Literature DB >> 14996776

Effect of intensive compared with moderate lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial.

Steven E Nissen1, E Murat Tuzcu, Paul Schoenhagen, B Greg Brown, Peter Ganz, Robert A Vogel, Tim Crowe, Gail Howard, Christopher J Cooper, Bruce Brodie, Cindy L Grines, Anthony N DeMaria.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Statin drugs reduce both atherogenic lipoproteins and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, the optimal strategy and target level for lipid reduction remain uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of regimens designed to produce intensive lipid lowering or moderate lipid lowering on coronary artery atheroma burden and progression. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Double-blind, randomized active control multicenter trial (Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering [REVERSAL]) performed at 34 community and tertiary care centers in the United States comparing the effects of 2 different statins administered for 18 months. Intravascular ultrasound was used to measure progression of atherosclerosis. Between June 1999 and September 2001, 654 patients were randomized and received study drug; 502 had evaluable intravascular ultrasound examinations at baseline and after 18 months of treatment.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive a moderate lipid-lowering regimen consisting of 40 mg of pravastatin or an intensive lipid-lowering regimen consisting of 80 mg of atorvastatin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy parameter was the percentage change in atheroma volume (follow-up minus baseline).
RESULTS: Baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (mean, 150.2 mg/dL [3.89 mmol/L] in both treatment groups) was reduced to 110 mg/dL (2.85 mmol/L) in the pravastatin group and to 79 mg/dL (2.05 mmol/L) in the atorvastatin group (P<.001). C-reactive protein decreased 5.2% with pravastatin and 36.4% with atorvastatin (P<.001). The primary end point (percentage change in atheroma volume) showed a significantly lower progression rate in the atorvastatin (intensive) group (P =.02). Similar differences between groups were observed for secondary efficacy parameters, including change in total atheroma volume (P =.02), change in percentage atheroma volume (P<.001), and change in atheroma volume in the most severely diseased 10-mm vessel subsegment (P<.01). For the primary end point, progression of coronary atherosclerosis occurred in the pravastatin group (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2% to 4.7%; P =.001) compared with baseline. Progression did not occur in the atorvastatin group (-0.4%; CI -2.4% to 1.5%; P =.98) compared with baseline.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients with coronary heart disease, intensive lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis compared with pravastatin. Compared with baseline values, patients treated with atorvastatin had no change in atheroma burden, whereas patients treated with pravastatin showed progression of coronary atherosclerosis. These differences may be related to the greater reduction in atherogenic lipoproteins and C- reactive protein in patients treated with atorvastatin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14996776     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.9.1071

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  434 in total

1.  The use of lipid-lowering therapy for secondary prevention in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Jessica M Ma; Cynthia A Jackevicius; Uchenwa Genus; Vladimir Dzavik
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.223

Review 2.  Management of dyslipidaemia.

Authors:  Gilbert R Thompson
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 3.  Standards of medical care in diabetes--2012.

Authors: 
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 19.112

Review 4.  Applications of grayscale and radiofrequency intravascular ultrasound to image atherosclerotic plaque.

Authors:  Somjot S Brar; Gary S Mintz; Akiko Maehara; Gregg W Stone
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 5.952

5.  Influence of statin treatment on coronary atherosclerosis visualised using multidetector computed tomography.

Authors:  Hans Hoffmann; Katja Frieler; Peter Schlattmann; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-07-18       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Statin effects on both low-density lipoproteins and high-density lipoproteins: is there a dual benefit?

Authors:  Kiyoko Uno; Stephen J Nicholls
Journal:  Curr Atheroscler Rep       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.113

Review 7.  Residual risk in statin-treated patients: future therapeutic options.

Authors:  Catherine Y Campbell; Juan J Rivera; Roger S Blumenthal
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 8.  Targeting the mevalonate cascade as a new therapeutic approach in heart disease, cancer and pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Behzad Yeganeh; Emilia Wiechec; Sudharsana R Ande; Pawan Sharma; Adel Rezaei Moghadam; Martin Post; Darren H Freed; Mohammad Hashemi; Shahla Shojaei; Amir A Zeki; Saeid Ghavami
Journal:  Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2014-02-26       Impact factor: 12.310

9.  Progression of coronary atherosclerosis in African-American patients.

Authors:  Yu Kataoka; Amy Hsu; Kathy Wolski; Kiyoko Uno; Rishi Puri; E Murat Tuzcu; Steven E Nissen; Stephen J Nicholls
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2013-09

Review 10.  Problems and possible solutions for therapy with statins.

Authors:  Thomas F Whayne
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2013-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.