| 31. |
- Kastelein, John J. P., et al.
(author)
-
Lipids, apolipoproteins, and their ratios in relation to cardiovascular events with statin treatment
- 2008
-
In: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 117:23, s. 3002-3009
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background - Low-density lipoprotein (LDL)cholesterol is the principal target of lipid-lowering therapy, but recent evidence has suggested more appropriate targets. We compared the relationships of on-treatment levels of LDL cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B, as well as ratios of total/HDL cholesterol, LDL/HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B/A-I, with the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients receiving statin therapy. Methods and Results - A post hoc analysis was performed that combined data from 2 prospective, randomized clinical trials in which 10 001 ("Treating to New Targets") and 8888 ("Incremental Decrease in End Points through Aggressive Lipid Lowering") patients with established coronary heart disease were assigned to usual-dose or high-dose statin treatment. In models with LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B were positively associated with cardiovascular outcome, whereas a positive relationship with LDL cholesterol was lost. In a model that contained non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B, neither was significant owing to collinearity. Total/HDL cholesterol ratio and the apolipoprotein B/A-I ratio in particular were each more closely associated with outcome than any of the individual proatherogenic lipoprotein parameters. Conclusions - In patients receiving statin therapy, on-treatment levels of non-HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B were more closely associated with cardiovascular outcome than levels of LDL cholesterol. Inclusion of measurements of the antiatherogenic lipoprotein fraction further strengthened the relationships. These data support the use of non-HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein B as novel treatment targets for statin therapy. Given the absence of interventions that have been proven to consistently reduce cardiovascular disease risk through raising plasma levels of HDL cholesterol or apolipoprotein A-I, it seems premature to consider the ratio variables as clinically useful.
|
|
| 32. |
- Lindgren, Peter, et al.
(author)
-
Cost-effectiveness of high-dose atorvastatin compared with regular dose simvastatin
- 2007
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 28:12, s. 1448-1453
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 33. |
- Minners, Jan, et al.
(author)
-
Adjusting parameters of aortic valve stenosis severity by body size
- 2014
-
In: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 100:13, s. 1024-1030
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Adjustment of cardiac dimensions by measures of body size appears intuitively convincing and in patients with aortic stenosis, aortic valve area (AVA) is commonly adjusted by body surface area (BSA). However, there is little evidence to support such an approach. Objective To identify the adequate measure of body size for the adjustment of aortic stenosis severity. Methods Parameters of aortic stenosis severity (jet velocity, mean pressure gradient (MPG) and AVA) and measures of body size (height, weight, BSA and body mass index (BMI)) were analysed in 2843 consecutive patients with aortic stenosis (jet velocity >= 2.5 m/s) and related to outcomes in a second cohort of 1525 patients from the Simvastatin/Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study. Results Whereas jet velocity and MPG were independent of body size, AVA was significantly correlated with height, weight, BSA and BMI (Pearson correlation coefficient (r) 0.319, 0.281, 0.317 and 0.126, respectively, all p<0.001) to the effect that larger patients presented with larger AVA (less severe stenosis). Of the anthropometric measures used for linear adjustment, BSA was most effective in eliminating the correlation between AVA and body size (r=0.007), rivalled only by allometric (non-linear) models, findings that are confirmed in 1525 prospectively followed patients from the SEAS study. Predictive accuracy for aortic valve events and cardiovascular death during 46 months of follow-up was unchanged by adjusting AVA, regardless of measure of body size (area under the receiver operating curve for AVA 0.72 (CI 0.58 to 0.87) versus, for example, AVA/BSA 0.75 (CI 0.61 to 0.88), p=0.22). Conclusions In the assessment of aortic stenosis, linear adjustment of AVA by BSA improves comparability between patients with diverging body size without, however, increasing the predictive accuracy for clinical events in a population with mild to moderate stenosis.
|
|
| 34. |
- Nielsen, Olav W., et al.
(author)
-
Assessing Optimal Blood Pressure in Patients With Asymptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis The Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis Study (SEAS)
- 2016
-
In: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 134:6, s. 455-468
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Evidence for treating hypertension in patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis is scarce. We used data from the SEAS trial (Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis) to assess what blood pressure (BP) would be optimal. METHODS: A total of 1767 patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis and no manifest atherosclerotic disease were analyzed. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, heart failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve replacement. BP was analyzed in Cox models as the cumulative average of serially measured BP and a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: The incidence of all-cause mortality was highest for average follow-up systolic BP >= 160 mm Hg (4.3 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-6.0) and lowest for average systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg (2.0 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.6-2.6). In multivariable analysis, all-cause mortality was associated with average systolic BP < 120 mm Hg (hazard ratio [HR], 3.4; 95% CI, 1.9-6.1), diastolic BP >= 90 mm Hg (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9), and pulse pressure < 50 mm Hg (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9), with systolic BP of 120 to 139 mm Hg, diastolic BP of 70 to 79 mm Hg, and pulse pressure of 60 to 69 mm Hg taken as reference. Low systolic and diastolic BPs increased risk in patients with moderate aortic stenosis. With a time-varying systolic BP from 130 to 139 mm Hg used as reference, mortality was increased for systolic BP >= 160 mm Hg (HR, 1.7; P=0.033) and BP of 120 to 129 mm Hg (HR, 1.6; P= 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Optimal BP seems to be systolic BP of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 70 to 90 mm Hg in these patients with asymptomatic aortic stenosis and no manifest atherosclerotic disease or diabetes mellitus.
|
|
| 35. |
- Olsson, Anders, 1940-, et al.
(author)
-
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
-
In: Clinical Therapeutics. - 0149-2918 .- 1879-114X. ; 25:1, s. 119-138
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 36. |
- Olsson, Anders, et al.
(author)
-
LDL cholesterol goals and cardiovascular risk during statin treatment: the IDEAL study
- 2011
-
In: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PREVENTION and REHABILITATION. - : Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. - 1741-8267. ; 18:2, s. 262-269
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Aims: We assessed the proportion of patients treated with either simvastatin 20 or 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg who achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals of 2.5 or 2.0 mmol/l in the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) study. We explored how lipoprotein components related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in these groups. Methods and results: For subjects who reached on-treatment LDL-C goals, Cox regression models were used to assess the ability of lipoprotein components to predict CVD events. Treatment with simvastatin or atorvastatin resulted in 40 per cent and 80 per cent of patients, respectively, reaching the 2.5 mmol/l goal and 12 per cent and 52 per cent, respectively, reaching the 2.0 mmol/l goal, after 1 year (all p andlt; 0.001 between groups). Adjusting for baseline LDL-C levels, hazard ratio (HR) for those reaching 2.0-2.5 mmol/l LDL-C versus those reaching andlt; 2.0 mmol/l was 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.33, p = 0.023). An increase of the apolipoprotein B/A1 (apoB/A1) ratio by 1 standard deviation in participants who reached 2.0 mmol/l showed a HR for CVD of 1.14 (95% CI, 1.04-1.25, p = 0.004). Conclusion: More CVD patients treated with atorvastatin than simvastatin achieved either LDL-C goal and those reaching the 2.0 mmol/l goal exhibited significantly less CVD than those only reaching 2.5 mmol/l. In those reaching the 2.0 mmol/l goal, the apoB/A1 ratio still bears a relation to CVD outcome. The use of apoB/A1 ratio may provide additional predictive value to that of LDL-C.
|
|
| 37. |
- Pedersen, Terje R, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of Atorvastatin 80 mg/day Versus Simvastatin 20 to 40 mg/day on Frequency of Cardiovascular Events Late (Five Years) After Acute Myocardial Infarction (from the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering [IDEAL] Trial)
- 2010
-
In: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY. - : Elsevier Science B. V., Amsterdam. - 0002-9149. ; 106:3, s. 354-359
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Previous studies have demonstrated that benefits of intensive statin therapy compared to standard statin therapy begin shortly after an acute event and are continued up to 2 years of follow-up. However, whether efficacy and safety of intensive statin therapy in patients with a recent cardiac event are maintained in longer-term follow-up has not been evaluated. We conducted a post hoc analysis of a subgroup of 999 patients who had a first acute myocardial infarction (MI) andlt;2 months before randomization in a prospective, open-label, blinded end-point evaluation trial of 8,888 patients with a history of MI that compared intensive statin therapy (atorvastatin 80 mg) to standard statin therapy (simvastatin 20 to 40 mg) over approximately 5 years of follow-up. We analyzed the same composite end point used in the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy (PROVE IT) trial (death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, revascularization, and stroke). Rates of the composite end point were 44.7% (n = 226) in the simvastatin group and 37.9% (n = 187) in the atorvastatin group (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99, p = 0.04). Although statistical power was smaller than that of the PROVE IT trial, the relative risk decrease observed at 5 years is consistent with that in the 2-year follow-up in PROVE IT. The 2 treatment regimens were well tolerated. In conclusion, our analysis provides support for the strategy of placing patients with recent MI on intensive statin therapy and maintaining the high dose over the long term, beyond 2 years.
|
|
| 38. |
- Platt, Stephen M., et al.
(author)
-
Atmospheric composition in the European Arctic and 30 years of the Zeppelin Observatory, Ny-Ålesund
- 2022
-
In: Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 22:5, s. 3321-3369
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Zeppelin Observatory (78.90∘ N, 11.88∘ E) is located on Zeppelin Mountain at 472 m a.s.l. on Spitsbergen, the largest island of the Svalbard archipelago. Established in 1989, the observatory is part of Ny-Ålesund Research Station and an important atmospheric measurement site, one of only a few in the high Arctic, and a part of several European and global monitoring programmes and research infrastructures, notably the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP); the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP); the Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW); the Aerosol, Clouds and Trace Gases Research Infrastructure (ACTRIS); the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) network; and the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS). The observatory is jointly operated by the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI), Stockholm University, and the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU). Here we detail the establishment of the Zeppelin Observatory including historical measurements of atmospheric composition in the European Arctic leading to its construction. We present a history of the measurements at the observatory and review the current state of the European Arctic atmosphere, including results from trends in greenhouse gases, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), other traces gases, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals, aerosols and Arctic haze, and atmospheric transport phenomena, and provide an outline of future research directions.
|
|
| 39. |
- Sinnaeve, Peter R., et al.
(author)
-
Diabetes Mellitus And Cardiovascular Risk In Patients With Chronic Coronary Heart Disease
- 2016
-
In: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - Uppsala Univ, Uppsala Clin Res Ctr, Uppsala, Sweden. Auckland City Hosp, Green Lane Cardiovasc Serv, Auckland, New Zealand. Univ Auckland, Auckland 1, New Zealand.. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 67:13, s. 2162-2162
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 40. |
- Strandberg, Timo E, et al.
(author)
-
Comparative Effect of Atorvastatin (80 mg) Versus Simvastatin (20 to 40 mg) in Preventing Hospitalizations for Heart Failure in Patients With Previous Myocardial Infarction
- 2009
-
In: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9149. ; 103:10, s. 1381-1385
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We investigated whether intensive cholesterol lowering could more effectively prevent heart failure (HF) in secondary prevention. The IDEAL study was a 4.8-year prospective, randomized trial comparing "usual" simvastatin treatment (20 to 40 mg/day, n = 4,449) with high-dose atorvastatin (80 mg/day, n = 4,439) in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI). At baseline, 94% of patients (n = 8,351) had no history of HF. During the course of the trial, there were 222 new or recurrent hospitalizations for HF (57 and 165 in those with and without HF at baseline, respectively), 123 (2.8%) in the simvastatin group and 99 (2.2%) in the atorvastatin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62 to 1.05, p = 0.11). After adjustments, atorvastatin 80 mg was associated with a 26% decrease of new HF events compared with simvastatin 20 to 40 mg (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97, p = 0.03). Atorvastatin tended to be associated with fewer HF events in those with HF at baseline (n = 537, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.11, p = 0.11) and those without HF at baseline (n = 8,351, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09, p = 0.15). Also, HF without preceding MI (n = 187) was decreased (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.97, p = 0.03). In conclusion, atorvastatin 80 mg was more efficient than simvastatin 20 to 40 mg in preventing development of HF in patients with previous MI.
|
|
