Search

Background: Achieving the greatest reduction in atherogenic lipoproteins requires the optimum dose and potency of statin. Using data from the VOYAGER meta-analysis, we determined doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin and simvastatin that induce equal reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C)., Methods: Least squares mean percentage change in LDL-C and non-HDL-C was calculated using 38,052 patient exposures to rosuvastatin 5-40 mg, atorvastatin 10-80 mg and simvastatin 10-80 mg. Equipotent doses were estimated by linear interpolation between actual adjacent doses., Results: Rosuvastatin 5 mg reduced LDL-C by 39% and non-HDL-C by 35%. Equivalent reductions in LDL-C required atorvastatin 15 mg or simvastatin 39 mg. Equivalent reductions in non-HDL-C required atorvastatin 14 mg or simvastatin 42 mg. Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C by 44% and non-HDL-C by 40%. Equivalent reductions in LDL-C required atorvastatin 29 mg or simvastatin 72 mg. Equivalent reductions in non-HDL-C required atorvastatin 27 mg or simvastatin 77 mg. Rosuvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C by 50% and non-HDL-C by 45%. Equivalent reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C required atorvastatin 70 mg and atorvastatin 62 mg, respectively, and were not achieved with the maximum 80 mg dose of simvastatin. Rosuvastatin 40 mg reduced LDL-C by 55% and non-HDL-C by 50%. Comparable reductions were not achieved with the maximum 80 mg doses of atorvastatin or simvastatin., Conclusions: Regarding reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C, each rosuvastatin dose is equivalent to doses 3-3.5 times higher for atorvastatin and 7-8 times higher for simvastatin., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2015.)

Objectives: Combination therapy may help high-risk patients achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Impact of rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (RSV10/EZE10 and RSV20/EZE10) has not been fully characterized previously. GRAVITY (NCT00525824) compared efficacy, safety and effect on biomarkers of RSV10/EZE10 and RSV20/EZE10 vs. simvastatin 40 mg and 80 mg plus EZE10 (SIM40/EZE10 and SIM80/EZE10) in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalent., Methods: Adult patients (n = 833) were randomized to RSV10/EZE10, RSV20/EZE10, SIM40/EZE10 or SIM80/EZE10. Following a 6-week dietary lead-in, patients received 6 weeks' statin monotherapy followed by same statin dose plus ezetimibe for 6 more weeks. Primary endpoint was LDL-C change from baseline to 12 weeks., Results: Significantly greater (p < 0.05) reductions in LDL-C and other atherogenic lipids were observed with RSV20/EZE10 vs. SIM40/EZE10 and SIM80/EZE10 and with RSV10/EZE10 vs. SIM40/EZE10. A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved LDL-C goals of <100 mg/dl and <70 mg/dl with RSV20/EZE10 vs. SIM40/EZE10 and SIM80/EZE10 and with RSV10/EZE10 vs. SIM40/EZE10. LDL-C was reduced ∼10-14% further with combination therapy vs. monotherapy. Statin monotherapy reduced cholesterol and bile acid synthesis biomarkers, ezetimibe reduced β-sitosterol (sterol absorption marker), and combination therapy achieved additive reductions in lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 mass and activity, free cholesterol and 7-ketocholesterol. Safety profiles of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe and simvastatin/ezetimibe combinations were comparable., Conclusion: Co-administration of rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg plus ezetimibe achieved significant improvements in lipid profiles in high-risk patients vs. simvastatin 40 or 80 mg plus ezetimibe., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Guidelines published in 2011 by the European Atherosclerosis Society and the European Society of Cardiology recommend a goal of either low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <70 mg/dl (~1.8 mmol/l) or ≥ 50% reduction in LDL-C for patients at very high cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study was to determine the percentage of high-risk patients from the VOYAGER individual patient data meta-analysis treated with rosuvastatin 10-40 mg, atorvastatin 10-80 mg or simvastatin 10-80 mg who achieved this goal., Methods: We analysed 25,075 patient exposures from high-risk patients. Paired comparisons were made between each rosuvastatin dose and an equal or higher dose of either atorvastatin or simvastatin, with a series of meta-analyses that included only randomised studies that directly compared rosuvastatin and its comparator treatments., Results: As statin dose increased, higher percentages of patients achieved LDL-C <70 mg/dl or ≥ 50% LDL-C reduction. A greater percentage achieved this goal with rosuvastatin 10-40 mg (43.8-79.0%) than with equal or double milligram doses of atorvastatin (16.1-65.2%) or simvastatin (0-39.7%). Paired comparisons showed statistically significant differences for: rosuvastatin 10 mg vs. atorvastatin 10-20 mg and simvastatin 10-20 mg; rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. atorvastatin 20-40 mg and simvastatin 20-80 mg; and rosuvastatin 40 mg vs. atorvastatin 40-80 mg and simvastatin 40-80 mg (all p < 0.001)., Conclusion: These data from VOYAGER highlight the importance of an effective statin at an appropriate dose to achieve treatment goals for LDL-C in patients with very high cardiovascular risk., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a marker of atherosclerosis that is commonly used to assess the effect of therapeutic interventions. It is currently unclear to what extent biologically implausible values affect treatment effects. We evaluated the impact of biologically implausible CIMT values on the estimated rate of change in CIMT., Methods: Data were used from the METEOR (Measuring Effects on Intima-media Thickness: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin) trial. METEOR was a randomized, placebo-controlled trial showing that rosuvastatin reduced the 2-year change in CIMT among low-risk individuals with subclinical atherosclerosis. In the main METEOR analysis, the data were analyzed without exclusion of biologically implausible data. In this post-hoc analysis, we constructed twelve definitions to define mildly or extremely biologically implausible values using distance from the interquartile range, median or mean. We evaluated the effect of removing implausible values on the estimated rate of change in CIMT., Results: The percentage of biologically implausible CIMT values ranged from 0.6% to 9.7%, depending on the definition used. Across all definitions, removal of biologically implausible CIMT values marginally reduced standard errors and did not change the primary outcome (i.e., a nonsignificant change in the rosuvastatin group, significant progression in the placebo group, and a statistically significant difference between treatment groups)., Limitation: This study was focussed on the impact of implausible values in the analytical part of a CIMT study. Ultrasound images were not re-examined to determine whether an implausible measurement was due to measurement error or temporal morphological thickening,, Conclusion: Removal of biologically implausible CIMT values marginally decreased the variability of the estimated rate of change in CIMT without having a large impact on the estimated rate of change.

Background: Automated edge detection is thought to be superior to manual edge detection in quantification of the far wall common carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), yet published evidence making a direct comparison is not available., Methods: Data were used from the METEOR study, a randomized placebo-controlled trial among 984 individuals showing that rosuvastatin attenuated the rate of change of 2 year change in CIMT among low-risk individuals with subclinical atherosclerosis. For this post hoc analysis, CIMT images of the far wall of the common carotid artery were evaluated using manual and semi-automated edge detection and reproducibility, relation to cardiovascular risk factors, rates of change over time and effects of lipid-lowering therapy were assessed., Results: Reproducibility was high for both reading methods. Direction, magnitude and statistical significance of risk factor relations were similar across methods. Rate of change in CIMT in participants assigned to placebo was 0.0066 mm per year (SE: 0.0027) for manually and 0.0072 mm per year (SE: 0.0029) for semi-automatically read images. The effect of lipid-lowering therapy on CIMT changes was -0.0103 mm per year (SE: 0.0032) for manual reading and -0.0111 mm per year (SE: 0.0034) for semi-automated reading., Conclusion: Manual and semi-automated readings of the maximal far wall of the common CIMT images both result in high reproducibility, show similar risk factor relations, rates of change and treatment effects. Hence, choices between semi-automated and manual reading software for CIMT studies likely should be based on logistical and cost considerations rather than differences in expected data quality when the choice is made to use far wall common CIMT measurements., (© 2011 The Association for the Publication of the Journal of Internal Medicine.)

Aim: To evaluate whether plaque scoring measurements are able to track changes in atherosclerotic plaque burden over time and to study whether this is affected by lipid-lowering therapy., Methods: Data used were from METEOR (Measuring Effects on Intima-Media Thickness: an Evaluation Of Rosuvastatin), a randomized controlled trial of rosuvastatin 40 mg among 984 low-risk patients with modest carotid intima-media thickening (CIMT). In this analysis, duplicate ultrasound images from 12 carotid sites were collected at the baseline and end of the study from 495 European patients and were evaluated for plaque presence and severity. Plaques were scored from near and far walls of the 12 sites (0= none; 1= minimal; 2= moderate; 3= severe) and plaque scores (PS) were combined into two summary measures for each examination. The MeanMaxPS is the mean over the 12 carotid sites of the maximum score at each site and the MaxMaxPS reflects the most severe lesion at any site., Results: Baseline MeanMaxPS and MaxMaxPS were 0.31 (SD: 0.20) and 1.15 (SD: 0.51), respectively. Changes in MeanMaxPS and MaxMaxPS significantly differed between rosuvastatin and placebo (mean difference: -0.03 [SE: 0.01; p =0.016] and -0.09 [SE: 0.04; p =0.027], respectively). In contrast to rosuvastatin, which demonstrated no change from the baseline, placebo showed significant progression in MeanMaxPS and MaxMaxPS (p =0.002; both)., Conclusion: The plaque-scoring method proved capable of assessing the change in atherosclerotic plaque burden over time and proved useful to evaluate lipid-lowering in asymptomatic individuals with a low risk of cardiovascular disease and subclinical atherosclerosis.

Objectives: In addition to its LDL-C-lowering effects, statin treatment reduces the level of C-reactive protein (CRP). Long-term data on this effect in low-risk populations are limited. Furthermore, whether the CRP reduction is a consequence of LDL-C lowering or occurs independently remains unclear. We studied these aspects in the Measuring Effects on intima media Thickness: an Evaluation Of Rosuvastatin (METEOR) study, a randomized placebo-controlled trial amongst 984 low-risk subjects., Methods: METEOR is a randomized placebo-controlled trial that evaluated the effect of 40 mg of rosuvastatin on 2-year change in carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) amongst 984 low-risk patients (10-year Framingham risk < 10%) with modest CIMT (CIMT > or = 1.2 and < 3.5 mm) and elevated LDL-C. CRP levels were measured at baseline and after 2 years of treatment., Results: Median baseline CRP was 1.4 mg L(-1). Rosuvastatin lowered CRP significantly compared with placebo: -36% in the rosuvastatin group versus no change in the placebo group. There was no relation between change in CRP and change in LDL-C (Spearman correlation: 0.08; SE: 0.04). Stratified analyses showed that the CRP-lowering effect was present amongst all strata of baseline characteristics, including baseline lipids and CRP levels. However, the magnitude of CRP reduction was larger amongst women and participants older than 60 years., Conclusions: Rosuvastatin (40 mg) lowers CRP independently from its effects on LDL-C in low-risk subjects with normal baseline CRP levels and modest CIMT.

Context: Atherosclerosis is often advanced before symptoms appear and it is not clear whether treatment is beneficial in middle-aged individuals with a low Framingham risk score (FRS) and mild to moderate subclinical atherosclerosis., Objective: To assess whether statin therapy could slow progression and/or cause regression of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) over 2 years., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (Measuring Effects on Intima-Media Thickness: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin [METEOR]) of 984 individuals, with either age (mean, 57 years) as the only coronary heart disease risk factor or a 10-year FRS of less than 10%, modest CIMT thickening (1.2-<3.5 mm), and elevated LDL cholesterol (mean, 154 mg/dL); conducted at 61 primary care centers in the United States and Europe between August 2002 and May 2006., Intervention: Participants received either a 40-mg dose of rosuvastatin or placebo., Main Outcome Measures: Rate of change in maximum CIMT (assessed with B-mode ultrasound) for 12 carotid sites; changes in maximum CIMT of the common carotid artery, carotid bulb, and internal carotid artery sites and in mean CIMT of the common carotid artery sites. CIMT regression was assessed in the rosuvastatin group only., Results: Among participants in the rosuvastatin group, the mean (SD) baseline LDL cholesterol level of 155 (24.1) mg/dL declined to 78 (27.5) mg/dL, a mean reduction of 49% (P<.001 vs placebo group). The change in maximum CIMT for the 12 carotid sites was -0.0014 (95% CI, -0.0041 to 0.0014) mm/y for the rosuvastatin group vs 0.0131 (95% CI, 0.0087-0.0174) mm/y for the placebo group (P<.001). The change in maximum CIMT for the rosuvastatin group was -0.0038 (95% CI, -0.0064 to -0.0013) mm/y for the common carotid artery sites (P<.001), -0.0040 (95% CI, -0.0090 to 0.0010) mm/y for the carotid bulb sites (P<.001), and 0.0039 (95% CI, -0.0009 to 0.0088) mm/y for the internal carotid artery sites (P = .02). The change in mean CIMT for the rosuvastatin group for the common carotid artery sites was 0.0004 (95% CI, -0.0011 to 0.0019) mm/y (P<.001). All P values are vs placebo group. Overall, rosuvastatin was well tolerated with infrequent serious adverse cardiovascular events (6 participants [0.86%] had 8 events [1.1%] over 2 years)., Conclusions: In middle-aged adults with an FRS of less than 10% and evidence of subclinical atherosclerosis, rosuvastatin resulted in statistically significant reductions in the rate of progression of maximum CIMT over 2 years vs placebo. Rosuvastatin did not induce disease regression. Larger, longer-term trials are needed to determine the clinical implications of these findings., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225589