Statintherapy in the primary and the secondary prevention of ischaemic cerebrovascular diseases.
ABSTRACT Stroke is a major public health problem. It is the third leading cause of death worldwide and results in hospital admissions, morbidity, and long-term disability. Despite the inconsistent or weak association between cholesterol and stroke, statins can reduce the incidence of stroke in high-risk populations and in patients with a stroke or transient ischaemic attack.
The aim of our study was to review the efficacy of statin therapy in both primary and secondary stroke prevention. We also reviewed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness among different statins and we also reviewed the possible effect of treatment added to statin monotherapy.
There is evidence that statin therapy in both primary and secondary prevention significantly reduces subsequent major coronary events but only marginally reduces the risk of stroke recurrence. There is no clear evidence of beneficial effect from statins in those with previous haemorrhagic stroke and it is unclear whether statins should be started immediately post stroke or later. There is a pressing need for direct evidence, from head-to-head trials, to determine whether individual statins provide differing protection from clinically important events in stroke prevention. It is possible that combinations of lipid-lowering agents did not improve clinical outcomes more than high-dose statin monotherapy, although clinical trials are still ongoing.
- SourceAvailable from: Abdullah Pandor[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of statins for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with, or at risk of, coronary heart disease (CHD). Electronic databases were searched between November 2003 and April 2004. A review was undertaken to identify and evaluate all literature relating to the clinical and cost effectiveness of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of CHD and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the UK. A Markov model was developed to explore the costs and health outcomes associated with a lifetime of statin treatment using a UK NHS perspective. Thirty-one randomised studies were identified that compared a statin with placebo or with another statin, and reported clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis of the available data from the placebo-controlled studies indicates that, in patients with, or at risk of, CVD, statin therapy is associated with a reduced relative risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, CHD mortality and fatal myocardial infarction (MI), but not of fatal stroke. It is also associated with a reduced relative risk of morbidity [non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), unstable angina] and of coronary revascularisation. It is hardly possible, on the evidence available from the placebo-controlled trials, to differentiate between the clinical efficacy of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin. However, there is some evidence from direct comparisons between statins to suggest that atorvastatin may be more effective than pravastatin in patients with symptomatic CHD. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of statins in different subgroups. Statins are generally considered to be well tolerated and to have a good safety profile. This view is generally supported both by the evidence of the trials included in this review and by postmarketing surveillance data. Increases in creatine kinase and myopathy have been reported, but rhabdomyolysis and hepatotoxicity are rare. However, some patients may receive lipid-lowering therapy for as long as 50 years, and long-term safety over such a timespan remains unknown. In secondary prevention of CHD, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) increase with age varying between pound 10,000 and pound 17,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) for ages 45 and 85 respectively. Sensitivity analyses show these results are robust. In primary prevention of CHD there is substantial variation in ICERs by age and risk. The average ICERs weighted by risk range from pound 20,000 to pound 27,500 for men and from pound 21,000 to pound 57,000 for women. The results are sensitive to the cost of statins, discount rates and the modelling time frame. In the CVD analyses, which take into account the benefits of statins on reductions in stroke and TIA events, the average ICER weighted by risk level remains below pound 20,000 at CHD risk levels down to 0.5%. Limitations of the analyses include the requirement to extrapolate well beyond the timeframe of the trial period, and to extrapolate effectiveness results from higher risk primary prevention populations to the treatment of populations at much lower risk. Consequently, the results for the lower age bands and lower risks are subject to greater uncertainty and need to be treated with caution. There is evidence to suggest that statin therapy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in the risk of primary and secondary cardiovascular events. As the confidence intervals for each outcome in each prevention category overlap, it is not possible to differentiate, in terms of relative risk, between the effectiveness of statins in primary and secondary prevention. However, the absolute risk of CHD death/non-fatal MI is higher, and the number needed to treat to avoid such an event is consequently lower, in secondary than in primary prevention. The generalisability of these results is limited by the exclusion, in some studies, of patients who were hypersensitive to, intolerant of, or known to be unresponsive to, statins, or who were not adequately compliant with study medication during a placebo run-in phase. Consequently, the treatment effect may be reduced when statins are used in an unselected population. The results of the economic modelling show that statin therapy in secondary prevention is likely to be considered cost-effective. In primary prevention, the cost-effectiveness ratios are dependent on the level of CHD risk and age, but the results for the CVD analyses offer support for the more aggressive treatment recommendation issued by recent guidelines in UK. Evidence on clinical endpoints for rosuvastatin is awaited from on-going trials. The potential targeting of statins at low-risk populations is however associated with major uncertainties, particularly the likely uptake and long-term compliance to lifelong medication by asymptomatic younger patients. The targeting, assessment and monitoring of low-risk patients in primary care would be a major resource implication for the NHS. These areas require further research.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 05/2007; 11(14):1-160, iii-iv. · 4.03 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are only limited data on whether prior statin use and/or cholesterol levels are associated with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and outcome after intra-arterial thrombolysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of statin pretreatment and cholesterol levels with the overall frequency of ICH, the frequency of symptomatic ICH, and clinical outcome at 3 months. We analyzed 311 consecutive patients (mean age, 63 years; 43% women) who received intra-arterial thrombolysis. Statin pretreatment was present in 18%. The frequency of any ICH was 20.6% and of symptomatic ICH 4.8%. Patients with any ICH were more often taking statins (30% versus 15%, P=0.005), more often had atrial fibrillation (45% versus 30%, P=0.016), had more severe strokes (mean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score 16.5 versus 14.7, P=0.022), and less often good collaterals (16% versus 24%, P=0.001). Patients with symptomatic ICH were more often taking statins (40% versus 15%, P=0.009) and had less often good collaterals (0% versus 24%, P<0.001). Any ICH or symptomatic ICH were not associated with cholesterol levels. After multivariate analysis, the frequency of any ICH remained independently associated with previous statin use (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.53 to 6.39; P=0.004), atrial fibrillation (OR, 2.5; CI, 1.35 to 4.75; P=0.004), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (OR, 1.1; CI, 1.00 to 1.10; P=0.037), and worse collaterals (OR, 1.7; CI, 1.19 to 2.42; P=0.004). There was no association of outcome with prior statin use, total cholesterol level, or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Prior statin use, but not cholesterol levels on admission, is associated with a higher frequency of any ICH after intra-arterial thrombolysis without impact on outcome.Stroke 03/2009; 40(5):1729-37. · 6.16 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite the benefits of statin therapy, cholesterol management remains suboptimal and many patients do not achieve their recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. The use of insufficient doses, limited drug effectiveness and poor patient compliance may contribute to the treatment gap. Options for improving lipid management include dose titration, combination therapy or prescribing a more efficacious statin. LDL-C reductions are generally modest when patients' current statin dose is titrated, and there may be an increased potential for adverse effects. Combining statin therapy with another lipid-modifying agent can provide additional LDL-C reductions, but cost, tolerability and compliance should be considered. In general, switching to a more efficacious statin is a cost-effective way of enabling more patients to achieve recommended targets without increasing dosages. When considering the options available, physicians should balance efficacy, cost and safety to enable more patients to attain LDL-C goals and achieve greater therapeutic gain from statin treatment.International Journal of Clinical Practice 08/2004; 58(7):689-94. · 2.43 Impact Factor