Drug costs associated with non-adherence to cholesterol management guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in an elderly population: the Rotterdam study

BACKGROUND: In The Netherlands, costs of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) use have recently increased sharply compared with costs of other drugs. However, several studies have established both undertreatment and non-guidelines-indicated treatment with statins, suggesting a suboptimal use of resources. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the drug costs associated with non-guidelines-indicated treatment and undertreatment with statins in an elderly population. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Data were obtained from the Rotterdam Study, a population-based prospective cohort study which began in 1990 with 7983 participants aged > or =55 years. Subjects with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were excluded. Pharmacy records were used to assess patterns of medication use in daily medical practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Non-guidelines-indicated treatment and undertreatment with statins were established in relation to Dutch cholesterol management guidelines for all participants. We calculated the costs of statin therapy associated with non-guidelines-indicated treatment, and the costs of statins if all those undertreated were to receive statins. The results were projected on to the Dutch population to determine the economic implications of non-adherence to cholesterol management guidelines in the elderly. RESULTS: Of the participants who started treatment with statins for the primary prevention of CVD during follow-up, 69% received non-guidelines-indicated treatment. More men (7.5%) were undertreated than women (1.6%) and more women (6.2%) received non-guidelines-indicated treatment than men (1.5%). Among the participants without CVD who were still alive at 1 January 2002, 14% were eligible for statin therapy but were untreated. After projection of the prevalence of non-guidelines-indicated treatment and undertreatment to the Dutch population, the absolute costs for non-guidelines-indicated treatment with statins in 2005 were estimated to be approximately 23 million euro(uncertainty limits [UL]: 19-28 million euro), while the cost to eliminate undertreatment was also 23 million euro (UL: 19-28 million euro). CONCLUSION: Reallocation of resources used for statin therapy from those receiving non-guidelines-indicated treatment to those being undertreated could lead to a more efficient use of resources.     

Statins and Aspirin: Do They Really Work in Women?

Cardiovascular disease continues to be the most common cause of mortality in women in the USA. As a result, greater emphasis has been placed on preventive measures. Studies examining the role of aspirin and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have shown important clinical differences in men versus women in the preventive realm. This has led to inconsistent recommendations by guideline committees and clinicians alike. This review presents a summary of the past and current guidelines. In addition, important clinical trials influencing current era practice are also discussed. Both strengths and limitations of these studies are described in detail, along with recommendations regarding future directions and the scope of aspirin and statin use for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.     

Statin Utilization Patterns for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In Hong Kong, about 10% of adults 25-74 years of age have diabetes mellitus. The management of dyslipidemia with lipid-lowering agents (LLAs), including HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for the primary prevention of cardiovascular complications, has been found to be beneficial. This study examined statin utilization patterns for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus in two public hospitals in Kong Kong; clinical outcomes in patients who received statins for primary prevention were compared with those in patients not treated with any LLAs. METHODS: This was a retrospective study in patients who were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus. Only patients with no prior history of coronary artery disease were included in the study. Utilization patterns of LLAs and the incidences of cardiovascular complications were recorded from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003. RESULTS: A total of 222 patient records were reviewed. Only 75/222 (33.8%) of patients with diabetes mellitus received one or more LLAs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Among these patients, only 21% of patients attained target lipid goals. Nearly half of the patients who were not treated with LLAs (n=147) had dyslipidemia problems. The overall incidence of cardiovascular complications in patients treated and not treated with LLAs was 12.2%. Absence of routine screening for cardiovascular risk and sub-optimal utilization and inadequate dosage titration of LLAs were identified as contributory factors towards cardiovascular events in this patient group. CONCLUSION: The current study failed to prove the benefits of LLAs in reducing the risk of first cardiovascular events in diabetic patients. This may have been due to the use of low doses of LLAs and a lack of laboratory monitoring of cholesterol levels. Development and implementation of guidelines may help promote the use of LLAs in primary prevention of cardiovascular complications.     

LDL-C reductions and goal attainment among naive statin users in the Netherlands: real life results*

ABSTRACT

Objective: The effectiveness of statin therapy in a real life setting may differ from that in clinical trials, as physicians make non-randomised treatment decisions for patients with less uniform and possibly different characteristics. We therefore performed a study to compare the effectiveness of different statins and doses in routine clinical practice with respect to total serum cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction and goal attainment according to European guidelines on the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Research design and methods: Naive statin users starting treatment in 2003 and 2004 with LDL-C measurements at baseline and between 30 and 365 days after start of treatment were extracted from the PHARMO database. During treatment with their initial statin dose LDL-C reduction and attainment of cholesterol goals were compared between different statins and doses.

Results: Of 2303 identified naive patients, approximately 30% were allocated to the high CVD-risk group. Average LDL-C reductions were 48%, 42%, 39%, and 32% at mean doses of 11 mg rosuvastatin, 17 mg atorvastatin, 22 mg simvastatin and 35 mg pravastatin, respectively. The proportion of patients attaining cholesterol goals was 75% for rosuvastatin, 68% for atorvastatin, 56% for simvastatin, and 42% for pravastatin. Dose comparisons showed greater LDL-C reduction and increased goal attainment for rosuvastatin 10 mg compared to other statins at most doses (adjusted p < 0.05).

Conclusions: In a real life setting, both LDL-C reduction and the proportion of patients attaining cholesterol goals appear to be significantly increased among users of rosuvastatin compared to other statins. These results confirm and extend reported clinical trial results to a real world setting.     

干部保健对象中他汀类药物临床应用现状分析

目的 了解干部保健人群中,他汀类药物在冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病（冠心病）一、二级预防中的应用情况及其与指南的差距,并分析可能的原因.方法 观察2009年8月至10月定点在我院体检的干部保健对象共767人,通过问卷调查及查阅既往病史、体格检查和实验室检查的结果,将研究对象进行危险分层,了解研究对象应用他汀类药物的情况、治疗效果与指南的差距并分析可能的原因.结果 接受调查的干部保健对象中,符合心血管疾病危险分层的高危和极高危者522例,占68.06%.符合标准并已经接受过或正在接受他汀类药物治疗者185人,占符合药物治疗标准者的41.67%.符合治疗标准而未接受他汀类药物治疗者259人,占符合药物治疗标准者的58.33%.其中医生未处方他汀类药物或处方其他降脂药193人,是患者未接受他汀类药物治疗的主要原因,占未用他汀类药物原因的43.47%.Logistic回归分析显示：医生是否处方他汀类药物主要与年龄、冠状动脉血运重建、周围血管动脉硬化有关（P＜0.05）.结论 干部保健对象中他汀类药物临床应用与指南有很大的差距,关键因素在医生,应加强医生对指南的学习,同时应加强对患者的健康教育.     

Physicians' perceptions and beliefs on the current dyslipidemia management practices within Saudi Arabia

BackgroundLimited reports addressing physicians’ understanding of the various low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets/statin intensity required for treating the various dyslipidemia patient populations in Saudi Arabia are available. Therefore, the current study assessed the perceptions and beliefs of practicing clinicians in Saudi Arabia regarding the current practice for management of dyslipidemia and potential perceived barriers to adherence to lipid guidelines encountered in their regular clinical practice. Knowledge of different clinical practices and beliefs could have a positive impact on improving the quality of future care provided by physicians.MethodsA survey questionnaire was designed to assess physicians’ familiarity, usage, and adherence to seven different international guidelines and used to evaluate the management of dyslipidemia, practice of patient treatment, and perceived obstacles to adhering to lipid guidelines related to specific patients, doctors, and practice issues.ResultsA total of 467 physicians were recruited for the study: (1) 57.2% were primary care physicians (PCPs) and (2) 42.8% were specialists. About 90.8% of them followed lipid guidelines of which the most common set were based on those by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. The most utilized risk assessment tool was the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk calculator. About 60% of the physicians set an LDL-C target for their patients based on a combination of patients’ risk factors and lipid profiles. In all, 42.1% of the physicians chose not to change existing therapy among patients with dyslipidemia to attain a non-high-density lipoprotein goal with controlled LDL-C level. Atorvastatin accounted for the greatest percentage of primary and secondary prevention choices (71.9% and 69.6%, respectively). Rosuvastatin was mostly preferred by physicians for patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. About two-thirds of the physicians (77.9%) prescribed statins to diabetic patients aged 40–75 years. Statin intolerance was encountered by 62.9% of the physicians in ≤ 10% of patients by 62.9%. Therapeutic strategies included switching to an alternative statin (40.1%) followed by reducing the statin dose (35.3%). Ezetimibe was prescribed by most physicians (77.9%) as an add-on to statin if the LDL-C target was not achieved. Fibrate was most preferred by physicians (62.7%) for hypertriglyceremia treatment followed by statins (28.7% of the physicians). Sixty-six percent reported not using proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors in their clinical practice due to unavailability at their institute (51.8%), high costs (26.3%), and/or lack of knowledge (20.6%). Perceived barriers to guideline adherence identified by physicians were lack of familiarity and knowledge of the guidelines, patient non-adherence, medication costs, and lack of timely follow-up appointments and educational tools. Multiple similarities and differences were observed after comparisons were made between specialists and PCPs in terms of guideline preference, clinical practice, and perceived barriers.ConclusionDifferent perceptions and attitudes among physicians in Saudi Arabia were found due to variable recommendations by international lipid guidelines. Perceived barriers that included the patient, physician, and practice were identified by physicians at multiple levels. Multiple challenges and different action gaps were observed when comparing specialists to PCPs. It is recommended that standardized practices be followed by clinicians in Saudi Arabia, and actions to address the outlined barriers are essential for optimizing health outcomes and ASCVD prevention.     

Effectiveness of statins in reducing the rate of severe sepsis: a retrospective evaluation

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) is associated with a reduced rate of severe sepsis, and to further characterize the effect of statins on the frequency of organ dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University-associated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Fifty-three patients admitted with sepsis; 16 were receiving statins and 37 were not receiving statins (controls) before admission. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Patient demographics, vital signs, and laboratory values were collected from their electronic medical records. The primary end point was rate of severe sepsis, defined in accordance with guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Secondary end points were in-hospital mortality rate and rate of five categories of organ dysfunction (cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary, hematologic, and metabolic). Preadmission statin therapy, compared with no statin therapy, was associated with a 30% lower rate of severe sepsis (56% vs 86%, p<0.02). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different between groups (38% vs 49%, p=0.33); however, the rate of cardiovascular dysfunction, defined as hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, was significantly lower in the statin group (38% vs 73%, p<0.02). No significant differences in the other organ dysfunction categories were noted between groups. CONCLUSION: Statins appear to prevent sepsis from becoming severe, most notably through prevention of sepsis-induced hypotension. This potential role for statins in the prevention and treatment of severe sepsis should be further evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.     

Cardiovascular disease in patients with renal disease: the role of statins

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Atherosclerosis is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents a major cause of death. The National Kidney Foundation guidelines favour the use of statin therapy for treatment of dyslipidaemia in patients with CKD. Much evidence supports statin therapy for reducing CVD and improving outcomes in the general population, but there is less evidence in patients with CKD. Consequently, prevention of CVD in CKD is based primarily on extrapolation from non-CKD trials. Significantly, in trials specifically designed to investigate patients with CKD, evidence is emerging for improved cardiovascular outcomes with statin therapy. This review describes available data relating to cardiovascular outcomes and the role of statins in patients with CKD, including pre-dialysis, dialysis, and renal transplant patients.

Research design and methods: The PubMed database was searched (1998–present) to ensure comprehensive identification of publications (including randomised clinical trials) relevant to CKD patients, patterns of cardiovascular outcome in such patients and their relationship to lipid profile, and the role of statins for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular complications.

Results: There are conflicting data on the relationship between dyslipidaemia and cardiovascular outcomes, with one major study of statin therapy (4D – Deutsche Diabetes Dialyse Studie) providing equivocal results. Further studies, including AURORA (A study to evaluate the Use of Rosuvastatin in subjects On Regular haemodialysis: an Assessment of survival and cardiovascular events; NCT00240331) in patients receiving haemodialysis, and SHARP (Study of Heart And Renal Protection; NCT00125593) in patients with CKD including those on dialysis, should help to clarify the role of statin therapy in these populations.

Conclusions: More studies are needed to elucidate the role of statins in improving cardiovascular outcomes for CKD patients. It is anticipated that ongoing clinical trials geared towards the optimal prevention and treatment of CVD in patients with CKD will help guide clinicians in the management of CKD.     

Managing hyperlipidemia: current and future roles of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.

The current and future roles of statins as antilipemic agents for the prevention and management of coronary artery disease (CAD) are reviewed. Therapy with hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) substantially reduces total cholesterol and low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations. Large clinical trials have documented the efficacy of statin therapy for both primary and secondary prevention of CAD. Nevertheless, many eligible patients are either untreated or inadequately treated with these agents. In one study, 61% of patients with documented CAD were not treated with a lipid-lowering agent. Large percentages of high-risk patients receiving such agents are not meeting cholesterol goals set by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Populations at increased risk for coronary events include patients with diabetes, women, the elderly, and patients with established CAD. Comparative studies have not shown any one agent as clearly superior to the others. Future possibilities for statin use include early treatment of hypercholesterolemia and acute coronary syndromes consistent with guidelines established by NCEP. Many clinicians now believe that an aggressive approach to lowering LDL cholesterol may yield even greater reductions in coronary events. Treatment may reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic events when initiated within 96 hours of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina and continued for up to four months. Another use may be the management of atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease. Closer attention to potential adverse effects will be necessary before any expansion in statin use. Statins are highly effective for improving cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients but are frequently underused. Pharmacists can help extend the benefits of statins to more patients.     

Impact of C-reactive protein on treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease.

PURPOSE: The impact of C-reactive protein (CRP) on the treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease is described. SUMMARY: CRP is a marker of coronary heart disease and other disease states. Its release from the liver activates endothelial dysfunction and contributes to atherothrombosis. In healthy persons, CRP was found to be an independent risk marker for cardiovascular disease when compared with low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association published a statement regarding CRP's use in clinical practice and public health. In a primary prevention study, statins were shown to reduce CRP, and patients with a low concentration of LDL cholesterol and high CRP may benefit from statin therapy. The results of a secondary prevention study confirmed that CRP reduction was not related to the lipid-lowering effects of the statins and that pravastatin reduced coronary events regardless of inflammation status designated by the CRP value. Another study demonstrated that intensive pharmacotherapy was more effective than moderate therapy in reducing CRP, but it found no difference in clinical outcomes among statin regimens once the goal CRP value was attained. In atheroma ultrasound studies, a reduced CRP level was related to reductions in atheroma volume regardless of the statin regimen used. CONCLUSION: The correct use of CRP in pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of statins has not been fully elucidated. Until more data regarding CRP and statin use are available, pharmacists must continue to focus on risk factors other than CRP, such as cholesterol levels, medical history, social history, and lifestyle characteristics, when making clinical decisions regarding statin therapy.     

Lipid-lowering drug use in Italian primary care: effects of reimbursement criteria revision

Objective To assess whether the prescribing pattern of lipid-lowering drugs (LLD) changed after reimbursement criteria revision in a general practice in southern Italy. Methods From the Caserta-1 Local Health Service database, 93 general practitioners (GPs) who had consistently sent data about their patients during the years 2003-2005 were recruited. Prevalence of use and incidence of new treatments were calculated for each year, stratified by three drug cohorts: statins, omega-3 fatty acids, and fibrates. Subanalyses by gender, age, and indication of use were performed. Results Overall, 1-year prevalence of LLD use increased from 2003 to 2004. After reimbursement criteria revision (November 2004), a slight decrease was observed for statins, from 41.1 (95% CI: 39.9–42.2) per 1,000 inhabitants in 2004 to 40.3 (39.2–41.5) in 2005, while omega-3 utilization fell markedly: 14.6 (13.9–15.3) vs. 5.4 (5.0–5.8). The use of both statins and omega-3 fatty acids was reduced particularly for primary prevention. On the other hand, utilization of statins increased in diabetic patients and as secondary prevention from 2004 to 2005. Concerning individual molecules, 1-year prevalence of use of any statin declined from 2004 to 2005, except for rosuvastatin. Conclusions Revision of reimbursement criteria led to significant changes in the trend in LLD use in general practice in southern Italy: (1) statin utilization was slightly reduced in 2005, although it increased in certain categories, such as diabetic patients, and (2) omega-3 fatty acid use was strongly reduced even though a higher use in post-infarction cases was reported.     

Statins for primary prevention: at what coronary risk is safety assured?

AIMS: Increasingly HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are being used for primary prevention of vascular disease in patients with a raised cholesterol but at low absolute risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). This study uses clinical trial results to explore the limits of absolute safety for statin use in such patients. METHODS: The major placebo controlled statin outcome trials were identified by automated and manual literature searches. Principal results including all cause mortality in placebo and intervention groups and baseline values of standard coronary risk factors were abstracted for each trial. For the trials identified the reduction in overall mortality with statin treatment for each study was regressed against the underlying CHD risk of the population recruited into that trial using a statistically robust method. RESULTS: The regression line describing the relationship between mortality benefit and risk suggests that statin use could be associated with an increase in mortality of 1% in 10 years. This would be sufficiently large to negate statin's beneficial effect on CHD mortality in patients with a CHD event risk less than 13% over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute safety of statins has not been demonstrated for patients at low risk of CHD. Patients absolute risk of CHD should be calculated before starting statin treatment for primary prevention. Extensions of such treatment to low risk patients should await further evidence of safety.     

Adherence to clinical guidelines in management of diabetes and prevention of cardiovascular disease in Qatar

Introduction The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in the UK increased in 2009 to 4 %, of which type-2 diabetes accounts for 85–95 % of all cases. In Qatar the prevalence of DM among the adult Qatari population in 2008 was 16.7 %; around four times higher than the prevalence in the UK. The aim of the study was to design and to apply a medication assessment tool (MAT) to determine the level of adherence to internationally recognised guideline recommendations in type-2 diabetes management and in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among type-2 diabetes patients, to quantify any gaps in guideline implementation. Materials and methods 305 patients were included in this study; all diagnosed with type-2 diabetes with no history of CVD. A 38 criteria MAT was designed from published guideline recommendations on the management of type-2 diabetes and combined with recommendations relevant to primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. The MAT comprised 21 criteria assessing control of blood glucose, 5 criteria assessing management of diabetes complications and 12 criteria assessing preventive medication use in CVD. The MAT was validated by a group of practitioners and researchers and field tested in the diabetes outpatient clinic within Hamad General Hospital, Qatar, with electronic and manual access to patients’ medical records. Levels of applicability and adherence to each criterion were calculated individually and the overall adherence was determined. Results The MAT was applied to the whole study sample (11,590 assessed criteria in 305 patients). Application of the MAT identified 19/38 criteria with high levels of adherence (≥80 %), 9/38 criteria with intermediate levels of adherence (≥50 %; <80 %) and 10/38 criteria with low levels of adherence (<50 %). The overall adherence in 305 patients was 68.1 % (95 % CI: 67, 69) in 6,657 applicable criteria. Total non-adherences, both justified and unjustified, were found in 30.8 % (95 % CI: 30, 32) in 2,049 of the applicable criteria in which only 5.8 % (95 % CI: 5, 7) in 118 criteria had a documented justification. Consequently 94.2 % of all non-adherences (95 % CI: 93, 95) in 1,931 criteria had unjustified non-adherence and indicated a need for inclusion in treatment review through an appropriate pharmaceutical care plan. Discussion and conclusion The study identifies levels of adherence to guideline recommendations, the need for additional documentation and criteria with low adherence that might be a focus for an educational intervention and a starting point for targeted pharmaceutical care.     

Physician-prompting statin therapy intervention improves outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a posthospital discharge intervention that prompted physicians to increase the use and effectiveness of statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Participants were 612 patients with CHD who were admitted to a coronary care unit. The control group (303 patients admitted from October 1-December 31, 1998) received no follow-up intervention. The intervention group (309 patients admitted fromJanuary 1-March 31, 1999) had follow-up letters sent or phone calls made to their primary care physicians with patient-specific recommendations concerning assessment of lipid profiles and statin therapy. Over a 2-year follow-up period, assessment of lipid profiles, use of therapy, and adverse clinical outcomes were compared between the control and intervention groups. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, there was no significant difference in the use of statins between the groups. At each reported follow-up interval, the percentages of patients having lipid profiles measured, being treated with a statin, receiving titrated dosages of a statin, and achieving low-density lipid (LDL) cholesterol goals set by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) were significantly greater in the intervention group compared with the control group (all p<0.05). At the end of the 2-year follow-up period, nearly three-fourths (72%) of the intervention group were receiving a statin, compared with 43% of the control group. In addition, 55% of the intervention group achieved their NCEP LDL goal, compared with only 10% of the control group. Recurrent myocardial infarction, hospitalization for myocardial ischemia, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular mortality were significantly reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: A relatively simple physician-prompting intervention significantly increased assessment of lipid status, frequency of statin use, achievement of LDL treatment goals, and titration of lipid drug dosages. In addition, the improved use of statins significantly reduced adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This intervention tool should be more broadly applied in patient populations eligible to receive these agents.     

The safety and effectiveness of statins as treatment for HIV-dyslipidemia: the evidence so far and the future challenges

Introduction: Statin therapy is widely used across the globe for the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is well established that statin therapy is associated with significant decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and plasma cholesterol levels. HIV-dyslipidemia is a common problem with extensive use of combination antiretroviral therapy (CART), and is associated with an increase in incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), resulting in hospital admission and surgery throughout the western healthcare systems. Areas covered: This review describes the effectiveness and safety of statins in the treatment of HIV-dyslipidemia. Medline was searched for different statins as treatment for HIV-dyslipidemia. Expert opinion: Dyslipidemia in patients with HIV is different from the normal population, due to the fact that HIV treatment may not only cause dyslipidemia, but may also interact with lipid lowering medication. Statin-unresponsive HIV-dyslipidemia can be treated with the addition of ezetimibe, fenofibrate, fish oil and niacin. Current guidelines recommend the use of pravastatin and atorvastatin as first-line therapy, whereas European guidelines include rosuvastatin. There is an urgent need to confirm whether the use of statins in HIV-dyslipidemia is associated with an increase in the incidence of diabetes; this is significant because HIV patients are known to be insulin-resistant. HIV is also associated with Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD), a condition known to be associated with insulin resistance. Further clinical trials are urgently needed to assess the impact of statins on CVD in HIV patients, and future challenges for researchers in this area are enormous.     

Rosuvastatin in elderly patients

A progressive accumulation of atherosclerotic lesions beginning early in life puts elderly persons at a greater absolute risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary events than other segments of the population. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) therapy has been shown to be both efficacious and well tolerated in most elderly patients. Among the statins, rosuvastatin has advantages in treating older patients: at low starting doses it is very efficacious compared with other statins, and thus more likely to enable patients to reach their low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol goals without the need for titration or combination therapy. Lack of clinically significant interactions with most drugs metabolised by cytochrome P450 enzyme 3A4 may also make rosuvastatin safer for patients taking multiple medications. Furthermore, rosuvastatin has shown efficacy in treating patients with many of the co-morbidities common in the elderly, including renal impairment and diabetes mellitus. As yet, however, cardiovascular endpoint data for rosuvastatin are not available.