence being the most common) were consistent and low across treatment groups. No treatment-associated deaths occurred in any group. Safety data for 21 atorvastatin-treated patients with LDL-C < or =50 mg/dl (1.3 mmol/l) were also analyzed and found to be similar to all atorvastatin-treated patients and patients treated with the other statins. While recognizing the short-term nature of the data (all patients who received atorvastatin were treated for < or =1 year and approximately 30% were treated for < or =6 months), this analysis suggests that reducing LDL-C levels below 80 (2.1 mmol/l) or 50 mg/dl (1.3 mmol/l) with atorvastatin does not alter its safety profile, as measured by frequency of AEs, which remains similar to those of other statins.

Treatment of familial hypercholesterolaemia: a controlled trial of the effects of pravastatin or cholestyramine therapy on lipoprotein and apolipoprotein levels

The efficacy and safety of a new, selective inhibitor of cholesterol synthesis, pravastatin, and the bile acid-binding resin, cholestyramine, were compared in a randomized, double-blind study of 120 patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. After a run-in period of 8-10 weeks with assessment of dietary habits, the patients were treated with pravastatin + placebo, placebo + cholestyramine, or placebo alone. Active pravastatin therapy was initiated with 10 mg b.i.d. for 6 weeks, and was increased to 20 mg b.i.d. for the following 6 weeks. Cholestyramine was given at 24 g d-1, or the highest tolerable dose. After 6 weeks of therapy, serum total and LDL cholesterol levels were reduced by 17% and 21%, respectively, on pravastatin treatment, whereas the corresponding reductions with cholestyramine treatment were 24% and 30%, respectively. With an increased dose of pravastatin, serum and LDL cholesterol concentrations were reduced by 23% and 28%, respectively, after 12 weeks; the effect of cholestyramine was unchanged. HDL cholesterol levels increased in response to pravastatin, by 7% and 9% after 6 and 12 weeks, respectively. Concomitant changes in the concentrations of apolipoproteins B and AI were observed. Three patients discontinued the study because of side-effects: two subjects were treated with pravastatin and one was given placebo. The prevalence of side-effects (including laboratory abnormalities) was 35% for pravastatin, 30% for placebo, and 53% (significantly higher) for cholestyramine. We conclude that pravastatin, in a 40 mg daily dose, is as effective as cholestyramine in lowering LDL cholesterol in familial hypercholesterolaemia. Since the frequency of side-effects is higher with cholestyramine, pravastatin offers a promising alternative for the therapy of this genetic disease.

Effect of withdrawal of statin on C-reactive protein

BACKGROUND

C-reactive protein is considered a risk factor for coronary artery disease. In addition to its lipid-lowering properties, statin decreases the level of C-reactive protein. Abrupt cessation of statin therapy during treatment could increase the incidence of cardiac events in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease. The changes of C-reactive protein after withdrawal of statin therapy are still unknown.

METHODS

Twenty patients with hyperlipidemia received statin (atorvastatin, 10 mg/day) therapy for 3 months. The levels of lipid profiles and C-reactive protein were assessed before receiving the statin therapy, immediately after 3 months of therapy, and on the 3 consecutive days after withdrawal of statin treatment.

RESULTS

After 3 months of statin therapy, the total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-chol), and C-reactive protein were significantly reduced (264.94 +/- 16.23 vs. 183.44 +/- 16.34 mg/dl, 183.17 +/- 34.56 vs. 122.00 +/- 17.66 mg/dl, and 2,309.00 +/- 437.85 vs. 1,257.95 +/- 207.99 ng/ml, respectively). The level of C-reactive protein increased on the second day after withdrawal of statin therapy (2,590.14 +/- 1,045.05 vs. 1,257.95 +/- 207.99 ng/ml); however, the total cholesterol and LDL-chol did not increase during the 3-day period after withdrawal of statin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in the level of C-reactive protein after withdrawal of statin therapy may be a contributing factor to the increased incidence of cardiac events in patients who have abruptly stopped statin therapy.

Behavioral implications of lowering cholesterol levels: a double-blind pilot study

The treatment of hypercholesterolemia may be associated with greater noncardiac mortality. This current pilot study sought to determine which behaviors, if any, are associated with decreases in cholesterol level. Twelve subjects received one of two cholesterol-reducing drugs or placebo. Cholesterol and behavioral ratings were measured at baseline, 4, and 52 weeks with standardized scales. Cholesterol levels markedly declined with concomitant significant increases in impulsivity ratings at 4 weeks. At 52 weeks, the increase in impulsivity ratings was no longer apparent, but depression ratings showed a significant improvement. This pilot study, although limited in size, raises the possibility that cholesterol-lowering drugs are associated with mild, time-limited increases in impulsivity and with mild, time-delayed improvements in depression ratings.

Lipid-altering changes and pleiotropic effects of atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia

In this prospective study, we found beneficial short-term effects from atorvastatin therapy, including effects on low-density lipoprotein subfractions and remnant-like lipoprotein particle cholesterol, antioxidant effects, and alterations in endothelial function that may be important in early benefit from statin therapy; some effects would support much earlier benefit than previously reported. We also found long-term effects of atorvastatin, including decreased plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 and additional significant alterations in low-density lipoprotein subfractions and endothelial function, supporting benefits from continuous long-term atorvastatin therapy beyond early reversal of hypercholesterolemia.

Effect of Atorvastatin on Cognitive Function in Patients from the Lipid Lowering and Onset of Renal Disease (LORD) Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of atorvastatin on cognitive function by testing two hypotheses: that atorvastatin 10 mg/day would impair cognitive function, and that other biochemical and demographic measures would better predict cognitive performance than atorvastatin alone.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

Two primary acute care settings in the north and northwest of Tasmania, Australia.

PATIENTS

Fifty-seven patients from the Lipid Lowering and Onset of Renal Disease (LORD) trial.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg/day or matching placebo. Cognitive testing was performed in two sessions occurring 12 weeks apart and involved three repeated measures of attention and concentration.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Performance was measured using three standard neuropsychological tests: Digit Symbol Coding subtest, Trail Making Test, and Stroop Color-Word Reading Test. Patients received atorvastatin for a mean of 72.93 weeks and placebo for a mean of 68.85 weeks. Repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance failed to identify any significant differences between the two groups on any of the three cognitive measures. Multiple regression analyses identified no single factor or combination of plasma cholesterol levels, renal function, liver function, or age that predicted cognitive performance in either the atorvastatin or placebo group on the three measures at either testing session.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin 10 mg/day did not produce decrements to cognitive performance. In addition, biochemical and demographic measures and the receipt of atorvastatin versus placebo did not individually or in combination predict cognitive performance on measures of attention and concentration.