Relationship between LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels and clinical outcome in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study

BACKGROUND: Although available guidelines suggest reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to below 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), the importance of target-oriented therapy remains controversial. To assess whether achieving guideline-based targets is of benefit, the relationship between clinical outcomes and lipid levels (baseline and on-study) was evaluated in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study. This study demonstrated significant reductions in morbidity and mortality associated with active dose titration of atorvastatin and structured management of dyslipidaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis (Cox proportional hazards model) was used to assess the relationship between lipid values and coronary events. Higher levels of LDL-C at baseline were associated with a greater risk of subsequent events among patients randomized to usual care. Reducing the LDL-C and the non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level to the National Cholesterol Educational Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III goals required greater doses of atorvastatin for the higher baseline quartile of LDL-C. During the study there was a greater reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events in atorvastatin-treated patients who were in the highest quartile of LDL-C at baseline, after achieving the LDL-C treatment goal, in comparison to the usual care patients in the highest baseline LDL-C quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals by titrating up the dose of atorvastatin was associated with a significant reduction in vascular events in patients with CHD. The greatest benefit was seen in those patients with the highest baseline LDL-C levels.     

Effect of atorvastatin on highdensity lipoprotein cholesteroland its relationship withcoronary events: a subgroupanalysis of the GREekAtorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study

SUMMARY

Objective: To investigate the relationship between changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels after statin treatment and the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD)-related events in the secondary CHD prevention GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study. These findings suggested that dose titration

with atorvastatin (10-80mg/day, mean 24mg/day) achieves the National Cholesterol Educational Program treatment goals and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality, in comparison to usual care.

Methods: Analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of atorvastatin on HDL-C over

time (up to 48 months) in 1600 CHD patients. The time-dependent multivariate Cox predictive model, involving backward stepwise logistic regression, was used to evaluate the relation between coronary events and HDL-C changes.

Results: The mean increase in HDL-C levels during the study was 7%. All doses of atorvastatin significantly increased HDL-C levels. Increases were greater in men (7.8 vs 6.1%; p?=?0.02), in combined hyperlipidaemia (7.9 vs 6.4% for hypercholesterol-aemia; p?=?0.04), and in the lower baseline HDL-C quartile (9.2 vs 5.3%, 1st vs 4th quartile; p?=?0.001). After adjustment for 24 predictors of coronary events, multivariate analysis revealed a Hazards Ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence

interval 0.76-0.94; p?=?0.002) for every 4?mg/dL (0.1?mmol/L) increase in HDL-C.

Conclusions: There was a significant beneficial effect on HDL-C levels across the dose range of atorvastatin. Clinical outcomes in the structured care arm of GREACE were determined in part by the extent of atorvastatin-induced HDL-C increase. This effect was independent from benefit induced by low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, suggesting that the CHD risk reduction associated with a rise in a low HDL-C at baseline remains significant under aggressive (-46%) LDL-C lowering conditions. However, the relationship between HDL-C and vascular risk may be weaker when LDL-C levels are aggressively lowered.     

Treatment with Atorvastatin to the National Cholesterol Educational Program Goal Versus 'Usual' Care in Secondary Coronary Heart Disease Prevention

Summary

Background: Atorvastatin is very effective in reducing plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, there is no long-term survival study that evaluated this statin.

Patients?Methods: To assess the effect of atorvastatin on morbidity and mortality (total and coronary) of patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD), 1600 consecutive patients were randomised either to atorvastatin or to 'usual' medical care. The dose of atorvastatin was titrated from 10 to 80mg/day, in order to reach the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goal of LDL-C <100mg/dl (2.6mmol/l). All patients were followed up for a mean period of 3 years.

Main Outcome Measures: Primary endpoints of the study were defined as death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, revascularisation (coronary morbidity) and stroke. Secondary endpoints were the safety and efficacy of the hypolipidaemic drugs as well as the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin.

Results: The mean dosage of atorvastatin was 24?mg/day. This statin reduced total cholesterol by 36%, LDL-C by 46%, triglycerides by 31%, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) by 44%, while it increased HDL-C by 7%; all these changes were significant. The NCEP LDL-C and non-HDL-C treatment goals were reached by 95% (n?=?759) and 97% (n?=?776), respectively, of patients on atorvastatin. Only 14% of the 'usual' care patients received any hypolipidaemic drugs throughout the study and 3% of them reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained with atorvastatin was estimated at $US 8350. During this study 196 (24.5%) CHD patients on 'usual' care had a CHD recurrent event or died vs. 96 (12%) CHD patients on atorvastatin; risk ratio (RR) 0.49, confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.73, p?<?0.0001. In detail, atorvastatin reduced, in comparison to 'usual' care, total mortality (RR 0.57, CI 0.39-0.78, p?=?0.0021), coronary mortality (RR 0.53, CI 0.29-0.74, p?=?0.0017), coronary morbidity (RR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.71, p?<?0.0001), and stroke (RR 0.53, CI 0.30-0.82, p?=?0.034). All subgroups of patients (women, those with diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, age 60 to 75 years, congestive heart failure, recent unstable angina or prior revascularisation) benefited from treatment with atorvastatin. Withdrawal of patients because of side-effects from the atorvastatin group was low (0.75%) and similar to that of the 'usual' care group (0.4%).

Conclusions: Long-term treatment of CHD patients with atorvastatin to achieve NCEP lipid targets significantly reduces total and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity and stroke, in comparison to patients receiving 'usual' medical care. Treatment with atorvastatin is well tolerated and cost-effective.     

Effects of statin treatment in men and women with stable coronary heart disease: a subgroup analysis of the GREACE Study

ABSTRACT

Background: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to National Cholesterol Expert Panel (NCEP) goal is recommended. However, sex-specific effects may influence benefit.

Methods and results: In this post hoc analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease (CHD) Evaluation [GREACE] study we investigated the extent in vascular event reduction by statin treatment according to sex. From a total of 1600 patients with stable CHD, 624/176 and 632/168 were men/women on atorvastatin or on usual care, respectively. During 3-year follow-up, comparison of atorvastatin treatment with usual care demonstrated a relative risk reduction (RRR) of the primary end point (all vascular events) of 54?%?in women (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46, 95?%?confidence interval [CI] 0.24–0.87, p?=?0.003) and of 50?%?in men (HR 0.50, 95?%?CI 0.32–0.70, p?<?0.001). The fall in LDL-C levels played the key role in end point reduction in both sexes. However, in men there was an additional benefit related to the atorvastatin-induced increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), while in women end points were related to a substantial triglycerides (TG) reduction.

Conclusions: Treatment with atorvastatin to the NCEP LDL-C goal compared with “usual care” significantly reduced CHD morbidity and mortality in both men and women. Both men and women benefited from statin treatment possibly with different mechanisms making a contribution over and above LDL-C reduction.     

Attaining United Kingdom-European Atherosclerosis Society Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Guideline Target Values in the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study

Summary

The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study compared two standards (structured vs. usual care) of lipid lowering treatment in 1600 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Structured care aimed at achieving (with atorvastatin 10-80?mg) the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (2.6?mmol/l; 100?mg/dl) goal described in the NCEP ATP II and III guidelines for patients with CHD. Structured care was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality and coronary events compared to usual care.

In the present brief report we interpret the results of GREACE using the United Kingdom (UK) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) treatment goal for LDL-C in secondary CHD prevention (3.0?mmol/l; 115?mg/dl). The mean dose of atorvastatin decreased from 24?mg to 22?mg/day. More patients achieved the UK and EAS LDL-C target (95.6 vs. 95%) in the structured care arm of the trial; 90% of the patients achieved this target with 10 or 20?mg atorvastatin.

These findings may have cost implications, especially if the LDL-C target for high-risk patients will fall below those described above.     

Efficacy and safety of simvastatin in Asian and non-Asian coronary heart disease patients: a comparison of the GOALLS and STATT studies

SUMMARY

Background: Asians are thought to be more responsive to the lipid-lowering effects of statins than non-Asians although there are no head-to-head trials that examine this perception.

Objective: To compare the results of the GOALLS and STATT studies that used similar titrate-to-goal protocols with 20?mg up to 80?mg simvastatin in Asian and non-Asian coronary heart disease (CHD) patients.

Methods: GOALLS (N = 198; included non-Asians and Asians) and STATT (N = 133; included Asians only) were both multi-center, open-label 14-week studies in CHD patients with serum low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels 115?mg/dL–180?mg/dL and triglycerides (TG) levels ≤ 400?mg/dL. Simvastatin was titrated from 20?mg/day up to 80?mg/day in order to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) LDL-C target ≤ 100?mg/dL. The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of patients attaining the NCEP LDL-C target at Week 14. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society/European Society of Hypertension (European) LDL-C target ≤ 115?mg/dL at Week 14 and percentage change in lipid parameters. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring adverse experiences and safety laboratory tests. Fifteen Asian patients were part of the GOALLS cohort and their data were compared separately with results of non-Asians from GOALLS and Asians from the STATT study.

Results: After 14?weeks of simvastatin treatment, 87.1% of GOALLS non-Asians, 85.7% of GOALLS Asians, and 78.2% of STATT patients attained the NCEP LDL-C target. At Week 14, 94.4%, 92.9%, and 91.7% of the GOALLS non-Asians, GOALLS Asians, and STATT patients achieved the European LDL-C target, respectively. The average treatment doses to attain NCEP and European targets were comparable among groups. The percentage reductions in lipid parameters from baseline to week 14 were similar among groups except, changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I favored Asian subjects. There was also a greater reduction in TG in the STATT study, but this was not consistent with TG reductions experienced by Asians in the GOALLS study. In both studies, simvastatin was generally well tolerated by all patients across the dosage range of 20?mg–80?mg. No cases of rhabdomyolysis or myopathy were reported in either study.

Conclusions: A great majority of CHD patients is able to achieve LDL-C treatment goals (up to 90%) on simvastatin regardless of racial background. Simvastatin treatment at doses of 20?mg–80?mg is well-tolerated in Asian and non-Asian CHD patients. This side-by-side comparison provides evidence that Asian and non-Asian CHD populations respond similarly to comparable doses of simvastatin.     

Treatment with atorvastatin to the National Cholesterol Educational Program goal versus 'usual' care in secondary coronary heart disease prevention. The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) study

BACKGROUND: Atorvastatin is very effective in reducing plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, there is no long-term survival study that evaluated this statin. PATIENTS-METHODS: To assess the effect of atorvastatin on morbidity and mortality (total and coronary) of patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD), 1600 consecutive patients were randomised either to atorvastatin or to 'usual' medical care. The dose of atorvastatin was titrated from 10 to 80 mg/day, in order to reach the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goal of LDL-C <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l). All patients were followed up for a mean period of 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints of the study were defined as death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, congestive heart failure, revascularisation (coronary morbidity) and stroke. Secondary endpoints were the safety and efficacy of the hypolipidaemic drugs as well as the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin. RESULTS: The mean dosage of atorvastatin was 24 mg/day. This statin reduced total chlesterol by 36%, LDL-C by 46%, triglycerides by 31%, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) by 44%, while it increased HDL-C by 7%; all these changes were significant. The NCEP LDL-C and non-HDL-C treatment goals were reached by 95% (n = 759) and 97% (n = 776), respectively, of patients on atorvastatin. Only 14% of the 'usual' care patients received any hypolipidaemic drugs throughout the study and 3% of them reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. The cost per quaility-adjusted life-year gained with atorvastatin was estimated at $US 8350. During this study 196 (24.5%) CHD patients on 'usual' care had a CHD recurrent event or died vs. 96 (12%) CHD patients on atorvastatin; risk ratio (RR) 0.49, confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.73, p < 0.0001. In detail, atorvastatin reduced, in comparison to 'usual' care, total mortality (RR 0.57, CI 0.39-0.78, p = 0.0021), coronary mortality (RR 0.53, CI 0.29-0.74, p = 0.0017), coronary morbidity (RR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.71, p < 0.0001), and stroke (RR 0.53, CI 0.30-0.82, p = 0.034). All subgroups of patients (women, those with diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, age 60 to 75 years, congestive heart failure, recent unstable angina or prior revascularisation) benefited from treatment with atorvastatin. Withdrawal of patients because of side-effects from the atorvastatin group was low (0.75%) and similar to that of the 'usual' care group (0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment of CHD patients with atorvastatin to achieve NCEP lipid targets significantly reduces total and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity and stroke, in comparison to patients receiving 'usual' medical care. Treatment with atorvastatin is well tolerated and cost-effective.     

Effect of atorvastatin on high density lipoprotein cholesterol and its relationship with coronary events: a subgroup analysis of the GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between changes in high density lipoprotein cholesterol(HDL-C) levels after statin treatment and the risk for coronary heart disease (CHD)-related events in the secondary CHD prevention GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary heart disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study. These findings suggested that dose titration with atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day, mean 24 mg/day)achieves the National Cholesterol Educational Program treatment goals and significantly reduces morbidity and mortality, in comparison to usual care. METHODS: Analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of atorvastatin on HDL-C over time (up to 48 months) in 1600 CHD patients. The time-dependent multivariate Cox predictive model,involving backward stepwise logistic regression,was used to evaluate the relation between coronary events and HDL-C changes. RESULTS: The mean increase in HDL-C levels during the study was 7%. All doses of atorvastatin significantly increased HDL-C levels. Increases were greater in men (7.8 vs 6.1%; p = 0.02), in combined hyperlipidaemia (7.9 vs 6.4% for hypercholesterolaemia; p = 0.04), and in the lower baseline HDL-C quartile (9.2 vs 5.3%, 1st vs 4th quartile; p = 0.001). After adjustment for 24 predictors of coronary events, multivariate analysis revealed a Hazards Ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.94; p = 0.002) for every 4 mg/dL(0.1 mmol/L) increase in HDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant beneficial effect on HDL-C levels across the dose range of atorvastatin. Clinical outcomes in the structured care arm of GREACE were determined in part by the extent of atorvastatin-induced HDL-C increase.This effect was independent from benefit induced by low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)reduction, suggesting that the CHD risk reduction associated with a rise in a low HDL-C at baseline remains significant under aggressive (-46%) LDL-C lowering conditions. However, the relationship between HDL-C and vascular risk may be weaker when LDL-C levels are aggressively lowered.     

The DISCOVERY PENTA study: a DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL‐C Value – an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY compared with atorvastatin

ABSTRACT

Background: International guidelines emphasize the need to achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) levels in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, many patients with hypercholesterolemia fail to achieve LDL‐C goals on treatment.

Objective: The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin for enabling patients to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL‐C goals. Secondary objectives were European LDL‐C goal achievement, changes in the lipid profile, and safety.

Research design and methods: This 12‐week, multicenter, multinational, randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10?mg with atorvastatin 10?mg in statin-naïve and switched patients with primary hypercholesterolemia from Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Portugal, and Venezuela.

Results: A total of 1124 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized to the two treatment groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving rosuvastatin 10?mg compared with atorvastatin 10?mg achieved NCEP ATP III LDL‐C goals (71.2% vs 61.4%, p < 0.001), 1998 European LDL‐C goals (73.5% vs 59.2%, p < 0.001) and 2003 European LDL‐C goals (58.9% vs 44.6%, p < 0.001). Rosuvastatin treatment was associated with significant reductions in LDL‐C and total cholesterol (TC) and, in statin-naïve patients, a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) compared with atorvastatin treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events. Clinically significant elevations in creatinine, creatine kinase or hepatic transaminases were low and similar between treatment groups.

Conclusions: Rosuvastatin 10?mg is significantly more effective at achieving NCEP ATP III and European LDL‐C goals, lowering LDL‐C and TC in both naïve and switched patients and increasing HDL‐C in naïve patients than atorvastatin 10?mg, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. This study also provides evidence regarding the comparative effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in Latin American and Portuguese populations.     

Attaining United Kingdom-European Atherosclerosis Society low-density lipoprotein cholesterol guideline target values in the Greek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study

The GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation (GREACE) Study compared two standards (structured vs. usual care) of lipid lowering treatment in 1600 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Structured care aimed at achieving (with atorvastatin 10-80 mg) the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (2.6 mmol/l; 100 mg/dl) goal described in the NCEP ATP II and III guidelines for patients with CHD. Structured care was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality and coronary events compared to usual care. In the present brief report we interpret the results of GREACE using the United Kingdom (UK) and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) treatment goal for LDL-C in secondary CHD prevention (3.0 mmol/l; 115 mg/dl. The mean dose of atorvastatin decreased from 24 mg to 22 mg/day. More patients achieved the UK and EAS LDL-C target (95.6 vs. 95%) in the structured care arm of the trial; 90% of the patients achieved this target with 10 or 20 mg atorvastatin. These findings may have cost implications, especially if the LDL-C target for high-risk patients will fall below those described above.     

Predictors of uncontrolled hyperlipidaemia in high-risk ambulatory patients in primary care

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine (a) the proportion of patients at high risk of cardiovascular events who achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals as recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP ATP III) guidelines, and (b) the predictors of poor LDL-C control.

Methods: Two open-label, prospective, non-randomised, observational studies (study 1 with n?=?19 194 patients, predominantly with coronary artery disease (CHD); study 2 with n?=?19 484 patients, predominantly with diabetes mellitus (DM)). Patients received, usually after statin pretreatment, ezetimibe 10?mg plus simvastatin as fixed-dose combinations over 3?months. Bivariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with poor LDL-C control.

Results: At study end, 38?%?(up from 4.7?%?at baseline) of CHD and 35?%?(up from 3.3?%?at baseline) of diabetic patients achieved the target LDL value?<?100?mg/dl (2.6?mmol/l) after treatment with a fixed-dose ezetimibe–simvastatin combination. In both studies, concomitant atherosclerotic disease was associated with good control. Conversely, factors associated with poor control were, among others, high baseline LDL-C values, pretreatment with certain statins, and (in the DM study) high HbA_1c, and high body mass index.

Conclusion: Under real world, general practice conditions, a substantial proportion of high-risk patients with CHD and/or DM met LDL-C target levels on dual cholesterol inhibition with ezetimibe/simvastatin. A limited number of easily recognisable factors allow physicians to identify high risk patients whose LDL-C is likely to be difficult to control. Early identification of this patient group may have profound clinical benefits in general practice by enabling specific early interventions such as counselling on physical activity, dietary support and/or follow up visits to the GP.     

Long-term treatment effect of atorvastatin on aortic stiffness in hypercholesterolaemic patients

Summary

Aim: To assess the effect of atorvastatin on aortic stiffness in hypercholesterolaemic patients free of arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

Methods and Results: The study included 36 patients (25 men and 11 women, mean age 56?±?12 years); 18 patients had stable coronary heart disease (CHD) and 18 were free of CHD at baseline. All patients received atorvastatin (20mg/day) for a 2-year period. Aortic stiffness was assessed by transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and 2 years later. At baseline, total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and LDL-C/high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio were positively related to aortic stiffness (p?<?0.001 for all). The mean change in lipid parameters during treatment was: total cholesterol ?38%, LDL-C ?46%, triglycerides ?29%, and HDL-C +6%, all significant (p?=?0.029 to <0.0001). After the 2-year treatment with atorvastatin, aortic stiffness was significantly reduced by 14% (p?=?0.019). An improvement of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction by 13% (p?<?0.001) and a reduction of LV mass index by 9% (p?=?0.008) were also recorded. The change in aortic stiffness was similar in patients with or without CHD.

Conclusion: Long-term treatment with atorvastatin improves aortic stiffness; this index is related to total and coronary mortality. Moreover, assessment of aortic stiffness may be useful in identifying which hypercholesterolaemic patients should be treated aggressively, regardless of CHD. The aortic stiffness effect may eventually become an index of the efficacy of lipid lowering treatment.     

The DISCOVERY PENTA study: a DIrect Statin COmparison of LDL-C Value--an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY compared with atorvastatin

BACKGROUND: International guidelines emphasize the need to achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in order to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, many patients with hypercholesterolemia fail to achieve LDL-C goals on treatment. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin for enabling patients to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goals. Secondary objectives were European LDL-C goal achievement, changes in the lipid profile, and safety. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, multinational, randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg with atorvastatin 10 mg in statin-na?ve and switched patients with primary hypercholesterolemia from Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Portugal, and Venezuela. RESULTS: A total of 1124 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized to the two treatment groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, a significantly greater percentage of patients receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg achieved NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals (71.2% vs 61.4%, p < 0.001), 1998 European LDL-C goals (73.5% vs 59.2%, p < 0.001) and 2003 European LDL-C goals (58.9% vs 44.6%, p < 0.001). Rosuvastatin treatment was associated with significant reductions in LDL-C and total cholesterol (TC) and, in statin-na?ve patients, a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared with atorvastatin treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events. Clinically significant elevations in creatinine, creatine kinase or hepatic transaminases were low and similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg is significantly more effective at achieving NCEP ATP III and European LDL-C goals, lowering LDL-C and TC in both na?ve and switched patients and increasing HDL-C in na?ve patients than atorvastatin 10mg, with a similar safety and tolerability profile. This study also provides evidence regarding the comparative effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in Latin American and Portuguese populations.     

Eltrombopag in patients with chronic liver disease

Objective: To compare change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C goal attainment in diabetic patients treated with rosuvastatin versus other statins in a large, managed care health plan. Research Design and Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis used medical and pharmacy claims linked to laboratory results from a commercial/MedicareAdvantage health plan. Study participants were ≥ 18 years of age, had a diagnosis of diabetes, were newly treated with statins from 8/1/03 to 2/28/05, and were considered at high risk for cardiovascular events as defined by NCEP guidelines. Subjects were continuously enrolled for 12 months pre-index and ≥ 30 days post-index, with variable follow-up until therapy discontinuation or end of health plan eligibility. Main Outcome Measures: Change in LDL-C from baseline, and attainment of NCEP LDL-C goal among patients not at goal before starting therapy. Results: A total of 3337 adult patients with diabetes were identified with new use of statin therapy during the identification period. A total of 9% (n = 301) started on rosuvastatin, 49.4% (n = 1,649) on atorvastatin, 20.7% (n = 690) on simvastatin, 7.0% (n = 234) on pravastatin, 11.7% (n = 391) on lovastatin and 2.2% (n = 72) on fluvastatin. After controlling for covariates, rosuvastatin patients experienced a significantly greater decrease in LDL-C from baseline (38.7%) than patients taking atorvastatin (34.2%) (p = 0.05), simvastatin (31.5%), pravastatin (24.2%), fluvastatin (26.3%) or lovastatin (24.9%) (p < 0.0001). Rosuvastatin users were significantly more likely to attain LDL-C goal than those taking the other statins (odds ratio: 0.44, 0.28, 0.14, 0.14, 0.19, respectively; p < 0.001). Predicted percent attaining goal was significantly greater for those taking rosuvastatin (87.3%) than for those taking atorvastatin (76.9%), simvastatin (68.7%), pravastatin (55.0%), lovastatin (55.3%) or fluvastatin (61.3%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: For diabetic patients, rosuvastatin is more effective at reducing LDL-C levels and attaining NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal than other statins in real-world clinical practice.     

Beyond LDL-C – The Importance of Raising HDL-C

Summary

Epidemiological studies have established that low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Recent studies have demonstrated that low HDL-C levels, and high triglycerides and total cholesterol levels are independent predictors of CHD, and that the combination of these lipid abnormalities increases the risk of coronary events. In lipid-modifying intervention studies, agents that raise HDL-C levels have been shown to reduce the incidence of major coronary events. The VA-HIT study consisted of patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels similar to those recommended by several guidelines but with low levels of HDL-C. This trial demonstrated that raising HDL-C levels with gemfibrozil reduced the risk of CHD-related events. While the mechanisms by which HDL-C exerts its anti-atherogenic effects have yet to be fully elucidated, its role in the reverse transport of cholesterol and the beneficial effects on endothelial function are plausible explanations for these actions.

Although LDL-C reduction is the primary goal in the treatment of dyslipidaemia, current guidelines recognise low HDL-C levels as a major risk factor for CHD. Indeed, the NCEP ATP III guidelines suggest that the treatment of isolated low HDL-C levels in CHD patients or individuals with CHD risk equivalents should be considered. The differing abilities of statins to raise HDL-C levels may be an important factor when making treatment decisions. New lipid-modifying drugs with beneficial effects on both HDL-C and LDL-C levels would be desirable additions to the currently available therapeutic options.     

Atorvastatin affects C-reactive protein levels in patients with coronary artery disease

SUMMARY

Background: Elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) are considered to be one of the indicators of poor prognosis in coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this study was to evaluate anti-inflammatory effects of atorvastatin in patients with CAD by measuring serum CRP levels.

Methods: After measuring the baseline levels of CRP and lipid fractions, the patients were divided into two groups. In Group A (n?=?46), atorvastatin (20?mg/day) was administered in addition to classic antianginal treatment (beta-blocker, nitrate and aspirin). In Group B (n?=?32), the usual antianginal treatment was continued. Following 4 weeks of treatment the same measurements were repeated.

Results: In Group A, CRP decreased from 20.3?mg/dl (95% CI, 9-31.8) to 10.8?mg/dl (95% CI, 2.7-18.9) (p?<?0.001). In Group B, CRP decreased from 17?mg/dl (95% CI, 13.1-21) to 12.8?mg/dl (95% CI, 9.7-15.9) (p?<?0.01). The decrease in group A was more than in group B (p?=?0.003).

Conclusions: In patients with CAD, atorvastatin exerted an anti-inflammatory effect represented by decreasing CRP levels. This effect was independent of the change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels.     

Atorvastatin affects low density lipoprotein and non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol relations with apolipoprotein B in type 2 diabetes mellitus: modification by triglycerides and cholesteryl ester transfer protein

Objectives: Non-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein (apo) B are proposed as treatment targets. The extent to which statin therapy affects relationships of LDL-C and non-HDL-C with apoB was examined in type 2 diabetes. Methods: Analyses were performed in 217 hypertriglyceridaemic type 2 diabetic patients (Diabetes Atorvastatin Lipid Intervention (DALI) cohort). 61 patients randomized to placebo, 70 to 10 mg atorvastatin daily and 65 – 80 mg atorvastin daily completed follow-up. Results: Baseline fasting LDL-C of 2.42 mmol/l and non-HDL-C of 3.69 mmol/l corresponded to the apoB guideline target of 0.90 g/l. During atorvastatin (10 and 80 mg daily), the LDL-C target was achieved most frequently, and lower LDL-C (2.38 and 2.29 mmol/l) and non-HDL-C (3.24 and 3.19 mmol/l) concentrations corresponded to this apoB goal. Decreases in LDL-C during atorvastatin treatment were negatively related (p < 0.001), but decreases in non-HDL-C were positively related to changes in triglycerides (p < 0.001), independently from decreases in apoB (p < 0.001 for all). Decreases in LDL-C and non-HDL-C were positively associated with decreases in cholesteryl ester transfer protein mass (p < 0.001). Conclusions: During atorvastatin lower LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels correspond to the apoB guideline target, which would favour its use as treatment target.     

Cumulative clinical trial data on atorvastatin for reducing cardiovascular events: the clinical impact of atorvastatin

ABSTRACT

Background: Since the 1990s a multitude of statin trials have definitively demonstrated the ability of statin therapy to reduce the risk of adverse coronary heart disease (CHD) events. Among these, the Atorvastatin Landmarks program – a group of 32 major atorvastatin trials – has assessed the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin across its full dose range and has helped illustrate its effectiveness in treatment of cardiovascular disease and its related disorders and also in non-cardiovascular outcomes.

Scope: This paper will review the major atorvastatin clinical trials and report the important findings and their clinical significance.

Findings: Clinical trials with atorvastatin have established significant reductions in cardiovascular events in patients with and without CHD. Studies show that high-dose atorvastatin will reduce LDL to ≈?70?mg/dL in many patients and improve cardiac outcomes. Current evidence suggests that high-dose atorvastatin can halt and, in some cases, reverse atherosclerotic progression. A study of diabetic patients showed atorvastatin decreased the occurrence of acute CHD events, coronary revascularizations, and stroke. Atorvastatin has been found to be effective for reducing nonfatal myocardial infarctions and fatal CHD in hypertensive patients with three or more additional risk factors. High-dose atorvastatin was found to be effective in reducing risk of recurrent stroke in patients with prior cerebrovascular events, has been shown to benefit patients suffering a recent acute coronary syndrome, and to slow cognitive decline in preliminary studies of patients with Alzheimer's disease. Atorvastatin has been associated with reduced progression of mild chronic kidney disease; however, in a randomized trial of patients with end stage renal disease on hemodialysis, atorvastatin showed no statistically significant benefit. Limitations of this review include lack of generalizablity of the atorvastatin trial data to other statins, lack of head to head outcome trials involving the newer more potent statins, and the relatively short study durations (none exceeded 5 years) when atherosclerosis is typically a decades-long disease.

Conclusion: A compelling body of evidence documents that atorvastatin reduces major cardiovascular events in both secondary and primary prevention of CHD and in a broad range of patients and disease conditions. Furthermore, throughout its dose range, atorvastatin is safe and well tolerated.     

Efficacy of atorvastatin after LDL-cholesterol-based dose selection in high risk dyslipidaemic patients: results of the target dose study

ABSTRACT

Background: Hypercholesterolaemia is one of the major risk factors for the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). European guidelines emphasize the importance of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL?C) levels below 115?mg/dL (3.0?mmol/L) in patients with high CHD risk.

Objective: The present study evaluates whether selection of the atorvastatin starting dose based on baseline LDL?C levels and previous statin treatment status would result in an achievement of LDL?C targets without the need for up-titration.

Methods: A multicentre, prospective, open-label study conducted in Belgium. Patients were at high risk defined as either a history of CHD, another atherosclerotic disease, diabetes mellitus Type 2 or an estimated 10?year CHD risk > 20%. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving the LDL?C goal after 12 weeks of treatment.

Results: Overall, 96.4% of the 195 statin-naïve patients reached the LDL?C target after 12 weeks of treatment. The majority of the patients (95.4%) already reached LDL?C control at Week 6. Mean (SD) LDL?C levels decreased from 159 (25)?mg/dL[(4.1 (0.6)?mmol/L] to 86 (14)?mg/dL [2.2 (0.4)?mmol/L] after 12 weeks of treatment. Only 4.6% of the patients needed an up-titration at Week 6.

Conclusions: Taken together, the results demonstrate that LDL?C based dose selection of atorvastatin is highly efficacious for rapid achievement of target LDL?C levels with a low need for up-titration. Application of this flexible first dosing strategy in general practice will, based on available evidence, increase adherence to atorvastatin treatment in patients with high CHD risk.     

The efficacy of statin monotherapy uptitration versus switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin: results of the EASEGO study

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the incremental low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering efficacy of doubling the statin dose or switching to the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20?mg combination tablet (EZE/SIMVA) in patients on simvastatin 20?mg or atorvastatin 10?mg not at LDL-C target < 2.5?mmol/L.

Study design and methods: Patients with documented coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or type 2 diabetes (DM2) with LDL-C ≥ 2.5 and < 5.0?mmol/L despite treatment with atorvastatin 10?mg or simvastatin 20?mg were randomized to (1) double statin dose or (2) switch to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20, according to a PROBE study design. LDL-C, lipoprotein subfractions and safety data were assessed during the study.

Results: 119 of 178 (67%) patients in the EZE/SIMVA group and 49 of 189 (26%) in the doubling statin group reached target LDL-C < 2.5?mmol/L. The odds ratio of success for EZE/SIMVA versus doubling statin treatment in reaching the LDL-C target of < 2.5?mmol/L was 5.7 (95% CI: 3.7–9.0, p < 0.0001). A reduction in total cholesterol (TC), total/high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio and apolipoprotein B was observed in both groups, but this reduction was significantly more pronounced in the EZE/SIMVA group as compared with the doubling statin dose group. Treatment was well tolerated and no difference was observed between the two groups with regard to adverse effects.

Conclusions: In CHD/DM2 patients treated with simvastatin or atorvastatin with LDL-C persistently ≥ 2.5?mmol/L, switching to the EZE/SIMVA was more effective in attaining the LDL-C target of < 2.5?mmol/L than doubling the statin dose.