Rosuvastatin is cost-effective in treating patients to low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol goals compared with atorvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin: analysis of the STELLAR trial.

BACKGROUND: Rosuvastatin calcium (CRESTOR) has demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, healthcare providers and authorities require information on its cost-effectiveness in the treatment of dyslipidaemia. DESIGN: A retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed using data from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. The cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 10-40 mg was compared with atorvastatin 10-80 mg, pravastatin 10-40 mg and both branded and generic simvastatin 10-80 mg in achieving Third Joint European Task Force LDL-C goals in patients with hypercholesterolaemia. METHODS: The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service, using clinical data from the STELLAR trial and drug acquisition costs. Cost-effectiveness was compared using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), with sensitivity analyses applied to both efficacy and cost parameters. RESULTS: In terms of patients achieving goal, rosuvastatin 10 mg dominated (was more effective at equal or lower cost) atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, pravastatin 20 and 40 mg, branded simvastatin 10-80 mg and generic simvastatin 40 and 80 mg. Where rosuvastatin 10 mg did not dominate, ICERs ranged from 36 pounds sterling to 162 pounds sterling per extra patient to goal. Rosuvastatin 20 and 40 mg were cost-effective compared with milligram-equivalent and higher doses of other branded statins. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in both statin efficacy and price. CONCLUSION: In patients with hypercholesterolaemia, rosuvastatin is a cost-effective statin option in treating to LDL-C goals.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in treating patients to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals compared with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin (a US Analysis of the STELLAR Trial)

Statin therapy decreases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and the risk of coronary heart disease but has a considerable short-term effect on health care budgets. The cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin (Crestor) has been compared with those of atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and achieving National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of health care payers in the United States. Clinical data were obtained from the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels Compared Across Doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. Drug costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs. Cost effectiveness was assessed with the net monetary benefit approach and a 1-year time horizon. Rosuvastatin at 10 mg, the recommended starting dose, was the most cost-effective statin over a large range of "willingness-to-pay" values for a unit of clinical effect (i.e., a 1% decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or a patient achieving the goal).     

Vascular effects of simvastatin combined with ramipril in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary artery disease, compared with simvastatin alone: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study

Because the mechanisms of the biological effects of statin and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapies differ, we studied the vascular responses to these therapies in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary artery disease. We administered simvastatin 20 mg and placebo or ramipril 10 mg daily during 2 months with washout 2 months to 32 hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary artery disease. This study was randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover in design. Simvastatin alone or combined with ramipril significantly changed lipoproteins, and improved the percent flow-mediated dilator response to hyperemia relative to baseline measurements by 33 +/- 6% and by 50 +/- 14%, respectively (both P <0.001) and reduced plasma levels of nitrate relative to baseline measurements (P=0.413 and 0.037, respectively), the plasma MDA levels relative to baseline measurements by 8 +/- 8% and by 18 +/- 9% (P=0.039 and P <0.001, respectively) and MCP-1 relative to baseline measurements by 7 +/- 4% and by 13 +/- 3%, respectively (P=0.019 and P <0.001, respectively), and CRP from 0.22 to 0.14 mg/dl and from 0.22 to 0.15 mg/dl, respectively (P=0.124 and 0.002, respectively), and PAI-1 antigen relative to baseline measurements (P=0.690 and 0.018, respectively). However, simvastatin combined with ramipril changed to greater but statistically insignificant extent the percent flow-mediated dilator response to hyperemia and plasma levels of nitrate, MDA, MCP-1, and PAI-1 antigen than simvastatin alone. Simvastatin alone or combined with ramipril showed significant beneficial effects on endothelial function in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary artery disease. However, simvastatin combined with ramipril did not significantly change, compared with simvastatin alone.     

Dose-response effects of atorvastatin and simvastatin on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in hypercholesterolaemic patients: a review of five comparative studies

Epidemiological evidence and clinical trials with fibrate therapy show a clear relationship between low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and cardiovascular risk. In addition to lowering plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG), the hydroxy-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins), also raise the levels of HDL-C. This review summarizes the results of five randomized, multicenter studies in hypercholesterolaemic patients in which multiple doses of atorvastatin and simvastatin were compared for their effects on lipids and lipoproteins including HDL-C. Both statins reduced LDL cholesterol and achieved parallel decreases in TG, with atorvastatin showing a slight overall superiority in these studies. Both HDL-C and apolipoprotein (Apo) A-I, its associated apoprotein, were significantly and consistently increased by all doses of simvastatin. However, atorvastatin had a different dose-response effect from simvastatin on both lipid parameters. Whereas HDL-C and Apo A-I were elevated by low doses of atorvastatin, the effect diminished markedly with increasing dose suggesting a possible negative dose-response effect. At higher doses, simvastatin increased HDL-C and Apo A-I significantly more than atorvastatin. These data indicate that statins may not be identical in all their clinical properties relevant to reducing the risks of atherosclerosis.     

Effects of pravastatin on coronary events in 2073 patients with low levels of both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: results from the LIPID study.

AIMS: Fibrates or nicotinic acid are usually recommended for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in patients with low plasma levels of both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < or =140 mg/dL (< or =3.6 mmol/L) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) < or =40 mg/dL (< or =1.03 mmol/L). The LIPID trial, a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 9014 patients at 87 centres in Australia and New Zealand, provided an opportunity to investigate the effects of an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor in patients with low LDL-C and low HDL-C. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants in this post hoc substudy were 2073 patients aged 31-75 years with baseline LDL-C < or =140 mg/dL (< or =3.6 mmol/L), HDL-C < or =40 mg/dL (< or =1.03 mmol/L), and triglyceride < or =300 mg/dL (< or =3.4 mmol/L). The relative risk reduction with pravastatin treatment was 27% for major coronary events (95% CI 8-42%), 27% for coronary heart disease mortality (95% CI 0-47%), 21% for all-cause mortality (95% CI 0-38%), and 51% for stroke (95% CI 24-69%). The number needed to treat to prevent a major coronary event over 6 years was 22. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pravastatin in patients with both low LDL-C and low HDL-C significantly reduced major coronary events, stroke, and all-cause mortality. The level of HDL-C is crucial to the risk of recurrent CHD events and, consequently, the benefit of lowering LDL-C.     

Baseline levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein (a) and the AvaII polymorphism of the low-density lipoprotein receptor gene influence the response of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to pravastatin treatment

To investigate some individual and genetic factors that may influence the response of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to pravastatin treatment, we recruited 440 subjects with hypercholesterolemia (mean age, 57 years; 43% men) from 21 primary health care centers-outpatient clinics into a prospective, multicentered intervention trial. Pravastatin (20 mg/d) was prescribed for 16 weeks. The main outcome was the percentage variation in LDL-C concentration relative to baseline. Blood analyses and genotyping were performed centrally. The results indicated that LDL-C decreased by 20.5% (range, +21% to -66%) after pravastatin treatment. Baseline concentration of LDL-C (the higher the concentration, the greater the decrease), lipoprotein (a) levels (the lower the concentration, the greater the response), and Ava II polymorphism of the LDL-receptor gene significantly influenced the hypolipemic effect ( P < .001, P = .014, and P = .004, respectively). These 3 factors combined explained 10.6% of the variation in LDL-C response. Age, sex, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, body mass index, and apolipoprotein E genotype had no significant effect on response. We conclude that baseline levels of LDL-C and lipoprotein (a) together with the Ava II polymorphism of the LDL-receptor gene have a significant influence on the LDL-C response to pravastatin treatment in patients monitored in a standard primary health care outpatient clinic setting.     

A Dietary portfolio: Maximal reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with diet

Over the past two decades, cholesterol-lowering drugs have proven to be effective and have been found to significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). However, diet and lifestyle factors are still recognized as the first line of intervention for CHD risk reduction by the National Cholesterol Education Program and the American Heart Association, which now advocate use of viscous fibers and plant sterols, and soy protein and nuts, respectively. In a series of metabolically controlled studies, we have combined these four cholesterol-lowering dietary components in the same diet (ie, a dietary portfolio of cholesterol-lowering foods) in an attempt to maximize low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction. We have found that the portfolio diet reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by approximately 30% and produced clinically significant reductions in CHD risk. These reductions were the same as found with a starting dose of a first-generation statin drug.     

Clinical significance of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the significance of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in the context of low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). BACKGROUND: Earlier studies support an inverse correlation between circulating HDL-C and coronary risk in patients with normal or elevated LDL-C. METHODS: This study involved 4,188 patients attending the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Medical Center or affiliated clinics with LDL-C levels below 60 mg/dl. Outcomes were examined 1 year after the index LDL-C date. The combined primary end point was myocardial injury or hospitalization from ischemic heart disease. The secondary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Mean HDL-C levels (mg/dl) by quartile (Q) were: Q1 28 mg/dl, Q2 36 mg/dl, Q3 43 mg/dl, and Q4 63 mg/dl. The rate of myocardial injury or hospitalization for ischemic heart disease showed an inverse relationship to HDL-C (adjusted odds ratios: Q1 1.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.19], Q2 1.39 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.92], Q3 1.33 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.84], and Q4 reference) that persisted regardless of statin use or recent myocardial injury. Analyzing HDL-C as a continuous variable revealed a 10% [95% CI 3% to 17%] increase in the combined end point of myocardial injury or hospitalization for ischemic heart disease for every 10-mg/dl decrease in HDL-C. The unadjusted and adjusted incidence of all-cause mortality demonstrated a U-shaped relationship to HDL-C (adjusted odds ratios: Q1 1.13 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.62], Q2 0.97 [95% CI 0.67 to 1.40], Q3 0.74 [95% CI 0.50 to 1.09], and Q4 reference). CONCLUSIONS: The inverse relationship between HDL-C and coronary risk persists even among patients with LDL-C below 60 mg/dl, although a U-shaped relationship is observed between HDL-C and all-cause mortality.     

Effect of withdrawal of pravastatin therapy on C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol

In addition to lowering cholesterol, statins effectively lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels. The effects of withdrawal from long-term statin therapy on CRP are unknown. This study examined the effect of withdrawal from 4 years of statin treatment on CRP. We prospectively evaluated the effects of withdrawal from pravastatin (40 mg) treatment on CRP levels in 566 subjects who participated in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Median (interquartile range) CRP levels before randomization were 1.29 mg/L (0.63 to 2.73) and mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was 4.06 +/- 0.92 mmol/L. Four years after randomization, placebo-treated patients (n = 266) had a nonsignificant 9% increase in CRP, whereas there was a 12% decrease (p = 0.001) in the pravastatin-treated patients (n = 300). LDL cholesterol only decreased in pravastatin-treated patients (-27%; p <0.001). Withdrawal from pravastatin led to a significant increase in both CRP and LDL cholesterol to approximately pretreatment levels (p <0.05 and <0.001, respectively). Changes in CRP after withdrawal from pravastatin could not be predicted by the change in LDL cholesterol. The difference between the pravastatin and placebo groups in terms of change in CRP by withdrawal was consistent and persisted in analysis corrected for body mass index, smoking status, blood pressure, and baseline levels of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or triglycerides. In conclusion, withdrawal from pravastatin treatment resulted in an increase in CRP to approximately baseline levels, which is not related to the increase in LDL cholesterol.     

Effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on angiotensin II sensitivity: a randomized trial with fluvastatin

Increased angiotensin II (Ang II) sensitivity predisposes to hypertension and plaque instability. Raised low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) may increase Ang II sensitivity, but evidence in humans for this effect of LDL-c is limited. In 28, healthy, nonsmoking subjects, aged 30+/-8 years, with familial hypercholesterolemia, we determined the difference in infusion rate of Ang II and norepinephrine required to increase systolic blood pressure by 20 mm Hg (Pd-20) after 4 weeks of placebo and fluvastatin 80 mg daily in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Before infusions were started, fasting blood samples were taken to measure lipids. After 4 weeks of placebo, the mean LDL-c concentration was 6.3+/-1.4 mmol/L. The average decrease of LDL-c was 1.7+/-0.7 mmol/L after 4 weeks of fluvastatin (P<0.001). The mean Pd-20 for Ang II increased by 1.28 ng/kg per minute (95% CI, 2.05 to 0.50; P=0.002) on fluvastatin, corresponding with a 26% decrease in Ang II sensitivity. Ang II sensitivity, however, remained increased compared with normocholesterolemic controls. The Pd-20 values for norepinephrine were unaffected by fluvastatin. The present study in healthy, young subjects with isolated hypercholesterolemia shows an increased sensitivity to Ang II that partly can be restored by LDL-c-lowering therapy. These findings indicate that LDL-c levels directly influence Ang II sensitivity.     

Metabolic syndrome, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and risk of cardiovascular disease: a population-based study

We sought to examine the relative contribution to cardiovascular risk of the metabolic syndrome (MS) compared with that of a high LDL cholesterol level in a population-based study of 2493 men and women, age 41-72 years, without major cardiovascular diseases at baseline. MS was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program criteria. The study population was subdivided into four groups on the basis of presence (prevalence: 15%) or absence of MS (85%) and presence (15%) or absence of high LDL cholesterol (85%) defined as a level >5.02 mmol/L or 5.02 mmol/L (12%), 1.80 (1.26-2.57) in subjects with MS and LDL cholesterol 5.02 mmol/L (3%). In a general population, MS was associated with a cardiovascular risk comparable with that of a high LDL cholesterol level.