How to Use Statins in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Diseases: from the Beneficial Early Initiation to the Potentially Unfavorable Discontinuation

Statins, a class of lipid-lowering drugs, reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with established atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular disease. Early initiation of statin therapy after admission for acute coronary syndromes (ACS), stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA) is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, high-dose statin treatment prior to coronary or carotid revascularization has been shown to reduce cardiovascular events in these patients. However, many patients may be undertreated, and a residual cardiovascular risk remains in current clinical practice. Despite the beneficial role of statins, their discontinuation rate among patients is still elevated leading to severe adverse cardiovascular events due to atherosclerotic plaque destabilization. In this review, we summarized the impact of statin treatment among patients, focusing on the initiation time-points as well as the potential harm derived by their discontinuation.

Secondary prevention of major cerebrovascular events with seven different statins: a multi-treatment meta-analysis

Background

Statins have been recommended for the use in atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases, but different statins have distinct pharmacological characteristics. This multi-treatment meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of seven statins in the secondary prevention of major cerebrovascular events (CVEs).

Methods and analyses

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2016. The included randomized controlled trials investigated the efficacy of lovastatin, atorvastatin, fluvastatin, simvastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin or rosuvastatin in the secondary prevention of CVEs. The primary outcomes were CVEs; the secondary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal stroke and nonfatal stroke. Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were used for data synthesis.

Results

A total of 42 studies with 82,601 patients were included for analysis. In the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases, the major CVEs in pravastatin (risk ratio [RR] 0.87, 0.76–0.99)- and atorvastatin (RR 0.59, 0.49–0.72)-treated patients reduced significantly compared with controls. Indirect comparisons with network meta-analysis showed that RR was 0.60 (0.40–0.92) for atorvastatin compared with rosuvastatin. Compared to controls, the all-cause death was reduced by 12% in statins-treated patients (RR 0.88, 0.81–0.96). Indirect comparisons with network analysis showed a significant difference in the nonfatal stroke between fluvastatin-treated patients and lovastatin-treated patients (RR 0.28, 0.07–0.95).

Conclusion

Different statins have distinct pharmacological characteristics, and there are differences in statistical and clinical outcomes among several statins.

Roles of ST2, IL-33 and BNP in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events in acute myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention

This study investigated roles of serum ST2, IL-33 and BNP in predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Blood samples were collected from the included AMI patients (n = 180) who underwent PCI. All patients were divided into the MACEs and MACEs-free groups. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was performed to measure serum levels of ST2, IL-33 and BNP. Severity of coronary artery lesion was evaluated by Gensini score. Pearson correlation analysis was used. A receiver operating characteristics curve was drawn to evaluate the potential roles of ST2, IL-33 and BNP in predicting MACEs, and Kaplan-Meier curve to analyse the 1-year overall survival rate. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyse the independent risk factors for MACEs. Compared with the MACEs-free group, the serum levels of ST2, IL-33 and BNP were significantly higher in the MACEs group. Serum levels of ST2, IL-33 and BNP were positively correlated with each other and positively correlated with Gensini score. The area under curves of ST2, IL-33 and BNP, respectively, were 0.872, 0.675 and 0.902. The relative sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 76.27% and 85.92%, 69.49% and 58.68%, as well as, 96.61% and 77.69%. Serum levels of ST2, IL-33 and BNP were independent risk factors for MACEs. The 1-year overall survival rate was higher in AMI patients with lower serum levels of ST2, IL-33 and BNP. In conclusion, serum levels of ST2, IL-33 and BNP have potential value in predicting MACEs in AMI patients undergoing PCI.

All cholesterol-lowering interventions are expected to reduce stroke: Confirmatory data from IMPROVE-IT

The relationship of cholesterol with stroke is much less clear than its relationship with myocardial infarction, thus confounding the interpretation of results with cholesterol-lowering trials (Di Napoli et al., 2002) [1], (De Caterina et al., 2010) [2]). IMPROVE-IT data ((Cannon et al. 2015) [3]), showing a 13.3% reduction in total cholesterol at one year in association with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.i86 for total stroke during the trial, are very closely aligned with the relative risk of 0.90 predicted based on the totality of lipid lowering interventions ((De Caterina et al., 2016) [4]). We here provide the data from the original trials used to construct this meta-analysis, with the now added additional data from IMPROVE-IT, well-fitting the previously found meta-regression line. These data are important to predict stroke outcomes in currently ongoing trials now testing PCSK9 or cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors.

Statins for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The early period following the onset of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents a critical stage of coronary heart disease, with a high risk of recurrent events and deaths. The short-term effects of early treatment with statins on patient-relevant outcomes in patients suffering from ACS are unclear. This is an update of a review previously published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, both harms and benefits, of early administered statins in patients with ACS, in terms of mortality and cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL (2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to April Week 1 2013), EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 2013 Week 14), and CINAHL (EBSCO) (1938 to 2013) on 12 April 2013. We applied no language restrictions. We supplemented the search by contacting experts in the field, by reviewing the reference lists of reviews and editorials on the topic, and by searching trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing statins with placebo or usual care, with initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following the onset of ACS, follow-up of at least 30 days, and reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all outcomes in the treatment and control groups and pooled data using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies (14,303 patients) compared early statin treatment versus placebo or no treatment in patients with ACS. The new search did not identify any new studies for inclusion. There were some concerns about risk of bias and imprecision of summary estimates. Based on moderate quality evidence, early statin therapy did not decrease the combined primary outcome of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08) or four months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06) of follow-up when compared to placebo or no treatment. There were no statistically significant risk reductions from statins for total death, total myocardial infarction, total stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization procedures, and acute heart failure at one month or at four months, although there were favorable trends related to statin use for each of these endpoints. Moderate quality evidence suggests that the incidence of unstable angina was significantly reduced at four months following ACS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). There were nine individuals with myopathy (elevated creatinine kinase levels more than 10 times the upper limit of normal) in statin-treated patients (0.13%) versus one (0.015%) in the control groups. Serious muscle toxicity was mostly limited to patients treated with simvastatin 80 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate quality evidence, due to concerns about risk of bias and imprecision, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following ACS does not reduce death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to four months, but reduces the occurrence of unstable angina at four months following ACS. Serious side effects were rare.

Early and late prognostic implications of coronary artery bypass timing after myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

The optimal timing of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after myocardial infarction (MI) is still controversial. With advances in perioperative care and myocardial protection, CABG is not infrequently undertaken sooner. Although CABG soon after MI is associated with high morbidity and mortality, the impact of CABG timing on late survival is not clear.

METHODS

We analysed prospectively collected data for 8320 patients who underwent primary CABG from 1996 through 2010. Operative outcomes and late survival were compared between patient categories based on MI-to-CABG days: groups A (0-30, n = 658), B (31-60, n = 734), C (>90, n = 2698) and D (no MI, n = 4230). The effect of the timing of surgery on survival was determined using multivariate and Kaplan-Meier analyses.

RESULTS

As the MI-to-CABG interval increased, the frequency of urgent/emergency operations decreased and hospital mortality (A, 3.5% vs B, 2.6% vs C, 1.2%, vs D, 1.1%, P < 0.0001) steadily declined. In general, patients who had CABG within 90 days of MI had more cardiac morbidity and co-morbidities. Expectedly, therefore, postoperative organ system dysfunction (cardiac, renal, respiratory and neurological) was more frequent in these groups. Reoperation for bleeding was similar for all groups, but blood product transfusion decreased as the MI-to-CABG days increased. The 10-year survival improved with the MI-to-CABG interval (A, 72.2% vs B, 73.4% vs C, 75.8% vs D, 81.4%, P < 0.0001). By multivariate analysis, the MI-to-CABG interval was not a risk factor for operative or late mortality. However, less frequent were left internal mammary artery use, non-elective surgery and high blood transfusion rates; all more often associated with shorter MI-to-CABG intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Early and late mortality risk for CABG declines with increasing interval from MI for reasons indirectly linked to the timing of surgery. Our findings emphasize the importance of preoperative organ system optimization and consistent left internal mammary artery use, regardless of the proximity of surgery to MI or the exigency of surgery.

Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta-analysis of statins

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are usually the preferred strategy with which to generate evidence of comparative effectiveness, but conducting an RCT is not always feasible. Though observational studies and RCTs often provide comparable estimates, the questioning of observational analyses has recently intensified because of randomized-observational discrepancies regarding the effect of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy on coronary heart disease. Reanalyses of observational data that excluded prevalent users of hormone replacement therapy led to attenuated discrepancies, which begs the question of whether exclusion of prevalent users should be generally recommended. In the current study, the authors evaluated the effect of excluding prevalent users of statins in a meta-analysis of observational studies of persons with cardiovascular disease. The pooled, multivariate-adjusted mortality hazard ratio for statin use was 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 0.91) in 4 studies that compared incident users with nonusers, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.78) in 13 studies that compared a combination of prevalent and incident users with nonusers, and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.66) in 13 studies that compared prevalent users with nonusers. The corresponding hazard ratio from 18 RCTs was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.91). It appears that the greater the proportion of prevalent statin users in observational studies, the larger the discrepancy between observational and randomized estimates.

Adverse events associated with individual statin treatments for cardiovascular disease: an indirect comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Statins are the most widely prescribed drug available. Due to this reason, it is important to understand the risks involved with the drug class and individual statins.

AIM

We conducted a meta-analysis and employed indirect comparisons to identify differing risk effects across statins.

DESIGN

We included any randomized clinical trial (RCT) of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin used for cardiovascular disease event prevention. The main outcome was adverse events [all-cause mortality, cancers, rhabdomylosis, diabetes, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT), and creatinine kinase (CK) increases beyond the upper limit of normal]. In order to evaluate the relative effects of each drug on adverse events, we calculated adjusted indirect comparisons of the adverse-event outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy-two trials involving 159,458 patients met our inclusion criteria. Overall, statin treatments significantly increased the rate of diabetes when compared to controls (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.16) and elevated AST (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.04-1.66) and ALT (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11-1.48) levels when compared to controls. Using indirect comparisons, we also found that atorvastatin significantly elevated AST levels compared to pravastatin (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.13-4.29) and simvastatin significantly increased CK levels when compared to rosuvastatin (OR: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.01-19.07). Higher dose studies had increased risk of AST elevations.

DISCUSSION

Although statins are generally well tolerated, there are risks associated with almost all drugs. With few exceptions, statins appear to exert a similar risk across individual drugs.

Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Target Goal Attainment Rate and Physician Perceptions about Target Goal Achievement in Korean Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

This study aims to investigate the discrepancy between clinicians' perceptions and actual achievement rates of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in Korean patients with diabetes according to updated American Diabetes Association (ADA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACC) recommendations.

METHODS

This is a multi-center, retrospective, non-interventional, observational study. Diabetic patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had been diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia or were receiving a lipid-lowering therapy between May 2010 and August 2010. The information was obtained by reviewing medical records and using a self-completed questionnaire to examine physician perceptions.

RESULTS

A total of 2,591 subjects who satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Highest-risk and high-risk patients accounted for 61.9% and 38.1% of the patients, respectively. Although most (96.3%) underwent a statin monotherapy or a statin-based combination therapy, just 47.4% of patients attained the LDL-C target. However, the physicians' perceptions on target achievement rate (70.6%) were different from the actual results (47.4%). Many patients (65.3%) remained on the starting doses of statins, despite evidence of poor achievement of lipid goals.

CONCLUSION

Only less than half of patients with diabetes attained the LDL-C goal. The surveys showed that poor physician performance might be due to the lack of recognition on ADA/ACC consensus causing a low LDL-C target attainment rate. Therefore, changes in doctor perception are needed to attain target LDL-C level and reduce cardiovascular risk in Korean patients with diabetes.

Statins for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The early period following the onset of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represents a critical stage of coronary heart disease with a high risk for recurrent events and deaths. The short-term effects of early treatment with statins in patients suffering from ACS on patient-relevant outcomes are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early administered statins in patients with ACS from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to 1 February 2010). No language restrictions were applied. We supplemented the search by contacting experts in the field, by reviewing reference lists of reviews and editorials on the topic, and by searching trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing statins with placebo or usual care, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following the onset of ACS, and follow-up of at least 30 days reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We pooled treatment effects and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all outcomes in the treatment and control groups using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies (14,303 patients) compared early statin treatment versus placebo or usual care in patients with ACS. Compared to placebo or usual care, early statin therapy did not decrease the combined primary outcome of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08) and four months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06) of follow-up. There were no statistically significant risk reductions from statins for total death, total MI, total stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization procedures, and acute heart failure at one month and at four months, although there were favorable trends related to statin use for each of these endpoints. The incidence of episodes of unstable angina was significantly reduced at four months following ACS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). There were nine individuals with myopathy (elevated creatinine kinase levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal) in statin treated patients (0.13%) versus one (0.015%) in the control groups. Serious muscle toxicity was mostly limited to patients treated with simvastatin 80 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following ACS does not reduce death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to four months, but reduces the occurrence of unstable angina at four months following ACS.

Efficacy and tolerability of a generic and a branded formulation of atorvastatin 20 mg/d in hypercholesterolemic Korean adults at high risk for cardiovascular disease: a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The reduction in plasma LDL-C concentrations with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy has been reported to reduce cardiovascular risk and mortality in individuals with or without preexisting coronary artery disease and elevated LDL-C concentrations. Atorvastatin is a statin used for lowering LDL-C concentrations. A generic formulation of atorvastatin is being developed in Korea. This study was undertaken for the purposes of marketing the generic formulation.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a generic formulation of atorvastatin 20 mg/d versus a branded formulation at the same dosage in hypercholesterolemic Korean adults at high risk for cardiovascular events.

METHODS

This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study was conducted at 10 clinical centers in Korea between September 2008 and May 2009. Male and female patients aged 20 to 85 years at high risk for cardiovascular events (defined as an elevated LDL-C concentration [≥100 mg/dL]) were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive generic or branded atorvastatin 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage change from baseline to 8 weeks in LDL-C concentration. Secondary end points were the percentage changes from baseline in total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), HDL-C, apolipoprotein (apo) A1 and B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations; small, dense LDL (sdLDL) fraction; and tolerability. Tolerability was assessed using physical examination, laboratory testing, and by recording adverse events (AEs) at each visit. An additional secondary end point was the proportion of patients who achieved an LDL-C goal of <100 mg/dL.

RESULTS

A total of 244 patients were randomized to treatment, and 33 patients were withdrawn from the study (9 patients did not receive the study medication, 11 patients due to AEs, and 13 patients due to withdrawal of consent). A total of 211 patients completed the study (50.7% male; 100% Asian; mean [SD] age, 61.7 [9.2] years) (106 patients in the group that received Accepted for publication October 5, 2010. the generic formulation and 105 patients in the group that received the branded formulation). LDL-C concentrations were reduced from the baseline by 44% and 46% after 8 weeks of treatment with the generic and branded formulations, respectively (P = NS). The percentage changes from baseline to study end in HDL-C, TC, TG, apo A1, apo B, and hsCRP concentrations and sdLDL fraction the proportions of patients who achieved the LDL-C goal between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance. The most commonly reported events were hepatobiliary laboratory abnormality (1.7%), general somatic discomfort (1.7%), and epigastric pain (0.8%) in the group that received the generic formulation, and myalgia (1.7%), epigastric pain (0.9%), and elevation of creatinine phosphokinase (0.9%) in the group that received the branded formulation. No serious AEs were reported in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

After 8 weeks of treatment, the differences in the LDL-C-lowering effects between the generic and branded formulations of atorvastatin 20 mg/d did not reach statistical significance in these Korean patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. Both formulations were generally well tolerated.

Updated evidence on early statin therapy for acute coronary syndromes: meta-analysis of 18 randomized trials involving over 14,000 patients

BACKGROUND

The short-term effects of early statin therapy in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) on clinical outcomes remain unclear. Our objective was to update the evidence on patient relevant outcomes from all randomized trials comparing early statin therapy with placebo or usual care at 1 and 4 months following ACS.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared statins to control, initiated within 14 days after onset of ACS and with minimal follow-up of 30 days. Data were extracted in duplicate and analyzed by a random effects model. Investigators from individual trials contributed additional data where needed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 trials involving 14,303 patients with ACS were included in the meta-analysis. We found no evidence for further trials on the topic. Risk ratios for the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke of early statin therapy compared to control were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.08; P=0.34) at 1 month and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.81-1.06; P=0.27) at 4 months following ACS. There were favorable trends related to statin use for all individual secondary endpoints but there was no statistically significant risk reduction except for unstable angina with a risk ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.96; P=0.02) at 4 months following ACS.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following ACS results in directionally favorable but non-significant reduction in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 4 months, and significant reduction in the occurrence of unstable angina at 4 months following ACS.

Efficacy and safety of statin treatment for cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis of 170,255 patients from 76 randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Statins represent the largest selling class of cardiovascular drug in the world. Previous randomized trials (RCTs) have demonstrated important clinical benefits with statin therapy.

AIM

We combined evidence from all RCTs comparing a statin with placebo or usual care among patients with and without prior coronary heart disease (CHD) to determine clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

We searched independently, in duplicate, 12 electronic databases (from inception to August 2010), including full text journal content databases, to identify all statin versus inert control RCTs. We included RCTs of any statin versus any non-drug control in any populations. We abstracted data in duplicate on reported major clinical events and adverse events. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We performed a mixed treatment comparison using Bayesian methods.

RESULTS

We included a total of 76 RCTs involving 170,255 participants. There were a total of 14,878 deaths. Statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality, Relative Risk (RR) 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.94, P ≤ 0.0001, I(2)=17%]; cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87, P<0.0001, I(2)=27%); fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91, P<0.0001, I(2)=21%); non-fatal MI (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67-0.81, P ≤ 0.001, I(2)=45%); revascularization (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.81, P ≤ 0.0001); and a composite of fatal and non-fatal strokes (0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.95, P=0.004, I(2)=41%). Adverse events were generally mild, but 17 RCTs reported on increased risk of development of incident diabetes [Odds Ratio (OR) 1.09; 95% CI 1.02-1.17, P=0.001, I(2)=11%]. Studies did not yield important differences across populations. We did not find any differing treatment effects between statins.

DISCUSSION

Statin therapies offer clear benefits across broad populations. As generic formulations become more available efforts to expand access should be a priority.

Rationale and design of assessment of lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin therapy in acute myocardial infarction (the ALPS-AMI) study

BACKGROUND

Statins reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Although all statins are equally effective in secondary prevention, there might be certain differences in the effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins. Therefore, our aim is to compare the effectiveness of lipophilic atorvastatin and hydrophilic pravastatin in secondary prevention after AMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of 500 patients with AMI. Patients that have undergone successful percutaneous coronary intervention will be randomly allocated to receive either atorvastatin or pravastatin with the treatment goal of lowering their low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level below 100 mg/dl for 2 years. The primary endpoint will be death due to any cause, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure requiring hospital admission, or any type of coronary revascularization.

CONCLUSION

This is the first multicenter trial to compare the effects and safety of lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy in Japanese patients with AMI. It addresses an important issue and could influence the use of statin treatment in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

Better survival with statin administration after revascularization therapy in Japanese patients with coronary artery disease: perspectives from the CREDO-Kyoto registry

BACKGROUND

The importance of statins in cardiovascular prevention has been demonstrated in various patient subsets. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of statins on long-term outcomes of Japanese patients undergoing their first coronary revascularization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 9,225 patients undergoing their first coronary revascularizations during 2000--2002 were divided into 2 groups according to the use of statins at discharge; patients with acute myocardial infarction were not included. Statins was administered to only 28.5% (n=2,630) of the patients. The median follow-up period was 3.5 years. Patients on statin therapy showed lower all-cause (5.2% vs 10.0%; p<0.0001) and cardiovascular (3.2% vs 6.2%; p<0.0001) mortality than those without statins (n=6,595) by Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. After adjustment by multivariate analysis according to 29 variables, statin therapy remained as an independent predictor of reduced all-cause (relative risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-0.86, p=0.0005) and cardiovascular (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.91, p=0.0067) mortality. The validity of RR of statin therapy in multivariate analysis was further confirmed by risk adjustment using propensity scores (all-cause mortality: propensity-adjusted RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.85, p=0.0003; cardiovascular mortality: propensity-adjusted RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, p=0.0038).

CONCLUSIONS

Statin therapy started at hospital discharge was associated with increased chance of survival in Japanese patients undergoing their first coronary revascularization.

Investigation of blood lipid levels and statin interventions in outpatients with coronary heart disease in China: the China Cholesterol Education Program (CCEP)

BACKGROUND

The aim of the China Cholesterol Education Program is to investigate the blood lipid levels, the statin intervention and the rates of achieving the goal of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) level in Chinese outpatients with coronary heart disease (CHD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The multicenter study recruited 4,778 outpatients with CHD. The mean level of LDL-C for the total outpatients was 2.93+/-1.00 mmol/L; 82.2% of the participants received statin therapy. The LDL-C levels were 3.06+/-1.08 mmol/L and 2.89+/-0.97 mmol/L in outpatients with high risk and very high risk, respectively (p<0.001). No significant difference was found about the rates of statin intervention in outpatients at high risk and very high risk (81.4% vs 82.5%, p>0.05). Though they had higher rates of statin intervention, only 36.2% of the high-risk outpatients achieved the target LDL-C level (<2.6 mmol/L); 10.9% of the very high risk outpatients achieved the optimal LDL-C level (<1.82 mmol/L) suggested by NCEP ATP III. The rate of achieving the target level was only 42.2%, even though LDL-C <2.6mmol/L was the goal for patients at very high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the outpatients received a higher rate of statin therapy, the rates of achieving the target cholesterol level were lower. There is a significant gap between the guidelines and clinical practice in China.