Comparison of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in Hispanic-Americans with hypercholesterolemia (from the STARSHIP trial)

In a multicenter, open-label trial, 696 Hispanic patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels > or =130 and < or =300 mg/dl and triglyceride levels <400 mg/dl at medium or high risk of coronary heart disease were randomized to receive 10 or 20 mg of rosuvastatin or 10 or 20 mg of atorvastatin for 6 weeks. At week 6, LDL cholesterol was decreased more by 10 mg of rosuvastatin than by 10 mg of atorvastatin (45% vs 36%, p <0.0001) and more by 20 mg of rosuvastatin than by 20 mg of atorvastatin (50% vs 42%, p <0.0001). Significantly greater decreases were also observed with rosuvastatin for total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein-B, and lipid ratios compared with milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin. Overall, National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Program III LDL cholesterol goals were achieved by 78% and 88% of patients who received 10 and 20 mg of rosuvastatin and by 60% and 73% of patients who received 10 and 20 mg of atorvastatin, respectively. Among high-risk patients, the LDL cholesterol goal of <100 mg/dl was achieved by 74% and 91% of patients who received 10 and 20 mg of rosuvastatin and by 52% and 62% who received 10 and 20 mg of atorvastatin, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, and adverse events were similar in frequency across treatment groups. No cases of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis were observed. In conclusion, treatment with rosuvastatin and atorvastatin produced beneficial lipid changes in this group of Hispanic patients that appear comparable in magnitude to those observed in primarily non-Hispanic white study populations. These benefits were accompanied by a favorable safety profile that suggests no concerns particular to this population.     

Comparison of the effects of combination atorvastatin (40 mg) + ezetimibe (10 mg) versus atorvastatin (40 mg) alone on secretory phospholipase A2 activity in patients with stable coronary artery disease or coronary artery disease equivalent

Secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) is an enzyme that plays an important role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and of adverse cardiovascular events. It is currently the target of emerging therapeutic agents. Our study was designed to investigate the effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with ezetimibe and atorvastatin on sPLA2 activity. We randomized 100 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or CAD equivalent (diabetes, stroke, or peripheral vascular disease) to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/day in association with atorvastatin 40 mg/day (combination therapy group) versus atorvastatin 40 mg/day and placebo (monotherapy group). Patients on statin therapy before inclusion were allowed to enter the study as long as the potency of the statin was lower than atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Lipid profile, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and sPLA activity were measured at baseline and after 8 weeks of therapy. The decrease in LDL cholesterol was more significant in the combination therapy group, but the decrease in hs-CRP was similar. sPLA2 activity significantly decreased in the ezetimibe/atorvastatin group from 29 U/ml (interquartile range 23 to 35) to 26 U/ml (23 to 29, p = 0.001) but remained similar in the placebo/atorvastatin group (23 U/ml, 19 to 32, vs 22 U/ml, 19 to 28, p = NS). In a multivariate stepwise linear regression model, change in sPLA2 correlated with change in hs-CRP (p <0.001), baseline LDL cholesterol level (p = 0.001), body mass index (p = 0.003), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.04) and combination therapy with ezetimibe/atorvastatin (p = 0.05). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that coadministration of ezetimibe and atorvastatin decreases sPLA2 activity.     

Improvement in endothelium dysfunction in diabetics treated with statins: a randomized comparison of atorvastatin 20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg

AIM: To investigate the effect a 3-month treatment with atorvastatin 20 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10 mg on endothelium dysfunction in subjects with diabetes. METHODS: A total of 22 consecutive subjects with diabetes who were not receiving statins were enrolled in the study. Endothelium function was assessed before treatment (T0), after 1 month (T1), and after 3 months of treatment (T2) with statins with brachial echo-Doppler test. Patients were randomized to receive atorvastatin 20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg. Blood samples were drawn in the meantime in order to evaluate C-reactive protein (CRP) plasmatic concentrations. RESULTS: A total of 82% of patients enrolled showed endothelium dysfunction (hyperemic reserve <5%). Treatment with statins significantly improved endothelium function in diabetics. Subjects with endothelium dysfunction decreased from 82% (T0) to 44% (T2): mean hyperemic reserve values increased from 2.64% (T0) to 3.23% (T1) and 4% (T2) in patients treated with rosuvastatin (ANOVA P < 0.01), and from 2.74% (T0) to 2.75% (T1) and 4.40% (T2) in those treated with atorvastatin (ANOVA P < 0.01); differences were significant only comparing T2 with T0. Relative increase in endothelium reserve was 51.51% with rosuvastatin versus 60.58% with atorvastatin (P N.S.). Both statins significantly reduced plasmatic levels of CRP (3.18 +/- 2.43 mg/dL [T0] vs. 1.31 +/- 1.67 mg/dL [T2] with rosuvastatin [P < 0.01], 7.53 +/- 7.46 mg/dL [T0] vs. 2.92 +/- 2.06 mg/dL [T2] with atorvastatin [P < 0.01]). Relative reduction of CRP levels was -50.57% with rosuvastatin versus -36.28% with atorvastatin (P N.S.). CONCLUSION: A 3-month treatment with either atorvastatin 20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg is effective in improving endothelium dysfunction in subjects with diabetes.     

Comparison of lipid-modifying efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndrome (from the LUNAR study)

Patients with acute coronary syndrome are recommended for early aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering therapy. The LUNAR study compared the efficacy of rosuvastatin with that of atorvastatin in decreasing LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Adult patients with coronary artery disease who were hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within 48 hours of first symptoms were randomized (n = 825) to an open-label, once-daily treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg (RSV20), rosuvastatin 40 mg (RSV40), or atorvastatin 80 mg (ATV80) for 12 weeks. Patients were evaluated at weeks 2, 6, and 12. The primary end point was treatment efficacy in lowering LDL cholesterol averaged over 6 to 12 weeks. Changes in other lipoproteins, including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and safety were evaluated. Analysis of covariance was used to compare least squares mean differences between each rosuvastatin treatment arm and the atorvastatin arm. The efficacy of RSV40 in lowering LDL cholesterol was significantly greater than that of ATV80 (46.8% vs 42.7% decrease, p = 0.02). LDL cholesterol lowering by RSV20 was similar to that by ATV80. Increases in HDL cholesterol were significantly greater with RSV40 (11.9%, p <0.001) and RSV20 (9.7%, p <0.01) than with ATV80 (5.6%). RSV40 was also significantly more effective than ATV80 in improving most other secondary efficacy variables, whereas the effects of RSV20 on these parameters were generally similar to those of ATV80. All 3 treatments were generally well tolerated over 12 weeks. In conclusion, results from the LUNAR study show that RSV40 more effectively decreased LDL cholesterol, increased HDL cholesterol, and improved other blood lipid parameters than ATV80 in patients with acute coronary syndrome.     

Comparison of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in South-Asian patients at risk of coronary heart disease (from the IRIS Trial)

In a large randomized trial of statin therapy in patients of South-Asian origin with hypercholesterolemia, 740 patients in the United States and Canada received 6 weeks of treatment with rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg. A total of 485 patients (66%) were categorized as being at high risk of coronary heart disease and had a National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III treatment goal of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol <100 mg/dl (<2.6 mmol/L). LDL cholesterol decreased by 45% with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus 40% with atorvastatin 10 mg (p = 0.0023) and by 50% with rosuvastatin 20 mg versus 47% with atorvastatin 20 mg (p = NS). National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL cholesterol goal achievement rates in high-risk patients (all patients) were 76% (79%) and 88% (89%) with rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg, respectively, compared with 70% (76%) and 81% (85%) with atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, respectively. Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were well tolerated. There were no clinically relevant differences between statins in adverse events or incidence of creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal, alanine aminotransferase >3 times the upper limit of normal on 2 consecutive occasions, or proteinuria or hematuria over the relatively short duration of treatment. In conclusion, statin therapy was well tolerated and effective in decreasing LDL cholesterol in patients of South-Asian origin, with the 10- and 20-mg doses of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin allowing most patients to reach recommended LDL cholesterol goals.     

Comparison of treatment of severe high-density lipoprotein cholesterol deficiency in men with daily atorvastatin (20 mg) versus fenofibrate (200 mg) versus extended-release niacin (2 g)

To determine whether available lipid-modifying medication can increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol in well-defined genetic or familial HDL-deficiency states, we studied 19 men with HDL deficiency (HDL cholesterol <5th percentile for age and gender) 55 +/- 10 years of age. Concomitant risk factors included diabetes (n = 3) and hypertension (n = 7) and 8 patients had coronary artery disease. Molecular analysis revealed that 4 patients had a mutation in the ABCA1 gene. Patients were assigned to sequentially receive atorvastatin 20 mg/day, fenofibrate 200 mg/day, and extended-release niacin 2 g/day for 8 weeks, with a 4-week washout period between each treatment. Patients in whom a statin was required, according to current treatment guidelines, were kept on atorvastatin throughout the study. Baseline HDL cholesterol level was 0.63 +/- 0.12 mmol/L (24 +/- 5 mg/dl), triglycerides 2.01 +/- 0.98 mmol/L (180 +/- 86 mg/dl), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol 2.29 +/- 0.95 mmol/L (94 +/- 39 mg/dl). Mean percent changes in HDL cholesterol on atorvastatin, fenofibrate, and niacin were -6% (p = NS), +6% (p = NS), and +22% (p <0.05), respectively. Furthermore, niacin significantly increased the large alpha-1 apolipoprotein A-I-containing HDL subspecies (12 to 17 nm). In conclusion, niacin was the only effective drug to increase HDL cholesterol. The absolute increase in HDL cholesterol, approximately 0.10 mmol/L (3.9 mg/dl), is of uncertain clinical significance. Biomarkers of HDL-mediated cellular cholesterol efflux were not changed by niacin therapy. Atorvastatin or fenofibrate had little effect on HDL cholesterol; atorvastatin decreased the total cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio by 26%. Fenofibrate did not change HDL cholesterol levels and caused an increase in LDL cholesterol. Aggressive LDL cholesterol lowering may be the strategy of choice in such patients.     

The effects of atorvastatin (10 mg) on systemic inflammation in heart failure

In observational studies, statins are associated with lower mortality in patients with heart failure (HF), including those with nonischemic HF. Such benefits could be related to anti-inflammatory effects; however, the effects of statins on systemic inflammation in HF are not well-established. We conducted a 16-week, single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial of the effects of atorvastatin 10 mg/day on concentrations of systemic inflammatory markers in 22 patients with HF (including 20 with nonischemic HF) with New York Heart Association class II or III symptoms and left ventricular ejection fraction of <40%. The absolute and percentage of changes in inflammatory marker levels were evaluated using analysis of variance. Statin treatment reduced the concentrations of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 by 132 pg/ml (p = 0.04) and 8% (p = 0.056), C-reactive protein by 1.6 mg/L (p = 0.006) and 37% (p = 0.0002), and, after adjustment for treatment order, endothelin-1 by 0.21 pg/ml (p = 0.007) and 17% (p = 0.01). In post hoc analyses, the reduction in tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 levels was highest among patients with elevated levels at baseline (at or higher than the median of 1,055 pg/ml, p interaction = 0.001), among whom statin therapy reduced the levels by 306 pg/ml (p <0.001) and 22% (p <0.001). Statin treatment did not significantly affect the levels of other inflammatory markers, including interleukin-6 and brain natriuretic peptide. In conclusion, short-term atorvastatin therapy reduced the levels of several important inflammatory markers in patients with HF.     

Comparison of efficacy and safety of atorvastatin (10mg) with simvastatin (10mg) at six weeks. ASSET Investigators

The 6-week efficacy and safety of atorvastatin versus simvastatin was determined during a 54-week, open-label, multicenter, parallel-arm, treat-to-target study. In all, 1,424 patients with mixed dyslipidemia (triglyceride 200 to 600 mg/dl [2.26 to 6.77 mmol/L]) were stratified to 1 of 2 groups (diabetes or no diabetes). Patients were then randomized to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg/ day (n = 730) or simvastatin 10 mg/day (n = 694). Efficacy was determined by measuring changes from baseline in lipid parameters including low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B. Compared with simvastatin, atorvastatin produced significantly greater (p < 0.0001) reductions from baseline in LDL cholesterol (37.2% vs 29.6%), total cholesterol (27.6% vs 21.5%), triglycerides (22.1% vs 16.0%), the ratio of LDL cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (41.1% vs 33.7%), and apolipoprotein B (28.3% vs 21.2%), and a comparable increase from baseline in HDL cholesterol (7.4% vs 6.9%). Atorvastatin was also significantly (p < 0.0001) more effective than simvastatin at treating the overall patient population to LDL cholesterol goals (55.6% vs 38.4%). Fewer than 6% of patients in either treatment group experienced drug-attributable adverse events, which were mostly mild to moderate in nature. Diabetic patients treated with either statin had safety characteristics similar to nondiabetics, with atorvastatin exhibiting superior efficacy to simvastatin. In conclusion, atorvastatin, at a dose of 10 mg/day, is more effective than simvastatin 10 mg/day at lowering lipids and reaching LDL cholesterol goals in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. Both statins are well tolerated with safety profiles similar to other members of the statin class.     

Comparison of the effects of high doses of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on the subpopulations of high-density lipoproteins

Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are both highly effective in decreasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels. However, rosuvastatin was shown to be more effective in increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. The purpose of the study is to compare the effects of daily doses of rosuvastatin 40 mg with atorvastatin 80 mg during a 6-week period on HDL subpopulations in 306 hyperlipidemic men and women. We previously showed that increased levels of large alpha-1 and alpha-2 HDLs decrease the risk of coronary heart disease and protect against progression of coronary atherosclerosis (superior to HDL cholesterol). In this study, both statins caused significant increases in large alpha-1 (p <0.001) and alpha-2 (p <0.001 for rosuvastatin, p <0.05 for atorvastatin) and significant (p <0.001) decreases in small pre-beta-1 HDL levels; however, increases in the 2 large HDL particles were significantly higher for rosuvastatin than atorvastatin (alpha-1, 24% vs 12%; alpha-2, 13% vs 4%; p <0.001). Statin-induced increases in alpha-1 and alpha-2 correlated with increases in HDL cholesterol, whereas decreases in pre-beta-1 were associated with decreases in triglycerides. In subjects with low HDL cholesterol (<40 mg/dl for men, <50 mg/dl for women, n = 99), increases in alpha-1 were 32% versus 11%, and in alpha-2, 21% versus 5% for rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, respectively. In conclusion, our data show that both statins, given at their maximal doses, favorably alter the HDL subpopulation profile, but also that rosuvastatin is significantly more effective in this regard than atorvastatin.     

Effect of atorvastatin (80 mg/day) versus pravastatin (40 mg/day) on arterial remodeling at coronary branch points (from the REVERSAL study)

The effect of moderate and intensive lipid lowering on plaque progression and arterial remodeling at coronary branch points was investigated. Intensive (+1 +/- 19.6%), but not moderate (+4.1 +/- 15.1%), lipid lowering prevented an increase in the percent [corrected] plaque area at the branch points. The 2 strategies were associated with increased areas of the lumen (+7.6% to 9.4%) and external elastic membrane (+9.6% to 10.8%). In contrast, there was no significant change in plaque, lumen, and/or external elastic membrane areas at the nonbranch point site. These results suggest that intensive lipid lowering can have a dramatic effect on atheroma-prone regions and that remodeling in response to changes in plaque is a heterogenous process.     

Comparison of efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in African-American patients in a six-week trial

The lipid-modifying effects of statin therapy in hypercholesterolemic African-Americans have not been well characterized. This study compared the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin treatment for 6 weeks in hypercholesterolemic African-American adults. In the African American Rosuvastatin Investigation of Efficacy and Safety (ARIES) trial (4522US/0002), 774 adult African-Americans with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol > or = 160 and < or = 300 mg/dl and triglycerides < 400 mg/dl were randomized to receive open-label rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg for 6 weeks. At week 6, significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B concentrations, as well as lipoprotein and apolipoprotein ratios, were seen with rosuvastatin versus milligram-equivalent atorvastatin doses (analysis of variance with Bonferroni-adjusted critical p < 0.017 for all comparisons). Rosuvastatin 10 mg also increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg (p < 0.017). Although statistical comparisons were not performed, larger proportions of rosuvastatin-treated patients than atorvastatin-treated patients achieved National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. The median high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels were significantly reduced statistically from baseline with rosuvastatin 20 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg among all patients and with rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in those patients with a baseline C-reactive protein level > 2.0 mg/L. The 2 study medications were well tolerated during the 6-week study period. In conclusion, rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg improved the overall lipid profile of hypercholesterolemic African-Americans better than did milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin.     

Comparison of effects of high (80 mg) versus low (20 mg) dose of simvastatin on C-reactive protein and lipoproteins in patients with angiographic evidence of coronary arterial narrowing

Although previous studies have demonstrated that various "statins" decrease levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), the dose-response relation for lowering hs-CRP by the clinically important drug simvastatin compared with lipid lowering is unclear. A 16-week, randomized, double-blind study was performed in patients with stable coronary artery disease and high hs-CRP levels (>3 mg/L). Subjects were randomized to placebo, 20 mg of simvastatin, or 80 mg of simvastatin for 12 weeks. Those currently on a statin first underwent a 4-week washout. Of the 107 total patients randomized, 96 completed the trial, and 89 were able to be evaluated for efficacy. Changes in hs-CRP differed across simvastatin and placebo groups (change score +1.6 vs -0.6 mg/L, p = 0.004), but no dose response was observed when comparing 80 with 20 mg/day (-0.6 vs -0.5 mg/L, respectively). A strong dose response was observed for changes in total (p <0.01) and low-density lipoprotein (p <0.001) cholesterol. hs-CRP changes did not correlate with low-density lipoprotein changes. In conclusion, this randomized trial in patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease showed a strong dose response for simvastatin for total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering but not for hs-CRP.     

Comparison effect of atorvastatin (10 versus 80 mg) on biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress in subjects with metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome (MS), characterized by low-grade inflammation, confers an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Statins, in addition to having lipid-lowering effects, have pleiotropic effects and decrease biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress. The Treating to New Target Study showed a greater decrease in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and cardiovascular events with atorvastatin 80 mg versus 10 mg in patients with MS with coronary heart disease. However, part of this benefit could be caused by the greater pleiotropic effects of the higher dose of atorvastatin. The dose-response effect of atorvastatin on biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress has not been investigated in subjects with MS. Thus, the dose-response effect of atorvastatin on biomarkers of inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], matrix metalloproteinase-9, and nuclear factor-kappaB [NF-kB] activity) and oxidative stress (oxidized LDL, urinary nitrotyrosine, F2-isoprostanes, and monocyte superoxide release) was tested in a randomized double-blind clinical trial in subjects with MS. Seventy subjects were randomly assigned to receive placebo or atorvastatin 10 or 80 mg/day for 12 weeks. A strong dose-response (atorvastatin 10 compared with 80 mg, p <0.05) was observed for changes in total, LDL (32% and 44% reduction), non-high-density lipoprotein (28% and 40% reduction), and oxidized LDL cholesterol (24% and 39% reduction) at atorvastatin 10 and 80 mg, respectively. Hs-CRP, matrix metalloproteinase-9, and NF-kB significantly decreased in the 80-mg atorvastatin group compared with baseline. In conclusion, this randomized trial of subjects with MS showed the superiority of atorvastatin 80 mg compared with its 10-mg dose in decreasing oxidized LDL, hs-CRP, matrix metalloproteinase-9, and NF-kB activity.     

Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe added on to rosuvastatin 5 or 10 mg versus up-titration of rosuvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the ACTE Study)

The present multicenter, 6-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ezetimibe (10 mg) added to stable rosuvastatin therapy versus up-titration of rosuvastatin from 5 to 10 mg or from 10 to 20 mg. The study population included 440 subjects at moderately high/high risk of coronary heart disease with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels higher than the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations (<100 mg/dl for moderately high/high-risk subjects without atherosclerotic vascular disease or <70 mg/dl for high-risk subjects with atherosclerotic vascular disease). Pooled data demonstrated that ezetimibe added to stable rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by 21%. In contrast, doubling rosuvastatin to 10 mg or 20 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by 5.7% (between-group difference of 15.2%, p <0.001). Individually, ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin 5 mg reduced LDL cholesterol more than did rosuvastatin 10 mg (12.3% difference, p <0.001), and ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL cholesterol more than did rosuvastatin 20 mg (17.5% difference, p <0.001). Compared to rosuvastatin up-titration, ezetimibe add-on achieved significantly greater attainment of LDL cholesterol levels of <70 or <100 mg/dl (59.4% vs 30.9%, p <0.001), and <70 mg/dl in all subjects (43.8% vs 17.5%, p <0.001); produced significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001); and resulted in similar effects on other lipid parameters. Adverse experiences were generally comparable among the groups. In conclusion, compared to up-titration doubling of the rosuvastatin dose, ezetimibe 10 mg added to stable rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg produced greater improvements in many lipid parameters and achieved greater attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommended LDL cholesterol targets in subjects with elevated LDL cholesterol and at moderately high/high coronary heart disease risk.     

Comparative safety of atorvastatin 80 mg versus 10 mg derived from analysis of 49 completed trials in 14,236 patients

Atorvastatin has been shown to reduce coronary events and revascularization procedures in patients with multiple risk factors for coronary heart disease. Recent studies with atorvastatin 80 mg support the overall safety of this dose during long-term treatment. However, physicians appear reluctant to use high doses of statins. A retrospective analysis of pooled data from 49 clinical trials of atorvastatin in 14,236 patients treated for an average period of 2 weeks to 52 months was conducted. The study compared the safety of atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 7,258), atorvastatin 80 mg (n = 4,798), and placebo (n = 2,180) and included analyses on treatment-associated adverse events; nonserious and serious adverse events related to the musculoskeletal, hepatic, and renal systems; the incidence of elevations of creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN); and hepatic transaminases >3 times ULN. Percentages of patients experiencing > or =1 adverse event were similar across all 3 groups. Withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events were observed in 2.4%, 1.8%, and 1.2% of patients in the atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Serious adverse events were rare and seldom led to treatment withdrawal with any dose. Treatment-associated myalgia was observed in 1.4%, 1.5%, and 0.7% of patients in the atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. No cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in any group. Persistent elevations in hepatic transaminases >3 times ULN were observed in 0.1%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of patients in the atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The incidence of treatment-associated adverse events for atorvastatin 80 mg was similar to that of atorvastatin 10 mg and placebo. In conclusion, the results of this analysis support the positive safety profile of atorvastatin at the highest dose.     

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg versus atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the POLARIS study

POLARIS investigated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Patients (n=871) were randomized to rosuvastatin 40 mg/day or atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C levels at 8 weeks. Secondary assessments included safety and tolerability, NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal achievement, change in other lipids and lipoproteins at 8 and 26 weeks, and health economics. Mean LDL-C levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin 40 mg than with atorvastatin 80 mg at 8 weeks (-56% versus -52%, p<0.001). The proportion of patients achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal at 8 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group (80% versus 72%, p<0.01). Significant differences in the change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+9.6% versus +4.4%) and apolipoprotein (Apo)A-I levels (+4.2 versus -0.5) were observed between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin (all p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Based on a US analysis, rosuvastatin used fewer resources and delivered greater efficacy. Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day provided greater LDL-C-lowering efficacy than atorvastatin 80 mg/day, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goals. Rosuvastatin may therefore improve LDL-C goal achievement in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia.     

双源CT与冠脉血管内超声对照评价冠脉斑块

目的比较血管内超声(intravascular ultrasound,IVUS)与双源CT(dual-source computedtomography,DSCT)对冠状动脉粥样硬化斑块定性、定量分析的准确性。方法入选21例冠心病患者,以美国心脏协会冠状动脉13分段法,每个节段均判断斑块的有无及斑块性质,血管狭窄程度,测量定量指标。以IVUS为标准评估DSCT对冠状动脉粥样硬化病变诊断的价值。结果与IVUS相比,21例患者的28支血管,DSCT对所有部位狭窄程度50%、50%～75%、75%的病变的检测的敏感性分别为79.2%(38/48)、89.5%(34/38)、100%(16/16)。以节段中斑块为基础,DSCT对病变节段中所有斑块检测的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为96.0%(48/50)、86.5%(45/52)、87.3%(48/55)、95.7%(45/47)。DSCT检测非钙化斑块、钙化斑块的敏感性分别为91.9%(34/37)、92.3%(12/13),特异性分别为92.3%(12/13)、97.1%(34/35)。结论 DSCT可以准确诊断冠状动脉近中段中重度狭窄病变,具有较高的敏感性和阴性预测值;DSCT定量测量与IVUS结果相关性好,且可依据CT值的不同判断斑块的性质;DSCT区分非钙化斑块及在斑块的准确测量方面的可靠性有一定限制。     

Comparison of effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on the achievement of combined C-reactive protein (<2 mg/L) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (< 70 mg/dl) targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (from the ANDROMEDA study)

Decreasing C-reactive protein (CRP) in addition to decreasing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol may further decrease coronary heart disease risk. The effects of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin in achieving a combined target of LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl and CRP <2 mg/L in 509 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was evaluated. CRP decreased significantly versus baseline in both treatment groups. Significantly more patients treated with rosuvastatin achieved the combined end point of LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl and CRP <2 mg/L compared with atorvastatin by the end of the study period (58% vs 37%; p <0.001 vs atorvastatin). In conclusion, CRP was effectively decreased in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving rosuvastatin or atorvastatin, whereas rosuvastatin decreased LDL cholesterol significantly more than atorvastatin.