Point: why statins have failed to reduce mortality in just about anybody

Longitudinal lipid trends and adverse outcomes in patients with CKD: a 13-year observational cohort study

Studies on the effects of longitudinal lipid trajectories on end-stage renal disease (ESRD) development and deaths among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. We conducted a registry-based prospective study using data from a 13-year multidisciplinary pre-ESRD care program. The final study population comprised 4,647 patients with CKD. Using group-based trajectory modeling, we dichotomized longitudinal trajectories of total cholesterol (T-CHO), triglyceride (TG), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), and HDL cholesterol (HDL-C). Time to ESRD or death was analyzed using multiple Cox regression. At baseline, higher levels of T-CHO and LDL-C were associated with rapid progression to ESRD, whereas only HDL-C was positively associated with all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; P-value, 0.005]. Compared with those with a normal T-CHO trajectory, the fully adjusted HR of patients with a high T-CHO trajectory for ESRD risk was 1.21 (P-value, 0.019). Subgroup analysis showed that a high TG trajectory was associated with a 49% increase in mortality risk in CKD patients without diabetes (P-value for interaction, 0.012). In contrast to what was observed based on baseline HDL-C, patients with a trajectory of frequent hypo-HDL cholesterolemia had higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.53; P-value, 0.014). Thus, only T-CHO, both at baseline and over the longitudinal course, demonstrated a significant potential risk of incident ESRD. The inconsistency in the observed directions of association between baseline levels and longitudinal trajectories of HDL-C warrants further research to unveil specific pathogenic mechanisms underlying the HDL-C metabolism in patients with CKD.

Statins and the cholesterol mortality paradox

Large-scale randomised controlled trials, carried out in the context of secondary cardiovascular prevention, have shown that statins are superior to placebo: these drugs were shown to decrease cardiovascular events and total mortality. A further set of clinical trials compared high intensity to low/standard intensity LDL cholesterol lowering in the same setting (using either statins or a statin/ezetimibe association). In this case, a decrease in LDL cholesterol and a concomitant significant reduction in cardiovascular events were seen with intensive therapy, however with no change in total mortality. This phenomenon we may term the LDL cholesterol mortality paradox. It could be due either to the prevention (by high-intensity therapy) of episodes not severe enough to lead to the death of patients, or to high-intensity therapy leading to the death of some patients at the same time as preventing the death of others, with a null aggregate effect. Several types of adverse effects have been seen with statin therapy, such as a possible increased incidence of Diabetes mellitus and of myopathy. The decision to start high-intensity LDL cholesterol lowering (rather than low- or moderate-intensity statin treatment) should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the overall aspects of each patient, including the patient’s preferences. High-intensity LDL cholesterol lowering, up to the present moment, has failed to produce a change in overall prognosis (total mortality), and should not therefore be mandatory in secondary cardiovascular prevention. It remains to be seen if a similar LDL cholesterol mortality paradox occurs with new drugs targeting plasma lipids.