Statin therapy for prevention and treatment of acute and chronic cardiovascular disease: update on recent trials and metaanalyses

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the evidence from recent clinical trials and metaanalyses on the efficacy of statin therapy to reduce death, myocardial infarction and stroke, and to review the effects of statins in patients with low LDL cholesterol, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and acute coronary syndrome. RECENT FINDINGS: In large metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials relative risk reductions from statins compared with placebo for patients with manifest or with risk factors for coronary artery disease were 13% for overall mortality, 26% for fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and 18% for fatal and nonfatal stroke. Evidence from large trials suggests that patients with type II diabetes compared with patients without diabetes have similar risk reductions from statins for cardiovascular events, but this benefit is not seen in patients with diabetes and end-stage renal disease. In patients with acute coronary syndrome, early treatment with high-dose atorvastatin reduces cardiovascular morbidity after the first 4 months following the event, but the impact on mortality endpoints remains less clear. Results from recent trials in patients with stable coronary artery disease or type II diabetes suggest that statins provide benefit at considerable low LDL cholesterol levels. Therefore, target values for LDL cholesterol of less than 1.8 mmol/l (<70 mg/dl) should be considered for all patients with coronary artery disease or equivalent coronary risk. SUMMARY: For patients at high risk of coronary artery disease there is growing evidence for the concept of 'the lower, the better' regarding LDL cholesterol levels. Ongoing trials are further investigating the safety of lower target values in patients at various risk of coronary artery disease.     

Lipid management after acute coronary syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite advances in medical therapy and percutaneous revascularization, patients with acute coronary syndrome face a high risk of early, recurrent cardiovascular events. Interventions targeting atherogenic lipoproteins may favorably modify this risk. RECENT FINDINGS: Two randomized clinical trials, MIRACL and PROVE-IT, demonstrated efficacy of early, intensive statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome. Recent observational and meta-analyses corroborate the findings of these trials. The benefit of intensive statin treatment appears to apply broadly to elderly as well as younger patients, and to patients with or without diabetes or metabolic syndrome. Randomized trials demonstrating the efficacy of early, intensive statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome employed fixed statin dosages, and there does not appear to be an initial or achieved LDL-cholesterol level below which benefit is absent. As such, broad application of intensive statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome may be preferable to titration of statin dose to achieve specific LDL goals. Low HDL-cholesterol predicts risk after acute coronary syndrome; therefore, pharmacologic interventions to raise HDL concentration or mimic its function may help reduce that risk. SUMMARY: Early, intensive statin therapy is safe and effective after acute coronary syndrome. Future research will determine whether drugs that raise or mimic HDL-cholesterol are effective adjuncts to statin therapy.     

Cardiovascular disease with diabetes or the metabolic syndrome: should statins or fibrates be first line lipid therapy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Subgroups with diabetes or with features of the metabolic syndrome have been increasingly highlighted in large clinical endpoint trials with lipid therapy. This review will focus on the results of trials with statins or fibrates and examine the strength of the evidence for major cardiovascular event reduction with each kind of therapy in these high-risk subgroups that typically have low-to-moderate levels of LDL cholesterol. RECENT FINDINGS: Of six statin trials in populations with moderately increased LDL cholesterol only one, the Heart Protection Study, has shown that statin therapy will significantly reduce the major coronary heart disease events of non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary heart disease death in diabetes. None of these trials has shown that statins have a particular predilection for reducing cardiovascular events in individuals with higher levels of body weight or other features of the metabolic syndrome. There are far fewer trial data with fibrates than with statins. However, the Veterans Affairs High Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial has shown that a fibrate can significantly reduce major cardiovascular events, most particularly coronary heart disease death, in those with diabetes as well as those without diabetes who have insulin resistance. Indeed, all fibrate trials show that this therapy appears to selectively benefit the individual with obesity and features of the metabolic syndrome. SUMMARY: Based principally on evidence from the Veterans Affairs High Density Lipoprotein Intervention Trial and the cumulative experience with statins, trial data would thus far suggest that the patient with a modest increase in LDL cholesterol who has diabetes or features of the metabolic syndrome might be likely to achieve more substantial cardiovascular benefit from fibrate than from statin therapy.     

The efficacy and safety of intensive statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Recent lipid guidelines recommend aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering in patients with coronary artery disease. To clarify the evidence for this recommendation, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared different intensities of statin therapy.

Methods

We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registery of Controlled Trials, Web of Science) for randomized controlled trials published up to July 19, 2007, that compared statin regimens of different intensities in adults with coronary artery disease and that reported cardiovascular events or mortality. Data were pooled using random-effects models to calculate odds ratios (OR).

Results

A total of 7 trials (29 395 patients) were included. Compared with less intensive statin regimens, more intensive regimens further reduced LDL levels (0.72 mmol/L reduction, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.84 mmol/L), and reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77–0.91) and stroke (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.95). Although there was no effect on mortality among patients with chronic coronary artery disease (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80–1.14), all-cause mortality was reduced among patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with more intensive statin regimens (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.93). Compared with lower intensity regimens, more intensive regimens were associated with small absolute increases in rates of drug discontinuation (2.5%), elevated levels of aminotransferases (1%) and myopathy (0.5%), and there was no difference in noncardiovascular mortality. All 7 trials reported events by randomization arm rather than by LDL level achieved. About half of the patients treated with more intensive statin therapy did not achieve an LDL level of less than 2.0 mmol/L, and none of the trials tested combination therapies.

Interpretation

Our analysis supports the use of more intensive statin regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease. There is insufficient evidence to advocate treating to particular LDL targets, using combination lipid-lowering therapy to achieve these targets or for using more intensive regimens in patients without established coronary artery disease.Dyslipidemia is the most important modifiable risk factor for myocardial infarction worldwide,¹ and serum cholesterol levels are directly related to mortality from coronary artery disease in all populations studied.^2–4 Over the past decade, randomized controlled trials enrolling a wide variety of patients have confirmed that for every 1-mmol/L reduction in serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol achieved by statin therapy, the relative risks of cardiovascular events and mortality are reduced (by 21% and 12% respectively).⁵Statins exert their beneficial effects primarily by reducing the level of LDL cholesterol,⁶ and the reductions in the relative risk of cardiovascular events achieved by statin therapy appears to be similar regardless of baseline cholesterol levels.⁵ As a result, attention has increasingly focused on defining optimal target LDL levels, particularly in patients at highest risk (i.e., those with coronary artery disease). Based on the observational studies mentioned above,^2,3 the apparent lack of a lower threshold for statin benefit in the randomized controlled trials, and recent trials reporting greater benefits with more intensive statin regimens (compared with less intensive regimens), Canadian⁷ and American⁸ guidelines for secondary prevention now recommend target LDL levels below 2.0 mmol/L in patients with coronary artery disease. On the other hand, European guidelines specify a target LDL of 2.5 mmol/L in these patients.⁹ Questions have been raised about the safety and incremental benefits of more intensive statin regimens.^10–12We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to critically examine the evidence for the safety, efficacy (LDL lowering) and clinical effectiveness from trials comparing more intensive statin therapy with less intensive statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease.     

Which is the best lipid-modifying strategy in metabolic syndrome and diabetes: fibrates, statins or both?

Although less clinical intervention studies have been performed with fibrates than with statins, there are evidences indicating that fibrates may reduce risk of cardiovascular events. The potential clinical benefit of the fenofibrate will be specified by the ongoing Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study, which rationale, methods and aims have been just published. Controlled clinical trials show similar or even greater cardiovascular benefits from statins-based therapy in patient subgroups with diabetes compared with overall study populations. Therefore, statins are the drug of first choice for aggressive lipid lowering actions and reducing risk of coronary artery disease in these patients. However, current therapeutic use of statins as monotherapy is still leaving many patients with mixed atherogenic dyslipidemia at high risk for coronary events. A combination statin/fibrate therapy may be often necessary to control all lipid abnormalities in patients with metabolic syndrome and diabetes adequately, since fibrates provide additional important benefits, particularly on triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol levels. Thus, this combined therapy concentrates on all the components of the mixed dyslipidemia that often occurs in persons with diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and may be expected to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Safety concerns about some fibrates such as gemfibrozil may lead to exaggerate precautions regarding fibrate administration and therefore diminish the use of the seagents. However, other fibrates, such as bezafibrate and fenofibrate appear to be safer and better tolerated. We believe that a proper co-administration of statins and fibrates, selected on basis of their safety, could be more effective in achieving a comprehensive lipid control as compared with monotherapy.     

Protecting the heart: a practical review of the statin studies

The aim of this review of the landmark HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) studies is to enable the clinician to draw practical lessons from these trials. The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) established the importance of treating the hypercholesterolemic patient with established cardiovascular heart disease. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS) showed the benefit of treating healthy hypercholesterolemic men who were nevertheless at high risk of developing cardiovascular heart disease in the future. The Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) study, a secondary prevention trial, proved the benefit of treating patients with myocardial ischemia and cholesterol levels within normal limits. This conclusion was confirmed by the Long-term Intervention With Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) study, another secondary prevention study that enrolled patients with a wide range of cholesterol levels (4-7 mmol/dL), into which the large majority of patients would belong. The importance of treating patients with established ischemic heart disease (IHD), and those at high risk of developing cardiovascular heart disease, regardless of cholesterol level, was being realized. The Air Force/Texas Coronary Artery Prevention Study (AFCAPS/TexCAPS) then showed that treatment can reduce adverse cardiovascular events even in the primary prevention of patients with normal cholesterol levels. The Myocardial Ischemia Reduction With Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) trial showed that hypocholesterolemic therapy is useful in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome, while the Atorvastatin Versus Revascularisation Treatment (AVERT) study showed that aggressive statin therapy is as good as angioplasty in reducing ischemic cardiac events in patients with stable angina pectoris. Finally, the Heart Protection Study (HPS) randomized more than 20,000 patients, and the value of statins in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in the high-risk patient, including the elderly, women, and even in those with low cholesterol levels, is beyond doubt. The emphasis is now on the risk level for developing cardiovascular events, and treatment should target the high-risk group and not be dependent on the actual cholesterol level of the patient. It is interesting to compare the large amount of data on the value and safety of the statins with the much more limited and less convincing data on antioxidant vitamins.     

Modification of coronary artery disease progression by cholesterol-lowering therapy: the angiographic studies

Large randomized placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated that cholesterol lowering with statin therapy reduces the incidence of adverse cardiac events. Smaller angiographic studies have shown that coronary artery disease progression can be slowed and, in some cases, reversed by cholesterol-lowering interventions. These anatomical changes, however, are small and occur too slowly to account for the early clinical benefit. Current evidence suggests that plaque stabilization is the most important mechanism, by which cholesterol-lowering therapy reduces both the incidence of adverse cardiac events and coronary artery disease progression.     

Statin Intensity and Clinical Outcome in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Very Low LDL-Cholesterol

BackgroundAlthough intensive statin therapy is recommended for high risk patients, evidence of its benefit in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and very low low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) has been very rare. In this study, we investigated whether higher statin intensity reduces cardiovascular risks in this population.MethodsIn this retrospective study, a total of 5234 patients with stable CAD were screened at three tertiary hospitals in Korea; 449 patients (mean age: 65 years, male: 69%) with LDL-C <80 mg/dL were finally analyzed. The statin intensities were classified according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. Patients who received statins equivalent to or weaker than atorvastatin 10 mg (group 1) were compared with those who took statins equivalent to or stronger than atorvastatin 20 mg (group 2). The impact of statin intensity on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) was evaluated during follow-up.ResultsGroup 1 and group 2 consisted of 181 patients (40.3%) and 268 patients (59.7%), respectively. The mean LDL-C level decreased to 52 and 57 mg/dL in group 1 and group 2, respectively, during follow-up. In a median follow-up of 4.5 years, patients of group 2 had a lower incidence of MACE (30 [16.6%] vs. 12 [4.5%], p <0.001), which were mostly related to a lower incidence of coronary revascularization. Cox proportional hazard analyses identified the statin intensity of group 2 (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.25, confidence interval: 0.11–0.55, p <0.001) and the baseline high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level as independent determinants of MACE.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that higher intensity statins are beneficial for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable CAD and very low LDL-C. Statins equivalent to or stronger than atorvastatin 20 mg are more effective than lower intensity statins.     

Statin therapy and stroke prevention: what was known, what is new and what is next?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Randomized trials have shown that statins may reduce the risk of primary stroke. There is no evidence however that statins can reduce recurrent stroke incidence. RECENT FINDINGS: In the SPARCL trial, patients with a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/day had a significant 16% relative risk reduction of stroke, and a 35% reduction in major coronary events compared with placebo. This was obtained despite 25% of the placebo arm patients receiving a commercially-available statin outside of the trial. Post-hoc analysis used blinded LDL-cholesterol measurements as a marker of adherence to lipid-lowering therapy. Compared with the group with no change or an increase in LDL-cholesterol (the group adherent to placebo or not taking a statin), the group with over 50% reduction in LDL-cholesterol had a significant 31% reduction in stroke. The next step is to define whether achieving LDL-cholesterol below 70 mg/dl is better than a standard dose of statin (LDL around 100-110 mg/dl) in the secondary prevention of stroke. SUMMARY: Statins are effective in reducing both first-ever and recurrent stroke, and this effect seems driven by the extent of LDL-cholesterol lowering.     

HDL-raising strategies in the treatment of coronary artery disease: perspectives from the Armed Forces Regression Study

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Even with the aggressive reduction of LDL-cholesterol, the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease remains substantial. The Armed Forces Regression Study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of combination drug therapy aimed at raising HDL-cholesterol in patients with angiographically evident coronary artery disease. Drug therapy ultimately resulted in regression of the angiographic lesions and a reduction in cardiovascular events. This review places the Armed Forces Regression Study within the context of other recent studies. RECENT FINDINGS: In the past few years a number of other important papers have further defined the important role HDL-cholesterol plays in the pathobiology of atherosclerosis. These studies have focused on three general areas: HDL-cholesterol metabolism and the reverse cholesterol transport pathway; novel therapeutic interventions and their effects on coronary artery disease as assessed through non-invasive imaging modalities; and finally a re-analysis of previous outcomes trials with established HDL-cholesterol modifying agents. SUMMARY: The results of the Armed Forces Regression Study fit nicely within the evolving paradigm of targeting HDL-cholesterol in patients at risk of cardiovascular events. The use of niacin and well-tolerated fibrates as an adjunct to statins or as primary therapy in patients intolerant of statins appears reasonable in patients with low levels of HDL-cholesterol and at high risk of cardiovascular events. The further development of novel therapeutic approaches, in addition to broadening our pharmacological armamentarium, should further advance our understanding of HDL-cholesterol.     

Pleiotropic effects of statins: do they matter?

Treatment with the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenyzme A reductase inhibitors (or statins) reduces the risk for cardiovascular events across a broad spectrum of patient profiles, as evidenced by both primary prevention and secondary prevention trials. Improved survival by way of reduced deaths from coronary heart disease was also reported with these agents, which are primarily indicated for substantial reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels. However, the statins are extremely complex drugs and exhibit a wide variety of vascular effects that may or may not be dependent on their lipid-modifying properties. These so-called pleiotropic effects include alterations of endothelial function, inflammation, coagulation, and plaque stability. The relative contribution of the nonlipid effects of statin therapy to the well-documented clinical benefits is currently under intense investigation.     

Are statins anti-inflammatory?

Large scale clinical trials demonstrate significant reductions in cardiovascular event rates with statin therapy. The observed benefit of statin therapy, however, may be larger in these trials than that expected on the basis of lipid lowering alone. Emerging evidence from both clinical trials and basic science studies suggest that statins have anti-inflammatory properties, which may additionally lead to clinical efficacy. Measurement of markers of inflammation such as high sensitivity C-reactive protein in addition to lipid parameters may help identify those patients who will benefit most from statin therapy.     

Intensive statin therapy in acute coronary syndromes: clinical benefits and vascular biology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The results of a landmark clinical study comparing intensive statin therapy with conventional statin therapy, in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), are reviewed. The mechanisms behind these results are analysed drawing data from vascular and cell biology. RECENT FINDINGS: The Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (PROVE IT-TIMI 22) study showed that intensive statin therapy with 80 mg of atorvastatin to achieve a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 62 mg/dl resulted in a 3.9% absolute and a 16% relative risk reduction in death or major cardiovascular events up to 2 years, compared to 40 mg of pravastatin, in patients with ACS. The results were especially significant as intensive statin therapy resulted in a very early benefit (<30 days) and occurred against a background of percutaneous coronary intervention (69%) for the index admission and high use of medications for secondary prevention. The PROVE IT and the Myocardial Ischaemia Reduction with Aggressive Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) C-reactive protein sub-study also showed that atorvastatin (80 mg) resulted in a significant reduction in markers of inflammation, whilst the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) study showed that intensive statin therapy was associated with reduced progression of atherosclerosis compared with conventional doses of statins. SUMMARY: Intensive statin therapy results in a significant early reduction in adverse cardiac events in ACS patients which are sustained over 2 years. The early benefits seen are likely to result from modulation of inflammation, endothelial function and coagulation, i.e. the pleiotropic effects, whereas the greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol results in reduced long-term events.     

Effect of statins in stroke prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper reviews recent studies into the outcomes of clinical trials in which statin therapy has been used in the prevention and treatment of strokes. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: Epidemiologic studies found no or little association between blood cholesterol levels and stroke. Randomized trials have confirmed that LDL lowering decreased the risk of stroke, in diabetic or hypertensive patients with 'normal' LDL cholesterol at baseline, and in patients with coronary artery disease, with respectively 48, 27 and 25% reduction in stroke incidence. A meta-analysis of trials showed that the greater the LDL cholesterol reduction, the greater the intima-media thickness and stroke risk reductions. Even if statins also have 'pleiotropic' effects, their main action seems to be through LDL reduction. The Heart Protection Study only included strokes that occurred 4.6 years before--a time when the stroke event rate is low and the cardiac event rate is high, and so may not have had the power to find a true effect of LDL cholesterol lowering in preventing recurrent stroke. The Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) trial may give a definite answer because SPARCL investigators included 4732 patients with brain infarction or transient ischemic attacks and no history of myocardial infarction within 6 months of their stroke event, at a time when the expected stroke rate is very high and the myocardial infarction rate is very low. The results should be announced by mid-2006. SUMMARY: The positive effect of statins on stroke observed in trials of patients with coronary heart disease depended mainly on between-group LDL reduction, but other mechanisms could be involved. Though effective in prevention of major coronary events after a first stroke, statins have not yet been proven effective in prevention of recurrent stroke.     

Efficacy of statins for primary prevention in people at low cardiovascular risk: a meta-analysis

Background:

Statins were initially used to improve cardiovascular outcomes in people with established coronary artery disease, but recently their use has become more common in people at low cardiovascular risk. We did a systematic review of randomized trials to assess the efficacy and harms of statins in these individuals.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (to Jan. 28, 2011), registries of health technology assessments and clinical trials, and reference lists of relevant reviews. We included trials that randomly assigned participants at low cardiovascular risk to receive a statin versus a placebo or no statin. We defined low risk as an observed 10-year risk of less than 20% for cardiovascular-related death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, but we explored other definitions in sensitivity analyses.

Results:

We identified 29 eligible trials involving a total of 80 711 participants. All-cause mortality was significantly lower among patients receiving a statin than among controls (relative risk [RR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.97) for trials with a 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease < 20% [primary analysis] and 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.94, for trials with 10-year risk < 10% [sensitivity analysis]). Patients in the statin group were also significantly less likely than controls to have nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.84) and nonfatal stroke (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.96). Neither metaregression nor stratified analyses suggested statistically significant differences in efficacy between high-and low-potency statins, or larger reductions in cholesterol.

Interpretation:

Statins were found to be efficacious in preventing death and cardiovascular morbidity in people at low cardiovascular risk. Reductions in relative risk were similar to those seen in patients with a history of coronary artery disease.Although statins are known to improve survival and relevant clinical outcomes in high-risk populations,¹ evidence of their clinical benefit in lower risk populations is more equivocal. Initially, low-risk populations were defined by the absence of known coronary artery disease (and their treatment was termed “primary prevention”). However, it was subsequently recognized that these populations included both patients at very high risk of coronary artery disease (e.g., those with severe peripheral vascular disease) and those at very low risk (e.g., those aged < 40 years who have no diabetes or hypertension and have low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of less than 1.8 mmol/L). Accordingly, current guidelines for the use of statins are based on the projected risk of an atherosclerotic event rather than solely on the presence or absence of known coronary artery disease.^2,3Results of the recent JUPITER study (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin)⁴ have renewed enthusiasm for the use of statins in people without a history of coronary artery disease and have generated further controversy as to whether high-potency statins such as rosuvastatin and atorvastatin lead to better clinical outcomes than low-potency statins such as pravastatin, simvastatin, fluvastatin and lovastatin. We did a systematic review of randomized trials to assess the efficacy and harms of statins in people at low cardiovascular risk, including indirect comparisons of high-potency and low-potency statins.     

Statins – Do we really know all mechanisms of action of this group of drugs?

The role of statins in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular diseases, such as coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndromes, diabetes or stroke is well established. However, there are still many questions regarding the role of statins in patients with heart failure (HF)/cardiomyopathy (CM), hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). As for patients with HF/CM inhibition of inflammation, reducing endothelial dysfunction might comprise part of the underlying mechanisms leading to the improvement of left ventricular function and exercise tolerance in these groups of patients. Therefore the candidates for statin therapy with HF/CM should be in New York Heart Association class II or III and should have normal or increased levels of lipids. We should avoid reducing lipids levels in these patients. At present, it is also difficult to unequivocally assess the impact of statins on blood pressure (BP). However, according to most available studies, the impact of statins on the decrease in BP is slight, but significant, especially among patients with hypertension. Moreover statins significantly reduce cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. Although the results of trials concerning the use of statins in CKD patients are conflicting, it is suggested that the benefits of statin use outweigh the drawbacks in patients with early-stage CKD, when the benefits can be effectively predicted. However, available large randomized clinical trials suggest a lack of efficacy in patients on renal replacement therapy. We also needs further data on the role of statins on AF, however the existing studies suggest beneficial impact of statins in these patients.     

Early initiation of statin therapy after a coronary event

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite improvements in the early management of acute coronary syndromes, the risk of major cardiovascular complications remains high. Lipid-modifying treatment with statins has the potential to further improve outcomes through improved endothelial function, antithrombotic and antiinflammatory actions. Statins are of proven benefit in patients with stable coronary heart disease. There has been speculation on potential mechanisms of benefit but, until recently, little data on the efficacy and safety of statins in the acute setting. Recent observational studies and randomized trials have addressed some of the questions regarding early initiation of statins in acute coronary syndromes. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent observational and randomized trials have shown that early commencement of statins in acute coronary syndromes is safe as early as 6 hours after the event and is likely to improve longer-term compliance. The current data are not sufficient to draw conclusions about the efficacy of statins early in the course of acute coronary syndromes. SUMMARY: Current management for acute coronary syndromes should include the commencement of statin therapy during initial hospital admission. This recommendation is based on safety and compliance data. More randomized trial evidence is required to determine whether early initiation will produce better outcomes than later initiation after an acute coronary event.     

Statin use in acute coronary syndromes: cellular mechanisms and clinical evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Review the cellular mechanisms and clinical evidence for the use of statins in patients with unstable coronary syndromes. RECENT FINDINGS: Clinical trials of statin therapy in acute coronary syndromes demonstrate a rapid improvement in endothelial function, improved perfusion to ischemic myocardium, and an early reduction in cardiovascular events. The early benefit of statin therapy is related to a combination of molecular mechanisms that involve the oxidized LDL receptor (LOX-1), endothelial localized nitric oxide synthase, inflammatory cytokines, interstitial collagenases, and tissue factor expression. In human atheroma, 3 months' use of statin (pravastatin) therapy reduced the content of oxidized LDL, inflammatory cells (macrophage, T cells) infiltrates, and improved plaque stability by increasing the collagen content of the fibrous cap. SUMMARY: The antiatherothrombotic effects of statin therapy appear to have important clinical relevance to patients with impaired myocardial perfusion and acute coronary syndrome.     

Debate: at what level of coronary heart disease risk should a statin be prescribed?

3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) are effective treatments for the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, but an outstanding issue is determining who should have such treatment. The benefit from treatment with statins appears to be proportional to the underlying risk of coronary heart disease and independent of the factors increasing risk. Most benefit will therefore be achieved by treating people at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Statins reduce coronary morbidity even when the risk of coronary heart disease is relatively low (6% over 10 years), but reduction in all-cause mortality, the true measure of safety has been shown only when the risk of a major coronary heart disease event is 15% over 10 years or greater. At this level of risk patients appear willing to take treatment to gain the benefit expected from statin treatment, and the cost effectiveness of statin treatment is within the range accepted for other treatments. The major impediments to the systematic introduction of statin treatment at this level of risk are the very high overall cost and the large workload in countries like Britain, where the population risk of coronary heart disease is high. For this reason, recent British guidelines correctly advise statin treatment for secondary prevention and primary prevention when the 10 year coronary heart disease risk is 30% or greater as the first priority, moving to a lower coronary heart disease threshold for primary prevention only when resources permit.     

Statins: are any questions unanswered?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent and ongoing randomized trials of statin therapy for the prevention of major vascular events. RECENT FINDINGS: Four large-scale randomized trials have compared high-dose vs. standard doses of statin therapy among patients with coronary heart disease, and their results suggest that higher doses are more effective for preventing major vascular events, albeit with evidence of increased toxicity. There is now clear evidence that statin therapy is effective among most patients with type 2 diabetes, although uncertainty remains about the benefits in those with advanced nephropathy. Ongoing trials will assess whether statin therapy is beneficial among patients with noncoronary vascular disease (such as congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or aortic stenosis), and among people with comorbid conditions or risk factors that increase the risk of vascular disease (including chronic kidney disease and raised C-reactive protein with below average low-density lipoprotein cholesterol). SUMMARY: Statin therapy safely reduces the risk of vascular events in a wide range of patients. Uncertainties persist about the effects of higher statin doses and the role of statins among patients with specific conditions or risk factors.