 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
STATIN TRIALS
6) PPP trial ( The Prospective Prevention Pooling Project-Reduction of Strokes Events with Pravastatin)
advertisement
Summary
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability. Although clinical trials of the early lipid-lowering therapies did not demonstrate a reduction in the rates of stroke, data from recently completed statin trials strongly suggest benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: The effect of pravastatin 40 mg/d on stroke events was investigated in a prospectively defined pooled analysis of 3 large, placebo-controlled, randomized trials that included 19 768 patients with 102 559 person-years of follow-up. In all, 598 participants had a stroke during approximately 5 years of follow-up. The 2 secondary prevention trials (CARE [Cholesterol And Recurrent Events] and LIPID [Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease]) individually demonstrated reductions in nonfatal and total stroke rates. When the 13 173 patients from CARE and LIPID were combined, there was a 22% reduction in total strokes (95% CI 7% to 35%, P:=0.01) and a 25% reduction in nonfatal stroke (95% CI 10% to 38%). The beneficial effect of pravastatin on total stroke was observed across a wide range of patient characteristics. WOSCOPS (West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study, a primary prevention trial in hypercholesterolemic men) exhibited a similar, although smaller, trend for a reduction in total stroke. Among the CARE/LIPID participants, pravastatin was associated with a 23% reduction in nonhemorrhagic strokes (95% CI 6% to 37%), but there was no statistical treatment group difference in hemorrhagic or unknown type. CONCLUSIONS: Pravastatin reduced the risk of stroke over a wide range of lipid values among patients with documented coronary disease. This effect was due to a reduction in nonfatal nonhemorrhagic strokes.
7) REVERSAL ( Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering)
Summary
CONTEXT: Statin drugs reduce both atherogenic lipoproteins and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal strategy and target level for lipid reduction remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of regimens designed to produce intensive lipid lowering or moderate lipid lowering on coronary artery atheroma burden and progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Double-blind, randomized active control multicenter trial (Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering [REVERSAL]) performed at 34 community and tertiary care centers in the United States comparing the effects of 2 different statins administered for 18 months. Intravascular ultrasound was used to measure progression of atherosclerosis. Between June 1999 and September 2001, 654 patients were randomized and received study drug; 502 had evaluable intravascular ultrasound examinations at baseline and after 18 months of treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a moderate lipid-lowering regimen consisting of 40 mg of pravastatin or an intensive lipid-lowering regimen consisting of 80 mg of atorvastatin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy parameter was the percentage change in atheroma volume (follow-up minus baseline). RESULTS: Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (mean, 150.2 mg/dL [3.89 mmol/L] in both treatment groups) was reduced to 110 mg/dL (2.85 mmol/L) in the pravastatin group and to 79 mg/dL (2.05 mmol/L) in the atorvastatin group (P<.001). C-reactive protein decreased 5.2% with pravastatin and 36.4% with atorvastatin (P<.001). The primary end point (percentage change in atheroma volume) showed a significantly lower progression rate in the atorvastatin (intensive) group (P =.02). Similar differences between groups were observed for secondary efficacy parameters, including change in total atheroma volume (P =.02), change in percentage atheroma volume (P<.001), and change in atheroma volume in the most severely diseased 10-mm vessel subsegment (P<.01). For the primary end point, progression of coronary atherosclerosis occurred in the pravastatin group (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2% to 4.7%; P =.001) compared with baseline. Progression did not occur in the atorvastatin group (-0.4%; CI -2.4% to 1.5%; P =.98) compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with coronary heart disease, intensive lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis compared with pravastatin. Compared with baseline values, patients treated with atorvastatin had no change in atheroma burden, whereas patients treated with pravastatin showed progression of coronary atherosclerosis. These differences may be related to the greater reduction in atherogenic lipoproteins and C- reactive protein in patients treated with atorvastatin.
3) SPARCL ( Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Level)
Summary
BACKGROUND: Statins reduce the incidence of strokes among patients at increased risk for cardiovascular disease; whether they reduce the risk of stroke after a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) remains to be established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 4731 patients who had had a stroke or TIA within one to six months before study entry, had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 100 to 190 mg per deciliter (2.6 to 4.9 mmol per liter), and had no known coronary heart disease to double-blind treatment with 80 mg of atorvastatin per day or placebo. The primary end point was a first nonfatal or fatal stroke. RESULTS: The mean LDL cholesterol level during the trial was 73 mg per deciliter (1.9 mmol per liter) among patients receiving atorvastatin and 129 mg per deciliter (3.3 mmol per liter) among patients receiving placebo. During a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 265 patients (11.2 percent) receiving atorvastatin and 311 patients (13.1 percent) receiving placebo had a fatal or nonfatal stroke (5-year absolute reduction in risk, 2.2 percent; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.99; P=0.03; unadjusted P=0.05). The atorvastatin group had 218 ischemic strokes and 55 hemorrhagic strokes, whereas the placebo group had 274 ischemic strokes and 33 hemorrhagic strokes. The five-year absolute reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events was 3.5 percent (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P=0.002). The overall mortality rate was similar, with 216 deaths in the atorvastatin group and 211 deaths in the placebo group (P=0.98), as were the rates of serious adverse events. Elevated liver enzyme values were more common in patients taking atorvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent stroke or TIA and without known coronary heart disease, 80 mg of atorvastatin per day reduced the overall incidence of strokes and of cardiovascular events, despite a small increase in the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke.
4) A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial design study to evaluate the lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of the ezetimibe/simvastatin tablet compared with ezetimibe and simvastatin monotherapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.Bays HE, Ose L, Fraser N, Tribble DL, Quinto K, Reyes R, Johnson-Levonas AO, Sapre A, Donahue SR; Ezetimibe Study Group. 
Summary
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of ezetimibe/simvastatin(EZE/SIMVA) combination tablet, relative to ezetimibe (EZE) and simvastatin (SIMVA) monotherapy, in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial design study After a 6- to 8-week washout period and 4-week, single-blind, placebo run in, hypercholesterolemic patients (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], 145-250 mg/dL; triglycerides [TG], < or =350 mg/dL) were randomized equally to 1 of 10 daily treatments for 12 weeks: EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg; SIMVA 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; EZE 10 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy analysis was mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C to study end point Secondary end points included percent changes in other lipid variables and C-reactive protein [CRP]. RESULTS: There were 1528 patients randomized to treatment (792 women, 736 men); mean (SD) age ranged from 54.9 (112) years to 56.4 (10.6) years across pooled treatment groups. The treatment groups were well balanced for baseline demographics. Pooled EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater reductions in LDL-C than pooled SIMVA or EZE alone (P < 0.001). Depending on dose, EZE/SIMVA was associated with reductions in LDL-C of -44.8% to -602%, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of -40.5% to -55.7%, and TG of -22.5% to -30.7%; high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased by 5.5% to 9.8%. EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater reductions in CRP and remnant-like particle-cholesterol than SIMVA alone (P < 0.001). More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA versus SIMVA achieved LDL-C concentrations <100 mg/dL (78.6% vs 45.9%; P < 0.001). EZE/SIMVA was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to SIMVA monotherapy There were no significant differences between EZE/SIMVA and SIMVA in the incidence of consecutive liver transaminase levels > or =3 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) (1 .5% for EZE/SIMVA and 1.1% for SIMVA; P = NS) or creature kinase levels > or =10 times ULN (0.0% for EZE/SIMVA and 02% for SIMVA; P = NS). CONCLUSION: The EZE/SIMVA tablet was a highly effective and well-tolerated LDL-C-lowering therapy in this study of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.
If you have any comments or updates, kindly email us.
Editor,
PassPACES.com, 2005-2007