K Wallendszus

The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection) : a randomised placebo-controlled trial

Summary Background Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients. Methods This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and ISRCTN54137607. Findings 4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0·85 mmol/L (SE 0·02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4·9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11·3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13·4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·74–0·94; log-rank p=0·0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4·6%] vs 230 [5·0%]; RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·76–1·11; p=0·37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2·8%] vs 174 [3·8%]; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·94; p=0·01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6·1%] vs 352 [7·6%]; RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68–0·93; p=0·0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10 000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0·2%] vs 5 [0·1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0·5%] vs 18 [0·4%]), gallstones (106 [2·3%] vs 106 [2·3%]), or cancer (438 [9·4%] vs 439 [9·5%], p=0·89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14·4%] vs 612 [13·2%], p=0·13). Interpretation Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Funding Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council.

Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial

Summary Background Lowering of LDL cholesterol reduces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is uncertain. We aimed to establish efficacy and safety of more intensive statin treatment in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Methods We undertook a double-blind randomised trial in 12 064 men and women aged 18–80 years with a history of myocardial infarction. Participants were either currently on or had clear indication for statin therapy, and had a total cholesterol concentration of at least 3·5 mmol/L if already on a statin or 4·5 mmol/L if not. Randomisation to either 80 mg or 20 mg simvastatin daily was done centrally using a minimisation algorithm. Participants were assessed at 2, 4, 8, and 12 months after randomisation and then every 6 months until final follow-up. The primary endpoint was major vascular events, defined as coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74348595. Findings 6031 participants were allocated 80 mg simvastatin daily, and 6033 allocated 20 mg simvastatin daily. During a mean follow-up of 6·7 (SD 1·5) years, allocation to 80 mg simvastatin produced an average 0·35 (SE 0·01) mmol/L greater reduction in LDL cholesterol compared with allocation to 20 mg. Major vascular events occurred in 1477 (24·5%) participants allocated 80 mg simvastatin versus 1553 (25·7%) of those allocated 20 mg, corresponding to a 6% proportional reduction (risk ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·88–1·01; p=0·10). There were no apparent differences in numbers of haemorrhagic strokes (24 [0·4%] vs 25 [0·4%]) or deaths attributed to vascular (565 [9·4%] vs 572 [9·5%]) or non-vascular (399 [6·6%] vs 398 [6·6%]) causes. Compared with two (0·03%) cases of myopathy in patients taking 20 mg simvastatin daily, there were 53 (0·9%) cases in the 80 mg group. Interpretation The 6% (SE 3·5%) reduction in major vascular events with a further 0·35 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in our trial is consistent with previous trials. Myopathy was increased with 80 mg simvastatin daily, but intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol can be achieved safely with other regimens. Funding Merck; The Clinical Trial Service Unit also receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.BACKGROUND Lowering of LDL cholesterol reduces major vascular events, but whether more intensive therapy safely produces extra benefits is uncertain. We aimed to establish efficacy and safety of more intensive statin treatment in patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS We undertook a double-blind randomised trial in 12,064 men and women aged 18-80 years with a history of myocardial infarction. Participants were either currently on or had clear indication for statin therapy, and had a total cholesterol concentration of at least 3·5 mmol/L if already on a statin or 4·5 mmol/L if not. Randomisation to either 80 mg or 20 mg simvastatin daily was done centrally using a minimisation algorithm. Participants were assessed at 2, 4, 8, and 12 months after randomisation and then every 6 months until final follow-up. The primary endpoint was major vascular events, defined as coronary death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or arterial revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74348595. FINDINGS 6031 participants were allocated 80 mg simvastatin daily, and 6033 allocated 20 mg simvastatin daily. During a mean follow-up of 6·7 (SD 1·5) years, allocation to 80 mg simvastatin produced an average 0·35 (SE 0·01) mmol/L greater reduction in LDL cholesterol compared with allocation to 20 mg. Major vascular events occurred in 1477 (24·5%) participants allocated 80 mg simvastatin versus 1553 (25·7%) of those allocated 20 mg, corresponding to a 6% proportional reduction (risk ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·88-1·01; p=0·10). There were no apparent differences in numbers of haemorrhagic strokes (24 [0·4%] vs 25 [0·4%]) or deaths attributed to vascular (565 [9·4%] vs 572 [9·5%]) or non-vascular (399 [6·6%] vs 398 [6·6%]) causes. Compared with two (0·03%) cases of myopathy in patients taking 20 mg simvastatin daily, there were 53 (0·9%) cases in the 80 mg group. INTERPRETATION The 6% (SE 3·5%) reduction in major vascular events with a further 0·35 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in our trial is consistent with previous trials. Myopathy was increased with 80 mg simvastatin daily, but intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol can be achieved safely with other regimens. FUNDING Merck; The Clinical Trial Service Unit also receives funding from the UK Medical Research Council and the British Heart Foundation.

Effects of homocysteine-lowering with folic acid plus vitamin B12 vs placebo on mortality and major morbidity in myocardial infarction survivors: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT Blood homocysteine levels are positively associated with cardiovascular disease, but it is uncertain whether the association is causal. OBJECTIVE To assess the effects of reducing homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) on vascular and nonvascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Double-blind randomized controlled trial of 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction in secondary care hospitals in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2008. INTERVENTIONS 2 mg folic acid plus 1 mg vitamin B(12) daily vs matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES First major vascular event, defined as major coronary event (coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization), fatal or nonfatal stroke, or noncoronary revascularization. RESULTS Allocation to the study vitamins reduced homocysteine by a mean of 3.8 micromol/L (28%). During 6.7 years of follow-up, major vascular events occurred in 1537 of 6033 participants (25.5%) allocated folic acid plus vitamin B(12) vs 1493 of 6031 participants (24.8%) allocated placebo (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.12; P = .28). There were no apparent effects on major coronary events (vitamins, 1229 [20.4%], vs placebo, 1185 [19.6%]; RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97-1.13), stroke (vitamins, 269 [4.5%], vs placebo, 265 [4.4%]; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21), or noncoronary revascularizations (vitamins, 178 [3.0%], vs placebo, 152 [2.5%]; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.46). Nor were there significant differences in the numbers of deaths attributed to vascular causes (vitamins, 578 [9.6%], vs placebo, 559 [9.3%]) or nonvascular causes (vitamins, 405 [6.7%], vs placebo, 392 [6.5%]) or in the incidence of any cancer (vitamins, 678 [11.2%], vs placebo, 639 [10.6%]). CONCLUSION Substantial long-term reductions in blood homocysteine levels with folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation did not have beneficial effects on vascular outcomes but were also not associated with adverse effects on cancer incidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN74348595.

Effects on 11-year mortality and morbidity of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin for about 5 years in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised controlled trial.

Summary Background Findings of large randomised trials have shown that lowering LDL cholesterol with statins reduces vascular morbidity and mortality rapidly, but limited evidence exists about the long-term efficacy and safety of statin treatment. The aim of the extended follow-up of the Heart Protection Study (HPS) is to assess long-term efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol with statins, and here we report cause-specific mortality and major morbidity in the in-trial and post-trial periods. Methods 20 536 patients at high risk of vascular and non-vascular outcomes were allocated either 40 mg simvastatin daily or placebo, using minimised randomisation. Mean in-trial follow-up was 5·3 years (SD 1·2), and post-trial follow-up of surviving patients yielded a mean total duration of 11·0 years (SD 0·6). The primary outcome of the long-term follow-up of HPS was first post-randomisation major vascular event, and analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 48489393. Findings During the in-trial period, allocation to simvastatin yielded an average reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1·0 mmol/L and a proportional decrease in major vascular events of 23% (95% CI 19–28; p<0·0001), with significant divergence each year after the first. During the post-trial period (when statin use and lipid concentrations were similar in both groups), no further significant reductions were noted in either major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] 0·95 [0·89–1·02]) or vascular mortality (0·98 [0·90–1·07]). During the combined in-trial and post-trial periods, no significant differences were recorded in cancer incidence at all sites (0·98 [0·92–1·05]) or any particular site, or in mortality attributed to cancer (1·01 [0·92–1·11]) or to non-vascular causes (0·96 [0·89–1·03]). Interpretation More prolonged LDL-lowering statin treatment produces larger absolute reductions in vascular events. Moreover, even after study treatment stopped in HPS, benefits persisted for at least 5 years without any evidence of emerging hazards. These findings provide further support for the prompt initiation and long-term continuation of statin treatment. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Merck & Co, Roche Vitamins.

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin‐based treatment of low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high‐density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non‐HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS During the median follow‐up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non‐HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of ‐18%. There were no significant between‐group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953; and EudraCT number, 2010‐023467‐18.)

Effects of Lowering LDL Cholesterol on Progression of Kidney Disease

Lowering LDL cholesterol reduces the risk of developing atherosclerotic events in CKD, but the effects of such treatment on progression of kidney disease remain uncertain. Here, 6245 participants with CKD (not on dialysis) were randomly assigned to simvastatin (20 mg) plus ezetimibe (10 mg) daily or matching placebo. The main prespecified renal outcome was ESRD (defined as the initiation of maintenance dialysis or kidney transplantation). During 4.8 years of follow-up, allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe resulted in an average LDL cholesterol difference (SEM) of 0.96 (0.02) mmol/L compared with placebo. There was a nonsignificant 3% reduction in the incidence of ESRD (1057 [33.9%] cases with simvastatin plus ezetimibe versus 1084 [34.6%] cases with placebo; rate ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.89 to 1.05; P=0.41). Similarly, allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had no significant effect on the prespecified tertiary outcomes of ESRD or death (1477 [47.4%] events with treatment versus 1513 [48.3%] events with placebo; rate ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04; P=0.34) or ESRD or doubling of baseline creatinine (1189 [38.2%] events with treatment versus 1257 [40.2%] events with placebo; rate ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.01; P=0.09). Exploratory analyses also showed no significant effect on the rate of change in eGFR. Lowering LDL cholesterol by 1 mmol/L did not slow kidney disease progression within 5 years in a wide range of patients with CKD.

Lowering LDL cholesterol reduces cardiovascular risk independently of presence of inflammation

Markers of inflammation, including plasma C-reactive protein (CRP), are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and it has been suggested that this association is causal. However, the relationship between inflammation and cardiovascular disease has not been extensively studied in patients with chronic kidney disease. To evaluate this, we used data from the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) to assess associations between circulating CRP and LDL cholesterol levels and the risk of vascular and non-vascular outcomes. Major vascular events were defined as nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac death, stroke or arterial revascularization, with an expanded outcome of vascular events of any type. Higher baseline CRP was associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (hazard ratio per 3x increase 1.28; 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.38). Higher baseline LDL cholesterol was also associated with an increased risk of major vascular events (hazard ratio per 0.6 mmol/L higher LDL cholesterol; 1.14, 1.06-1.22). Higher baseline CRP was associated with an increased risk of a range of non-vascular events (1.16, 1.12-1.21), but there was a weak inverse association between baseline LDL cholesterol and non-vascular events (0.96, 0.92-0.99). The efficacy of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin/ezetimibe on major vascular events, in the randomized comparison, was similar irrespective of CRP concentration at baseline. Thus, decisions to offer statin-based therapy to patients with chronic kidney disease should continue to be guided by their absolute risk of atherosclerotic events. Estimation of such risk may include plasma biomarkers of inflammation, but there is no evidence that the relative beneficial effects of reducing LDL cholesterol depends on plasma CRP concentration.

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients With Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

more targeted aortic occlusion (AO) in the distal aorta for pelvic, junctional, or extremity hemorrhage. Summary: This study describes the current largest single-institution experience with REBOA in the United States. The use of REBOA at an urban tertiary care facility for severe traumatic hemorrhage, traumatic arrest (AR), or nontraumatic hemorrhage (NTH) was investigated from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2017, among 90 patients who were not responsive or were transiently responsive to resuscitation measures, or were in arrest, from presumed hemorrhage below the diaphragm. Possible causes were trauma or nontrauma-related hemorrhage. Patients with ruptured aortic aneurysms were excluded. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Approximately 20% of the procedures were performed by endovascular trained vascular surgeons while the rest by acute care surgeons without formal endovascular training. Seventeen percent were malpositioned as noted by some type of imaging and required more proximal positioning. Of the 90 patients in the study (15 women and 75 men; mean [SD] age, 41.5 [17.4] years), 29 underwent REBOA for severe traumatic hemorrhage, 50 for AR, and 11 for NTH. For the patients with severe traumatic hemorrhage and AR, the median age was 36.2 years (interquartile range, 25.3-55.5 years), mean (SD) admission Glasgow Coma Scale score was 6 (5), and median Injury Severity Score was 39 (interquartile range, 10-75). The distal thoracic aorta was occluded in 73 patients (81%), and in all patients with AR. A total of 17 patients (19%) had distal abdominal AO. Mean (SD) systolic blood pressure improved in patients with severe traumatic hemorrhage, from 68 (28) mmHg prior to AO, to 131 (12) mmHg after AO (P < 0.001). Percutaneous access was used in 30 patients (33%), including 13 patients with AR (26%), and groin cutdown in 60 patients (67%), including 37 patients with AR (74%). Overall 30-day mortality was 62% (n 1⁄4 56): 11 (39%) in patients with severe traumatic hemorrhage and 45 (90%) in patients with AR. Of the patients with AR, 29 (58%) had return of spontaneous circulation and 11 of those patients (38%) survived to the operating room. All patients who survived AR gained full neurologic recovery. No aortoiliac injury or limb loss occurred from REBOA use per se but rather from severe preplacement extremity injury. Eleven patients underwent REBOA for NTH; 7 (64%) were in arrest. Overall in-hospital mortality for patients with NTH was 36% (n 1⁄4 4). Only patient died of bowel necrosis after an inflation time of longer than 2 hours. No procedural complications occurred in this group but at the time of removal three access site repairs were required in addition to 9 patients who required thrombectomy, 6 of whom were cannulated with 12 French sheaths. Comments: Others are learning from our experience with the care of a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. This experience confirms in another cohort of patients the utility of aortic balloon occlusion for control of significant abdominal arterial bleeding with some risk of malposition without immediate imaging. Access site repair or extremity thrombectomy is not uncommon, may be the price for a survival advantage, but most be considered to prevent delayed morbidity or mortality.