Efficacy and safety of statins in hypercholesterolemia with emphasis on lipoproteins. Effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Low-dose atorvastatin in severe chronic kidney disease patients: a randomized, controlled endpoint study. Results of a randomized controlled trial on statin use in dialysis patients had no influence on statin prescription. Use of the statins in patients after acute myocardial infarction: does evidence change practice? Efficacy and drug interactions of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors cerivastatin and atorvastatin in CsA-treated renal transplant recipients. Atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis. Effects of atorvastatin on Lp(a) and lipoprotein profiles in hemodialysis patients. Effect of fluvastatin on acute renal allograft rejection: a randomized multicenter trial. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) Effects of different statin treatments on small dense low-density lipoprotein in patients with metabolic syndrome. Effects of intensive versus moderate lipid-lowering therapy on myocardial ischemia in older patients with coronary heart disease: results of the Study Assessing Goals in the Elderly (SAGE). Safety and efficacy of fluvastatin in hyperlipidemic patients with chronic renal disease. Effects of early statin treatment on symptomatic heart failure and ischemic events after acute myocardial infarction in Japanese.
Information of the effect of statin on lipoproteins such as apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)], or apolipoprotein B levels is limited. This investigation was a crossover study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and simvastatin in patients with hyperlipidemia. Sixty-six patients were involved in the study. Group I consisted of 32 patients, who were first treated with atorvastatin (10 mg) then switched to simvastatin (10 mg). Group II consisted of 34 patients, who were first treated with simvastatin then switched to atorvastatin. Each regimen was used for 3 months (phase I), stopped for 2 months, and then restarted for another 3 months (phase II). Both statins effectively reduced total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), apo B, and Lp (a) (P < 0.001 in all comparisons). A significant increase in the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was noted after both statin treatments (P < 0.05 in all comparisons). Both statins caused an increase in the apo A-I levels, and the extent of changes in apo A-I revealed no difference between the two drugs. Compared to the simvastatin group, there were more patients in the atorvastatin group achieving the National Cholesterol Education Program ATP-III LDL-C goal (P < 0.05) and European LDL-C goal (P < 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated; no patient was withdrawn from the study. This study demonstrates that both statins can effectively improve lipid profiles in patients with hyperlipidemia. Atorvastatin is more effective in helping patients reach the ATP-III and European LDL-C goals than simvastatin at the same dosage. Renal transplant recipients are at increased risk of premature cardiovascular disease. Although statins reduce cardiovascular risk in the general population, their efficacy and safety in renal transplant recipients have not been established. We investigated the effects of fluvastatin on cardiac and renal endpoints in this population.
                We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 2102 renal transplant recipients with total cholesterol 4.0-9.0 mmol/L. We randomly assigned patients fluvastatin (n=1050) or placebo (n=1052) and follow up was for 5-6 years. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event, defined as cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or coronary intervention procedure. Secondary endpoints were individual cardiac events, combined cardiac death or non-fatal MI, cerebrovascular events, non-cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and graft loss or doubling of serum creatinine. Analysis was by intention to treat.
                After a mean follow-up of 5.1 years, fluvastatin lowered LDL cholesterol concentrations by 32%. Risk reduction with fluvastatin for the primary endpoint (risk ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.64-1.06], p=0.139) was not significant, although there were fewer cardiac deaths or non-fatal MI (70 vs 104, 0.65 [0.48-0.88] p=0.005) in the fluvastatin group than in the placebo group. Coronary intervention procedures and other secondary endpoints did not differ significantly between groups.
                Although cardiac deaths and non-fatal MI seemed to be reduced, fluvastatin did not generally reduce rates of coronary intervention procedures or mortality. Overall effects of fluvastatin were similar to those of statins in other populations. There have been no endpoint studies with statins for patients with severe renal failure. The purpose of this prospective, open, randomized, controlled study was to investigate whether atorvastatin (10 mg/day) would alter cardiovascular endpoints and the overall mortality rate of patients with chronic kidney disease stage 4 or 5 (creatinine clearance < 30 ml/min).
                The study subjects comprised 143 patients who were randomized either to placebo (controls; n=73; mean age 69.5 years) or to treatment with atorvastatin (n=70; mean age 67.9 years). The patients included were either non-dialysis (n=33), haemodialysis (n=97) or peritoneal dialysis (n=13) patients. Analysis focused on the primary endpoints of all-cause mortality, non-lethal acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Statistical analysis for endpoint data was mainly by intention-to-treat.
                Primary endpoints occurred in 74% of the subjects. There was no difference in outcome between the control and atorvastatin groups. The 5-year endpoint-free survival rate from study entry was 20%. Atorvastatin was withdrawn in 20% of patients due to unacceptable side-effects. In the atorvastatin group, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was reduced by 35% at 1 month and then sustained. The controls showed a progressive reduction in LDL cholesterol until 36 months.
                Although atorvastatin reduced total and LDL cholesterol effectively it was not beneficial regarding the long-term outcomes of cardiovascular endpoints or survival. In contrast to other patient groups, patients with severe chronic kidney disease, especially those on dialysis, seem to derive limited benefit from this lower dose of atorvastatin. Randomized trials provide high-quality evidence for patient care. The Der Deutsche Diabetes Dialyse Studie (4D), a randomized study which demonstrated no benefit of statins among diabetic patients receiving hemodialysis, was published in July 2005. To determine effects of this study we conducted a retrospective, population-based, time series analysis with change-point regression to see if the rate of statin prescription to dialysis patients had been modified. We linked health administrative data for all diabetic hemodialysis patients living in Ontario, Canada, with similar characteristics to the 4D patient cohort. During the nearly 11-year period prior to study publication, the rate of statin use increased almost 14-fold, from 43 to 597 per 1000 patients. For 2.5 years after study publication, rather than diminish, statin use continued to rise to an absolute rate of 676 per 1000 patients. These temporal patterns in statin use closely mimicked trends in the diabetic population not receiving dialysis. The 4D trial had no impact on statin use when we restricted the analysis to incident statin prescriptions or expanded the characteristics of the dialysis patients considered for study. Thus, we found that publication of a large, expensive, randomized controlled trial in patients receiving hemodialysis had no immediate impact on clinical practice. The use of a common cardiovascular medication in this patient population appears to be influenced by other factors. To compare the use of lipid-lowering agents in 42 628 elderly patients (aged > or =65 years) after acute myocardial infarction, before and after the publication of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), using the Ontario Myocardial Infarction Database.
                Multivariate regression models were created to estimate changes in the rate of statin use over time in monthly cohorts of elderly patients after acute myocardial infarction in Ontario from April 1, 1992, to March 31, 1997. Changes in the rate of statin use over time were estimated using patient and prescriber characteristics.
                We found a 3.6-fold significant increase in the monthly rate of statin use after the publication of 4S compared with before the publication of 4S (P<.001); specifically, the rate of increase in simvastatin and pravastatin sodium use was higher after the publication of 4S (P<.001 for each). Before the publication of 4S, the rate of increase in statin use in younger patients (aged 65-74 years) was 2.7 times higher than in older patients (aged > or =75 years) (P =.02), while after the publication of 4S, the rate of increase in statin use was only 1.8-fold higher in the younger group (P<.001). After the publication of 4S, there was a 1.6-fold higher rate of increase in statin use in male compared with female patients (P =.006). Also after the publication of 4S, specialists (cardiologists and internists) had a 2-fold higher rate of increased use of the statins than did generalists (P<.001).
                It is possible to shift practice if the evidence of benefit is strong, the intervention is easy to implement, and the intervention is marketed aggressively. Hyperlipidaemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease in renal transplant recipients. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy and possible drug-drug interactions of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) atorvastatin and cerivastatin in cyclosporin A (CsA)-treated renal transplant patients. Subjects and methods. Thirty patients with stable graft function and LDL cholesterol of 130 mg/dl were randomly assigned to active treatment groups (10 mg atorvastatin or 0.2 mg cerivastatin), or a control group. CsA blood trough levels were controlled on a weekly basis and adapted if they changed more than 25% from baseline values (100-150 ng/ml). Lipid levels and routine laboratory parameters before and after a treatment period of 3 months were compared.
                In the group treated with cerivastatin no significant changes in CsA blood trough levels occurred (CsA 116+/-21 ng/ml vs 110+/-20 ng/ml). In contrast, in the group treated with atorvastatin, four of 10 patients had a rise in CsA blood trough levels of more than 25% within 7-14 days of starting therapy. In the remaining patients no significant changes in CsA drug levels occurred. After therapy with atorvastatin or cerivastatin, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides were significantly lower compared with baseline conditions. No changes of CsA or lipoprotein levels were present in the control group.
                In our study population both statins were very effective in lowering elevated LDL cholesterol levels. Cerivastatin did not influence CsA blood trough levels, whereas atorvastatin increased CsA levels in four of 10 patients. Further research in a larger study is necessary in order to confirm these results and to investigate the possible reasons for this drug interaction. Statins reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the benefit of statins in such patients receiving hemodialysis, who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and death, has not been examined.
                We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, prospective study of 1255 subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving maintenance hemodialysis who were randomly assigned to receive 20 mg of atorvastatin per day or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke. Secondary end points included death from all causes and all cardiac and cerebrovascular events combined.
                After four weeks of treatment, the median level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was reduced by 42 percent among patients receiving atorvastatin, and among those receiving placebo it was reduced by 1.3 percent. During a median follow-up period of four years, 469 patients (37 percent) reached the primary end point, of whom 226 were assigned to atorvastatin and 243 to placebo (relative risk, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.10; P=0.37). Atorvastatin had no significant effect on the individual components of the primary end point, except that the relative risk of fatal stroke among those receiving the drug was 2.03 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.05 to 3.93; P=0.04). Atorvastatin reduced the rate of all cardiac events combined (relative risk, 0.82; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 0.99; P=0.03, nominally significant) but not all cerebrovascular events combined (relative risk, 1.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.55; P=0.49) or total mortality (relative risk, 0.93; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.08; P=0.33).
                Atorvastatin had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with diabetes receiving hemodialysis. Dialysis patients have many underlying traditional and nontraditional risk factors that may predispose them to a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease. The effects of statins (eg, atorvastatin) on altering nontraditional lipoprotein measures in dialysis patients have not been extensively investigated.
                To evaluate the efficacy of atorvastatin compared with a control group in inducing changes in lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], apolipoprotein (Apo) A-1, Apo-B, and fibrinogen levels, as well as the conventional lipoprotein profile, in hemodialysis patients over 36 weeks; secondary objectives were to assess changes in C-reactive protein, albumin, and safety measures.
                Forty-five hemodialysis patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels greater than 100 mg/dL were randomized to parallel groups: atorvastatin (n = 19) or no treatment (n = 26). The atorvastatin dose was titrated from 10 mg to achieve an LDL-C goal of 100 mg/dL or less and therapy was continued for 36 weeks. Biochemical and lipoprotein laboratory tests for efficacy outcomes were obtained at baseline, 12 weeks, and 36 weeks.
                The atorvastatin group exhibited clinically significant reductions (mean +/- SD) compared with controls in total cholesterol (-21.7 +/- 41.7 vs -3.2 +/- 40.0 mg/dL, respectively; p = 0.017) and LDL-C (-13.1 +/- 32.0 vs -1.1 +/- 38.4 mg/dL, respectively; p = 0.058) levels, as well as Lp(a) (-10.6 +/- 27 vs 3.5 +/- 17.8 mg/dL, respectively; p = 0.046). Statistical analyses included analysis of variance on ranked measures for multivariable modeling and paired t-test to determine changes in efficacy measures between baseline and 36 weeks within groups.
                Atorvastatin was safe and effective in reducing Lp(a), total cholesterol, and LDL-C levels. Given the prevalence of atherosclerosis in hemodialysis patients, therapy aimed at reducing traditional and nontraditional risk factors may be beneficial. Statin therapy has been reported to reduce the acute rejection rate following renal transplantation in a pilot study. The present study is the first randomized, double-blind and adequately powered study to examine the effect of statins on acute rejection of renal allografts.
                A total of 364 patients were randomly assigned to receive either fluvastatin 40 mg or placebo in combination with conventional cyclosporine-based immunosuppressive therapy. The primary end point was treated first acute rejection. Secondary end points included biopsy-proven rejection, histological severity of rejection, occurrence of steroid-resistant rejection, and serum creatinine at three months following transplantation.
                Fluvastatin was well tolerated; no patients developed myositis or rhabdomyolysis. There was no difference in the acute rejection rate [86 (47.3%) fluvastatin vs. 87 (47.8%) placebo] and no significant difference in the severity of rejection, steroid resistant rejection or mean serum creatinine at three months (160 micromol/L vs. 160 micromol/L). Total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglyceride levels increased following renal transplantation. With the exception of the increase in HDL-C, which was augmented, the increases in lipid parameters were significantly reduced by fluvastatin (total cholesterol +17.5% vs. 35.7%; LDL-C +6.3% vs. 46.7%; HDL-C +43.3% vs. 38.1%; triglyceride +52.2% vs 77.6%).
                Contrary to the reported effects of statins, fluvastatin had no effect on the incidence or severity of acute rejection following renal transplantation. There were no increases in adverse events. A significant and potentially beneficial alteration in the lipid profile was observed in the early post transplant period. We conclude that fluvastatin may be used safely to correct dyslipidemia in patients with end-stage renal failure through the peri-transplant period. Drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia has remained controversial mainly because of insufficient clinical trial evidence for improved survival. The present trial was designed to evaluate the effect of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin on mortality and morbidity in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). 4444 patients with angina pectoris or previous myocardial infarction and serum cholesterol 5.5-8.0 mmol/L on a lipid-lowering diet were randomised to double-blind treatment with simvastatin or placebo. Over the 5.4 years median follow-up period, simvastatin produced mean changes in total cholesterol, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol of -25%, -35%, and +8%, respectively, with few adverse effects. 256 patients (12%) in the placebo group died, compared with 182 (8%) in the simvastatin group. The relative risk of death in the simvastatin group was 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.85, p = 0.0003). The 6-year probabilities of survival in the placebo and simvastatin groups were 87.6% and 91.3%, respectively. There were 189 coronary deaths in the placebo group and 111 in the simvastatin group (relative risk 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73), while noncardiovascular causes accounted for 49 and 46 deaths, respectively. 622 patients (28%) in the placebo group and 431 (19%) in the simvastatin group had one or more major coronary events. The relative risk was 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.75, p < 0.00001), and the respective probabilities of escaping such events were 70.5% and 79.6%. This risk was also significantly reduced in subgroups consisting of women and patients of both sexes aged 60 or more. Other benefits of treatment included a 37% reduction (p < 0.00001) in the risk of undergoing myocardial revascularisation procedures. This study shows that long-term treatment with simvastatin is safe and improves survival in CHD patients. To compare the effects of different low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering statin treatments on small dense LDL (sd-LDL) in hypercholesterolemic patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS).
                Forty hypercholesterolemic MetS patients ?30 years of age were randomized to rosuvas-tatin (n=17) or other statins (n=23) groups. In the other statins group, those taking atorvastatin (n=12) were also evaluated separately. Statin doses were 10 mg/day rosuvastatin, 20 mg/day atorvas-tatin, 40 mg/day simvastatin, and 40 mg/day pravastatin. Treatment duration was planned to be 8 weeks. Sd-LDL levels were assessed at baseline and at the completion of treatment.
                After treatment, sd-LDL levels were significantly reduced in all 3 groups (from 29.6+/-24.8 mg/dL to 8.9+/-8.5 mg/dL in the rosuvastatin group, p=0.001; from 26.2+/-15 mg/dL to 14.8+/-9.6 mg/dL in the atorvastatin group, p=0.02; and from 29.1+/-16.5 mg/dL to 14.7+/-11.2 mg/dL in the other statins group, p=0.0001). There was no significant difference in the mean percent changes among groups.
                Significant reduction in sd-LDL levels was observed after 8 weeks of statin treatment in hypercholesterolemic patients with MetS. This effect was similar for all statins and can be considered a class effect. Clinical trials have demonstrated that, compared with placebo, intensive statin therapy reduces ischemia in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in patients with stable coronary artery disease. However, no studies to date have assessed intensive versus moderate statin therapy in older patients with stable coronary syndromes.
                A total of 893 ambulatory coronary artery disease patients (30% women) 65 to 85 years of age with > or = 1 episode of myocardial ischemia that lasted > or = 3 minutes during 48-hour ambulatory ECG at screening were randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/d or pravastatin 40 mg/d and followed up for 12 months. The primary efficacy parameter (absolute change from baseline in total duration of ischemia at month 12) was significantly reduced in both groups at month 3 and month 12 (both P<0.001 for each treatment group) with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Atorvastatin-treated patients experienced greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reductions than did pravastatin-treated patients, a trend toward fewer major acute cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.46, 1.09; P=0.114), and a significantly greater reduction in all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.13, 0.83; P=0.014).
                Compared with moderate pravastatin therapy, intensive atorvastatin therapy was associated with reductions in cholesterol, major acute cardiovascular events, and death in addition to the reductions in ischemia observed with both therapies. The contrast between the therapies' differing efficacy for major acute cardiovascular events and death and their nonsignificant difference in efficacy for reduction of ischemia suggests that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering thresholds for ischemia and major acute cardiovascular events may differ. The Study Assessing Goals in the Elderly (SAGE) demonstrates that older men and women with coronary artery disease benefit from intensive statin therapy. There are few reports on the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with statins in patients with chronic renal disease and hyperlipidemia. We evaluated these subjects treated with fluvastatin.
                After a 4-week run-in period, a total of 80 patients with diabetic nephropathy or chronic glomerulonephritis were randomly allocated to receive dietary therapy and fluvastatin 20 mg/day (n=39), or dietary therapy alone (n=41) for a period of 48 weeks. Lipid parameters, rhabdomyolysis-related indicators, 24-hour urinary albumin excretion and creatinine clearance were measured. The pharmacokinetics of fluvastatin was examined in 8 patients.
                Creatinine clearance and 24-hour urinary albumin excretion did not differ between the two groups. The peak serum fluvastatin concentration (Cmax) was 141+/-67 microg/L and the mean AUC0-6 h was 341+/-149 microgh/L. Fluvastatin treatment significantly lowered serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and apo-lipoprotein B concentrations by 16%, 25%, and 22%, respectively, compared with patients receiving dietary therapy alone. There were no significant differences in serum triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations between the two treatment groups. Serum creatine kinase and aldolase concentrations did not change throughout treatment in both groups.
                Fluvastatin treatment significantly improved lipid parameters in patients with chronic renal disease. Fluvastatin was well tolerated, with no adverse effects on renal function and no muscular toxicity. However, the drug showed no direct renoprotective effects. Statins have been shown to prevent coronary artery disease and to preserve left ventricular function in dilated cardiomyopathy. We hypothesized that early use of statins would decrease cardiovascular events, including heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). To examine the effect of statins in Japanese patients with AMI, a prospective, randomized, open-label trial was conducted in 486 patients with normal total cholesterol levels. Patients were randomly assigned to receive any available statin (n = 241) within 96 hours of AMI onset or no statin (n = 245) and were followed for up to 24 months. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal AMI, recurrent symptomatic myocardial ischemia, congestive heart failure, and stroke. Event rate for the primary end point was lower in the statin group than in the nonstatin group (6.1% vs 11.4%, p = 0.0433). The statin group had a lower risk of congestive heart failure and symptomatic myocardial ischemia (p = 0.0154 and 0.0264, respectively). In conclusion, early lipid-lowering therapy with statins decreases recurrent cardiovascular events, in particular, congestive heart failure.
Statins decreased cholesterol levels in dialysis patients similar to that of the general population. With the exception of one study, studies were of short duration and therefore the efficacy of statins in decreasing the mortality rate is still unclear. Statins appear to be safe in this high-risk population. Ongoing studies should provide more insight about the efficacy of statins in reducing mortality rates in dialysis patients.