Search

Data from laboratory studies, observational research, and/or secondary prevention trials suggest that vitamin D and marine omega-3 fatty acids may reduce risk for cancer or cardiovascular disease (CVD), but primary prevention trials with adequate dosing in general populations (i.e., unselected for disease risk) are lacking. The ongoing VITamin D and OmegA-3 TriaL (VITAL) is a large randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 x 2 factorial trial of vitamin D (in the form of vitamin D(3) [cholecalciferol], 2000 IU/day) and marine omega-3 fatty acid (Omacor fish oil, eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA]+docosahexaenoic acid [DHA], 1g/day) supplements in the primary prevention of cancer and CVD among a multi-ethnic population of 20,000 U.S. men aged ≥ 50 and women aged ≥ 55. The mean treatment period will be 5 years. Baseline blood samples will be collected in at least 16,000 participants, with follow-up blood collection in about 6000 participants. Yearly follow-up questionnaires will assess treatment compliance (plasma biomarker measures will also assess compliance in a random sample of participants), use of non-study drugs or supplements, occurrence of endpoints, and cancer and vascular risk factors. Self-reported endpoints will be confirmed by medical record review by physicians blinded to treatment assignment, and deaths will be ascertained through national registries and other sources. Ancillary studies will investigate whether these agents affect risk for diabetes and glucose intolerance; hypertension; cognitive decline; depression; osteoporosis and fracture; physical disability and falls; asthma and other respiratory diseases; infections; and rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, thyroid diseases, and other autoimmune disorders., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Statins lower high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and cholesterol concentrations, and hypothesis generating analyses suggest that clinical outcomes improve in patients given statins who achieve hsCRP concentrations less than 2 mg/L in addition to LDL cholesterol less than 1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL). However, the benefit of lowering both LDL cholesterol and hsCRP after the start of statin therapy is controversial. We prospectively tested this hypothesis., Methods: In an analysis of 15 548 initially healthy men and women participating in the JUPITER trial (87% of full cohort), we prospectively assessed the effects of rosuvastatin 20 mg versus placebo on rates of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, admission for unstable angina, arterial revascularisation, or cardiovascular death (prespecified endpoints) during a maximum follow-up of 5 years (median 1.9 years), according to on-treatment concentrations of LDL cholesterol (>/=1.8 mmol/L or <1.8 mmol/L) and hsCRP (>/=2 mg/L or <2 mg/L). We included all events occurring after randomisation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00239681., Findings: Compared with placebo, participants allocated to rosuvastatin who achieved LDL cholesterol less than 1.8 mmol/L had a 55% reduction in vascular events (event rate 1.11 vs 0.51 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.60, p<0.0001), and those achieving hsCRP less than 2 mg/L a 62% reduction (event rate 0.42 per 100 person-years; HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26-0.56, p<0.0001). Although LDL cholesterol and hsCRP reductions were only weakly correlated in individual patients (r values <0.15), we recorded a 65% reduction in vascular events in participants allocated to rosuvastatin who achieved both LDL cholesterol less than 1.8 mmol/L and hsCRP less than 2 mg/L (event rate 0.38 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23-0.54), versus a 33% reduction in those who achieved one or neither target (event rate 0.74 per 100 person-years; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.52-0.87) (p across treatment groups <0.0001). In participants who achieved LDL cholesterol less than 1.8 mmol/L and hsCRP less than 1 mg/L, we noted a 79% reduction (event rate 0.24 per 100 person-years; HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.52). Achieved hsCRP concentrations were predictive of event rates irrespective of the lipid endpoint used, including the apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein AI ratio., Interpretation: For people choosing to start pharmacological prophylaxis, reduction in both LDL cholesterol and hsCRP are indicators of successful treatment with rosuvastatin.

Background: Increased levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein predict cardiovascular events. Since statins lower levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as well as cholesterol, we hypothesized that people with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels but without hyperlipidemia might benefit from statin treatment., Methods: We randomly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg per liter or higher to rosuvastatin, 20 mg daily, or placebo and followed them for the occurrence of the combined primary end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, arterial revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, or death from cardiovascular causes., Results: The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 1.9 years (maximum, 5.0). Rosuvastatin reduced LDL cholesterol levels by 50% and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels by 37%. The rates of the primary end point were 0.77 and 1.36 per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio for rosuvastatin, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.00001), with corresponding rates of 0.17 and 0.37 for myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70; P=0.0002), 0.18 and 0.34 for stroke (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.79; P=0.002), 0.41 and 0.77 for revascularization or unstable angina (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.70; P<0.00001), 0.45 and 0.85 for the combined end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.69; P<0.00001), and 1.00 and 1.25 for death from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97; P=0.02). Consistent effects were observed in all subgroups evaluated. The rosuvastatin group did not have a significant increase in myopathy or cancer but did have a higher incidence of physician-reported diabetes., Conclusions: In this trial of apparently healthy persons without hyperlipidemia but with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels, rosuvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00239681.), (2008 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Context: Recent randomized trials among patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD) have failed to support benefits of B-vitamin supplementation on cardiovascular risk. Observational data suggest benefits may be greater among women, yet women have been underrepresented in published randomized trials., Objective: To test whether a combination of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 lowers risk of CVD among high-risk women with and without CVD., Design, Setting, and Participants: Within an ongoing randomized trial of antioxidant vitamins, 5442 women who were US health professionals aged 42 years or older, with either a history of CVD or 3 or more coronary risk factors, were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to receive a combination pill containing folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 or a matching placebo, and were treated for 7.3 years from April 1998 through July 2005., Intervention: Daily intake of a combination pill of 2.5 mg of folic acid, 50 mg of vitamin B6, and 1 mg of vitamin B12., Main Outcome Measures: A composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or CVD mortality., Results: Compared with placebo, a total of 796 women experienced a confirmed CVD event (406 in the active group and 390 in the placebo group). Patients receiving active vitamin treatment had similar risk for the composite CVD primary end point (226.9/10,000 person-years vs 219.2/10,000 person-years for the active vs placebo group; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.19; P = .65), as well as for the secondary outcomes including myocardial infarction (34.5/10,000 person-years vs 39.5/10,000 person-years; RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.63-1.22; P = .42), stroke (41.9/10,000 person-years vs 36.8/10,000 person-years; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.82-1.57; P = .44), and CVD mortality (50.3/10,000 person-years vs 49.6/10,000 person-years; RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.76-1.35; P = .93). In a blood substudy, geometric mean plasma homocysteine level was decreased by 18.5% (95% CI, 12.5%-24.1%; P < .001) in the active group (n = 150) over that observed in the placebo group (n = 150), for a difference of 2.27 micromol/L (95% CI, 1.54-2.96 micromol/L)., Conclusion: After 7.3 years of treatment and follow-up, a combination pill of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 did not reduce a combined end point of total cardiovascular events among high-risk women, despite significant homocysteine lowering., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000541.

Background: Randomized trials have largely failed to support an effect of antioxidant vitamins on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Few trials have examined interactions among antioxidants, and, to our knowledge, no previous trial has examined the individual effect of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) on CVD., Methods: The Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study tested the effects of ascorbic acid (500 mg/d), vitamin E (600 IU every other day), and beta carotene (50 mg every other day) on the combined outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or CVD death among 8171 female health professionals at increased risk in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design. Participants were 40 years or older with a history of CVD or 3 or more CVD risk factors and were followed up for a mean duration of 9.4 years, from 1995-1996 to 2005., Results: A total of 1450 women experienced 1 or more CVD outcomes. There was no overall effect of ascorbic acid (relative risk [RR], 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13 [P = .71]), vitamin E (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04 [P = .23]), or beta carotene (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13 [P = .71]) on the primary combined end point or on the individual secondary outcomes of myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, or CVD death. A marginally significant reduction in the primary outcome with active vitamin E was observed among the prespecified subgroup of women with prior CVD (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-1.00 [P = .04]; P value for interaction, .07). There were no significant interactions between agents for the primary end point, but those randomized to both active ascorbic acid and vitamin E experienced fewer strokes (P value for interaction, .03)., Conclusion: There were no overall effects of ascorbic acid, vitamin E, or beta carotene on cardiovascular events among women at high risk for CVD.

Background: The evidence for a potential benefit of antioxidant vitamins and folic acid in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention is derived from laboratory, clinical, and observational epidemiological studies but remains inconclusive. Large-scale randomized trials with clinical end points are necessary to minimize confounding and provide unbiased estimates of the balance of benefits and risks, yet data from such trials are scarce, especially among women., Methods: The Women's Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study (WACS) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial testing whether antioxidant vitamins and a folic acid/vitamin B(6)/vitamin B(12) combination prevent future cardiovascular events among women with preexisting CVD or >or=3 CVD risk factors. This paper describes the design of the trial and baseline characteristics of participants, evaluates the success of randomization, and addresses the generalizability of future findings., Results: In a factorial design, 8171 U.S. female health professionals aged >or=40 years were randomized to vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene, or placebos. Of these women, 5442 were also subsequently randomized to folic acid/vitamin B(6)/vitamin B(12) or placebo. The randomization was successful, as evidenced by similar distributions of baseline demographic, health, and behavioral characteristics across treatment groups. The clinical profile of participants was similar to that observed in another large trial of women with CVD., Conclusions: The similar distribution of known potential confounders across treatment groups provides reassurance that unmeasured or unknown potential confounders are also equally distributed. Although a definitive conclusion regarding generalizability requires additional trials in diverse populations, there is little biological basis for supposing that the benefit-risk balance differs in other high-risk women.

Context: Plasma levels of the inflammatory biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP) predict cardiovascular risk, and retrospective studies suggest that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) may lower CRP in a manner largely independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, prospective trial data directly evaluating this anti-inflammatory effect of statins are not available., Objective: To test the hypothesis that pravastatin has anti-inflammatory effects as evidenced by CRP reduction., Design, Setting, and Participants: Community-based, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial including 1702 men and women with no prior history of cardiovascular disease (primary prevention cohort) and open-label study including 1182 patients with known cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention cohort) who provided at least baseline and 12-week blood samples. The study was conducted in US office-based practices from February to December 2000., Interventions: Participants in the double-blind primary prevention trial were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/d of pravastatin (n = 865) or placebo (n = 837) for 24 weeks. Participants in the secondary prevention cohort received 40 mg/d of open-label pravastatin for 24 weeks., Main Outcome Measure: Change in CRP levels from baseline to 24 weeks., Results: In the primary prevention trial, compared with placebo, pravastatin reduced median CRP levels by 16.9% (P<.001) at 24 weeks, reflecting a decrease of 0.02 mg/dL in the pravastatin group while no change in CRP levels was observed in the placebo group. This effect was seen as early as 12 weeks (median reduction in CRP with pravastatin, 14.7%; P<.001) and was present among all prespecified subgroups according to sex, age, smoking status, body mass index, baseline lipid levels, presence of diabetes, and use of aspirin or hormone replacement therapy. No significant association was observed between baseline CRP and baseline LDL-C levels, end-of-study CRP and end-of-study LDL-C levels, or change in CRP and change in LDL-C levels over time. In linear regression analyses, the only significant predictors of change in CRP on a log scale were randomized pravastatin allocation and baseline CRP levels (P<.001 for both). Similar reductions in CRP levels were observed at 12 weeks (-14.3%) and 24 weeks (-13.1%) in the secondary prevention cohort treated with pravastatin (P<.005 for both)., Conclusions: In this prospective trial, pravastatin reduced CRP levels at both 12 and 24 weeks in a largely LDL-C-independent manner. These data provide evidence that statins may have anti-inflammatory effects in addition to lipid-lowering effects.

AIM: The aim was to describe patients' experience of unexplained chest pain, and how the pain affected their everyday life. BACKGROUND: Chest pain is one of the most common reasons for patients to consult the emergency department. Often no clear ischaemic heart disease or any other somatic explanation is found. Exploring the pain experience and how the pain affects everyday life may provide insights into the patients' perspective, fill the gaps in our knowledge about this condition and give needed direction for nursing practice. METHOD: The study sample (n = 19) included 11 men and eight women admitted to the emergency department. An open-ended unstructured interview was conducted with each patient and the data were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The categories concerning pain include the informants' descriptions of several aspects of pain. These aspects are described in four categories and four subcategories: (i) pain location, (ii) pain duration with the subcategories 'periodic pain' and 'continuous pain', (iii) pain intensity, (iv) quality of pain with the subcategories 'sensory aspects' and 'affective aspects' . The content of pain experience in everyday life was divided into four subthemes and was further abstracted into a theme. Four subthemes, each comprising several meaning units, were created and labelled: (i) fear and anxiety, (ii) feeling of uncertainty, (iii) feeling of stress, and (iv) loss of strength. In these descriptions, it was obvious that chest pain considerably disturbed and affected the informants' lives and an overall theme 'intrusion into the everyday life world' emerged. CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that unexplained chest pain intrudes into everyday life in a destructive manner that cannot be ignored. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patients are not receiving optimal care to relieve their pain and there is therefore a need for specialized nurses who can give adequate help and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]