The "Statinth" wonder of the world: a panacea for all illnesses or a bubble about to burst

Proof of concept in cardiovascular risk: the paradoxical findings in blood pressure and lipid abnormalities

High blood pressure and lipoprotein abnormalities were identified by many cohort studies as the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Laboratory experiments apparently confirmed their role in the causation of atherosclerosis, but a proof of concept requires the corroboration by clinical trials in human beings. The size of benefit in clinical trials regarding the control of high blood pressure was within the estimations of risk provided by cohort studies. For a reduction of 10 mmHg in systolic blood pressure or 5 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure, the relative risk reduction of coronary heart disease was 22% (95% confidence interval 27%-17%) in a meta-analysis of clinical trials, close to the estimation of reduction of 25% (95% confidence interval 23%-27%) provided by a meta-analysis of cohort studies. The corresponding values for stroke were 41% (95% confidence interval 33%-48%) in clinical trials compared to a cohort risk prediction of 36% (95% confidence interval 34%-38%). This efficacy was shared by all blood pressure-lowering drugs. The same figure has not paradoxically happened with drugs that act over abnormalities of cholesterol and lipoproteins. Only statins, which have other beneficial actions as well, have consistently lowered the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, an efficacy that was not reproduced by older and newer quite potent lipid drugs. The adverse effects of these drugs may nullify their beneficial effects over lipoproteins and abnormalities of lipoproteins may only be surrogate markers of the underlying real risks.

Statin use and the risk of age related macular degeneration in a large health organization in Israel

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between persistent use of statins and the risk of age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

DESIGN

A population-based retrospective cohort among adults who began statin therapy between 1998 and 2006 in a large health organization in Israel. The organization's central computerized databases were used to collect data on incident AMD cases diagnosed by ophthalmologists.

RESULTS

A total of 108,973 individuals aged 55 or older were identified. During the study follow-up period 409,113 person-years, there were 2,732 incident AMD cases (6.68 per 1,000 person-years). The crude incidence density rate of AMD among patients at the lowest quintile of persistence with statins (7.18 per 1,000) was comparable to that of highest persistence quintile (7.13 per 1,000). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients in the highest quintile of persistence with statins had a hazard ratio of 0.99 (95% Confidence Interval: 0.78-1.26) for AMD compared with patients in the lowest proportion of days covered (PDC) quintile. In addition to age, AMD was found to associate with past smoking, asthma, diabetes and frequent visits to ophthalmologists or primary physicians prior to index date.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study agrees with previous studies that showed no association between persistent use of statins and reduced risk of AMD. These results suggest that the early reports on a strong protective effect of statins against AMD development were probably a result of a small study effect.

Long-term statin use does not act on the temporal trend of CD4 cell count in patients on virologically effective HAART

Pleiotropic features are attributed to statins and fibrates, and effects on laboratory markers of HIV disease progression have been claimed. To assess whether statins/fibrates have long-term effects on the immune recovery of patients on virologically effective HAART, a prospective, comparative study was conducted on 267 dyslipidemic patients treated with either statins, fibrates, or on a dietary exercise programme only. Quarterly assessment of CD4 cell counts showed no differences between groups, thus excluding in-vivo negative immunological effects during effective HAART.

What clinical pharmacology means to us

Clinical Pharmacology is a specialty with many attributes and our association with the subject has allowed us to acquire, apply and disseminate myriad aspects of research and practice. Though clinical pharmacologists are conspicuous by virtue of their small number, recent years have shown a growing need for the course. In the review below we navigate through several aspects of the subject as we encountered them from time to time. From critical appraisal of literature, to application of knowledge of drugs, to clinical practice; moving on to clinical and basic research, to drug development process, to policy making - these are but a few of the many fields which constitute the scope of clinical pharmacology. The importance of the subject lies in allowing a trainee to develop a broad overview of the entire process, from drug generation to drug distribution to drug utilization, a process meant for the greater common goal of better health for all. We foresee a bright future for the subject though with a slight skepticism thrown in. In the present article, we make use of personal experiences and reference from literature to help you get a broad view of what clinical pharmacology means to us.