| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Jardine, Alan G., et al.
(författare)
-
Fluvastatin prevents cardiac death and myocardial infarction in renal transplant recipients : post-hoc subgroup analyses of the ALERT Study
- 2004
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Transplantation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1600-6135 .- 1600-6143. ; 4:6, s. 988-995
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Renal transplant recipients have a greatly increased risk of premature cardiovascular disease. The ALERT study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of fluvastatin (40-80 mg/day) in 2102 renal transplant recipients followed for 5-6 years. The main study used a composite cardiac end-point including myocardial infarction, cardiac death and cardiac interventions. Although reduced by fluvastatin, this primary end-point failed to achieve statistical significance thus precluding analysis of predefined subgroups. Therefore, in the present survival analysis, we used an alternative primary end-point of cardiac death or definite nonfatal myocardial infarction (as used in other cardiac outcome trials) which was significantly reduced by Fluvastatin therapy and permits subgroup analysis. Fluvastatin reduced LDL-cholesterol by 1 mmol/L compared with placebo, and the incidence of cardiac death or definite myocardial infarction was reduced from 104 to 70 events (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.48, 0.88; p = 0.005). Fluvastatin use was associated with reduction in cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, which achieved statistical significance in many subgroups. The subgroups included patients at lower cardiovascular risk, who were younger, nondiabetic, nonsmokers and without pre-existing CVD. These data support the early introduction of statins following renal transplantation.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lindgren, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin compared with regular dose simvastatin
- 2007
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 28:12, s. 1448-1453
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin when compared with generic simvastatin for secondary prevention in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden based on the recently completed IDEAL trial. Methods and results: The IDEAL trial showed that high-dose treatment with atorvastatin was associated with fewer non-fatal myocardial infarctions (MI) or coronary heart disease death (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01) and major cardiovascular events by (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98) or any coronary event (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.91) than simvastatin with no significant difference in the number of serious adverse events. Costs during the trial period was estimated based on the trial data and a Markov model was constructed where the risk of MIs and revascularization procedures and the long-term costs, quality of life, and mortality associated with these events was simulated. Costs were based on resource consumptions recorded in the trial multiplied with recent unit costs from each country. Both direct health care costs and indirect costs (costs from lost production due to work absence) were included. Intervention lasted for the duration of the trial (4.8 years) while health-effects and costs are predicted for the lifespan of the patient. The main outcome was quality adjusted life-years (QALY) gained. High-dose treatment was predicted to lead to a mean increase in survival of 0.049 years per patient and 0.033 QALYs gained. The cost to gain one QALY was predicted to 47 197€ (Denmark), 62 639€ (Finland), 35 210€ (Norway), and 43 667€ (Sweden), with cost-effectiveness ratio decreasing with higher risk. Conclusion: In the prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with a previous MI, high-dose atorvastatin appears to be a cost-effective strategy when compared with generic simvastatin 20-40 mg in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. In Finland, it is cost-effective in high-risk patients. The key driver of the cost-effectiveness is the price-difference between 80 mg atorvastatin and generic simvastatin. © The European Society of Cardiology 2007. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 4. |
- Olsson, Anders, 1940-, et al.
(författare)
-
A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study to assess the efficacy of atorvastatin and simvastatin in reaching low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride targets: The treat-to-target (3T) study
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Clinical Therapeutics. - 0149-2918 .- 1879-114X. ; 25:1, s. 119-138
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Guidelines for the prevention of coronary heart disease call for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction as the primary target of treatment and reduction of triglycerides (TG) as an additional target. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of atorvastatin and simvastatin to reduce LDL-C and TG concentrations and to meet 3 target lipid levels: LDL-C less than or equal to2.6 mmol/L; TG less than or equal to1.5 mmol/L; and both LDL-C less than or equal to2.6 mmol/L and TG less than or equal to1.5 mmol/L. Methods: The Treat-to-Target (3T) Study was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Using the double-blind, double-dummy technique, adult patients aged 35 to 75 years with cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia, defined as LDL-C concentration less than or equal to4.0 mmol/L (greater than or equal to155 mg/dL), were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-daily oral treatment with 20 mg atorvastatin or 20 mg simvastatin. Fasting (12-hour) blood samples for the estimation of lipid levels and clinical laboratory values were collected after 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The dose was doubled after 12 weeks if the target National Cholesterol Education Program level of LDL-C (less than or equal to2.6 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]) was not reached at 8 weeks. Results: The intent-to-treat analysis included 552 patients (418 men, 134 women) randomized to receive atorvastatin and 535 (404 men, 131 women) randomized to receive simvastatin. The number of patients enrolled in the study allowed the evaluation of the drugs' effects on TG. Patient demographic characteristics were similar for the 2 treatment groups, and there were no differences in baseline lipid values. Compared with simvastatin, atorvastatin produced significantly greater reductions in LDL-C (8 weeks: -46% vs -40%, P < 0.001; 52 weeks: -49% vs -44%, P < 0.001) and in TG (8 weeks: -23% vs -14%, P < 0.001; 52 weeks: -24% vs -16%, P < 0.001). Compared with simvastatin-treated patients, a significantly greater number of atorvastatin-treated patients reached the LDL-C target after 8 weeks (45% vs 24%; P < 0.001). Fewer atorvastatin patients needed to have their dose doubled; nevertheless more atorvastatin patients reached the LDL-C target after 52 weeks (61% vs 41%; P < 0.001). Both statins were well tolerated. Muscular symptoms occurred in 12 patients (2.2%) in the atorvastatin group and in 13 patients (2.4%) in the simvastatin group. Conclusions: Atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d for up to 1 year of treatment was significantly more effective than simvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d in reducing LDL-C and TG levels and at achieving recommended lipid targets in this selected patient population with cardiovascular disease and dyslipidemia. Both statins were well tolerated.
|
|
