Comparing effectiveness of high-dose Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin among patients undergone Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A non-concurrent cohort study in India.

INTRODUCTION: Atorvastatin-80mg/day and Rosuvastatin-40mg/day are the commonest high-dose statin (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme-A reductase inhibitors) regimes for post-PCI (Percutaneous Coronary Interventions) patients to lower (by ≥50%) blood low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Dearth of conclusive evidence from developing world, regarding overall safety, tolerability and comparative effectiveness (outcome/safety/tolerability/endothelial inflammation control) of Rosuvastatin over Atorvastatin in high-dose, given its higher cost, called for an overall and comparative assessment among post-PCI patients in a tertiary cardiac-care hospital of Kolkata, India.
METHODS: A record-based non-concurrent cohort study was conducted involving 942 post-PCI patients, aged 18-75 years, on high-dose statin for three months and followed up for ≥one year. Those on Atorvastatin-80mg (n = 321) and Rosuvastatin-40mg (n = 621) were compared regarding outcome (death/non-fatal myocardial infarction: MI/repeated hospitalization/target-vessel revascularisation/control of LDL and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: hsCRP), safety (transaminitis/myopathy/myalgia/myositis/rhabdomyolysis), tolerability (gastroesophageal reflux disease: GERD/gastritis) and inflammation control adjusting for socio-demographics, tobacco-use, medications and comorbidities using SAS-9.4.
RESULTS: Groups varied minimally regarding distribution of age/gender/tobacco-use/medication/comorbidity/baseline (pre-PCI) LDL and hs-CRP level. During one-year post-PCI follow up, none died. One acute MI and two target vessel revascularizations occurred per group. Repeated hospitalization for angina/stroke was 2.18% in Atorvastatin group vs. 2.90% in Rosuvastatin group. At three-months follow up, GERD/Gastritis (2.18% vs 4.83%), uncontrolled hs-CRP (22.74% vs 31.08%) and overall non-tolerability (4.67% vs. 8.21%) were lower for Atorvastatin group. Multiple logistic regression did show that compared to Atorvastatin-80mg, Rosuvastatin-40mg regime had poorer control of hs-CRP (A3OR = 1.45,p = 0.0202), higher (A3OR = 2.07) adverse effects, poorer safety profile (A3OR = 1.23), higher GERD/Gastritis (A3OR = 1.50) and poorer overall tolerability (A3OR = 1.50).
CONCLUSION: Post-PCI high dose statins were effective, safe and well-tolerated. High dose Rosuvastatin as compared to high dose Atorvastatin were similar in their clinical efficacy. Patients treated with Atrovastatin had significantly lower number of patients with hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level beyond comparable safe limit and relatively better tolerated as opposed to Rosuvastatin-40mg.Thus given the lower price, Atorvastatin 80mg/day appeared to be more cost-effective. A head-to-head cost-effectiveness as well as efficacy trial may be the need of the hour.

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), a major killer, accounting for about 30% of current annual global deaths, has a well-known association with dyslipidemia [1-4]. Thus, in cardiovascular disease management, lipid lowering agents are considered important. Among them, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme-A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors or ‘statins’ are used widely as potent pharmacological choices for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in blood [4-9]. Numerous studies tried to resolve the debates regarding the dosage of these statins for different indications. Having slight structural and pharmacokinetic differences, Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin are the two most commonly used, compared and well-studied statins. Atorvastatin 80 mg/day or Rosuvastatin 40 mg/day are defined as high dose of statin because those average daily dosages reduce plasma LDL-C levels by 50% or greater [10]. Compared to moderate/low dose, statins in high dose can elicit better cardiovascular outcome among established CVD cases [11-16]. Efficacy/safety trials with high dose Atorvastatin such as AVERT, TNT, IDEAL, MIRACL found 15% to 36% reduction in the primary endpoints (cardiac death/myocardial infarction/ rehospitalization due to stroke/unstable angina/revascularization) [13, 15, 17, 18]. Trials like GISSI-HF, JUPITER on the other hand observed a marked reduction in the cardiac endpoints and overall better outcome with rosuvastatin [19-24]. Although in comparative low to moderate dose range, favourable outcomes were observed with Rosuvastatin, with high dose the efficacy of both were comparable [25, 26]. Similarly the safety and tolerability of both were analogous [27-31]. But comparative analysis between Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin over 20 years treatment effect in a simulated trial using the Archimedes model and involving the results of CARDS, ASCOT, JUPITER, and the TNT trial revealed better potency of Rosuvastatin [32]. Despite these evidences, investigation on comparable safety or tolerability of high dose Rosuvastatin (40mg) vs. Atorvastatin (80mg) among Indians was unavailable.

In addition to the lack of confirmatory evidence regarding comparative efficacy of Rosuvastatin 40mg/day as opposed to Atorvastatin 80mg/day, owing to lack of head-to-head trials and conflicting results, the relative performance of these statins at high dose in endothelial inflammation control remained a unestablished. The common use of plasma level of highly sensitive C-reactive protein as an inflammatory marker, could test this, keeping the pleotropic effect of statins in mind.

Cost is another major factor that comes into play with statin therapy in developing nations. Availability of Atorvastatin in the generic forms provides a cheaper alternative to the high priced Rosuvastatin. In a low to moderate income setting, this difference is critical, as higher cost might ensue low adherence and even unreported discontinuation. In such a case if found to have similar effectiveness, Atorvastatin could be a more cost effective choice. There remained a paucity of information regarding the comparative effectiveness of the two high-dose statins on cardiovascular outcomes in developing country setting. Our study intends to compare the effectiveness in terms of outcome, safety and tolerability of both the statins at equivalent doses among post-PCI patients.

A record-based non-concurrent cohort study was thus contemplated to assess the safety and tolerability of high-dose statins and to compare the primary outcomes, safety and tolerability between Atorvastatin 80mg and Rosuvastatin 40mg among post-PCI patients among whom high dose statin is the current standard treatment of choice.

Material and methods

Ethical aspects

The study protocol and procedures were reviewed and approved (Ref. No.: NHRTIICS-EC/AP-2017) by the Ethics Committee of Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICS), Kolkata. Written informed consents were obtained from the patients, who were enrolled for the study.

Eligibility criteria

Adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients with a final diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome [ACS which included: unstable angina (UA), non-ST-segment (NSTEMI) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)] [33, 34] or CCS (Canadian Cardiovascular Society) class III-IV chronic stable angina (unrelieved despite optimal medical therapy), who underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in Rabindranath Tagore

International Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICS), Kolkata between 2009 and 2016 either electively or on emergency basis, discharged from the hospital with Atorvastatin 80 mg or Rosuvastatin 40 mg daily and unless reached any primary endpoint, underwent follow up for at least one year, were eligible for the study.

Patients were excluded if they were aged more than 75 years, on drugs which were known to induce or inhibit liver enzymes (rifampicin, ketoconazole etc.), known to be allergic/intolerant to statins, had a chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage ≥3 or LVEF ≤ 30% or any previous existing myopathy or neuro-deficit. Irrespective of baseline lipid profile, along with other standard medical therapy, the dosage of statin was continued for a post PCI period of three months followed by dose reduction to 10 mg/day respectively for Atorvastatin or Rosuvastatin, without any cross over.

Covariates

From medical records, anonymous information regarding socio-demographic factors (age, gender), tobacco use [current/ex(non-user in last 3 months)/never users], other medications (antiplatelet, beta -blocker, angiotensin conversion enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blocker, calcium channel blocker, diuretic, nitrate, amiodarone etc.) prescribed post-stenting, the type of stent used during PCI (bare metal stent/drug eluting stents/mixed), existing medical history/comorbidities [diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, history of myocardial infarction, low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF%, ≤50/>50) [35] and history of prior PCI] were extracted. Composite indexes for Comorbidities and Medications were developed for each patient by determining their cumulative presence and requirements respectively.

Outcome measures

The primary endpoints were determined by major adverse cardiac events (MACE) like death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [1], repeated hospital admission for angina/stroke and target vessel revascularisation during one year after PCI [36, 37]. Composite Primary Outcome Index was generated by weighted (weight for death > non-fatal MI > repeated hospital admission for angina/stroke or target vessel revascularisation) sum of the outcome (zero if nothing happened) components. Overall outcome was defined as satisfactory if composite outcome index was zero and unsatisfactory if it was more than zero.

Secondary outcome was measured by the magnitude of reduction in serum levels of Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) at three months after PCI on continued high-dose statin treatment [38, 39]. Satisfactory reduction (adequate control/not beyond comparable safe limit) in serum LDL level was considered at three months post-PCI follow-up, either if the absolute serum LDL level was reduced to ≤70mg/dl or a reduction of serum LDL level by 50 percent over baseline (pre-PCI level) upon continued high-dose statin treatment [40]. Similarly for hs-CRP values, if the absolute value reduction was greater than 50% of the base line (pre-PCI plasma hs-CRP level) then satisfactory reduction (adequate control/not beyond comparable safe limit) was assumed [41]. Overall secondary outcome index was determined by sum of scores (zero for satisfactory/adequate and one for the opposite) for reduction/control of serum LDL and hs-CRP at three months after PCI. Patients with zero overall secondary outcome index was categorized as having overall satisfactory secondary outcome and unsatisfactory if the index was more than zero.

Measures of safety and tolerability

Safety for high-dose statin therapy among post-PCI patients was assessed during first three post-PCI months, keeping in mind the most severe potential adverse effect of high-dose statin therapy in its various forms that could include transaminitis, myopathy, myalgia, myositis and rhabdomyolysis. A stringent safety cut-off level was defined by either any sign of myalgia or development of any condition culminating into dose-reduction or withdrawal of statin or ≥3-fold rise (beyond comparable safe limit) in creatine kinase (CK)/creatine phosphokinase (CPK) [42]/serum glutamic oxalo-acetic transaminase (SGOT)/ glutamic pyruvic transaminase (SGPT) [43] serum levels above the upper limit of normal. High-dose statin therapy with respective drugs (Atorvastatin/Rosuvastatin) was considered to be unsafe for patients experiencing any of the above while for the rest it was considered safe.

To measure the tolerability of the statins at high dose during these three months, signs of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)/gastritis [44] were additionally considered with all the components of safety. An Overall Intolerability Index was generated with subsequent tolerability categorization [good (well-tolerated)/poor (poorly tolerated)] in the similar fashion.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analysis [means (with corresponding 95% confidence intervals = 95%CI) for continuous and frequency with proportions expressed in percentages (along with corresponding 95%CIs)] was conducted to determine the distribution of socio demographic characteristics, tobacco use, stent type, other medications, clinical profile, outcome of PCI, along with safety and tolerability of high-dose statin therapy across two regimes (Atorvastatin 80mg vs Rosuvastatin 40mg). Comparability of the distributions across the regimes were determined by assessing the overlap between corresponding 95%CIs.

Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine whether compared to Atorvastatin 80mg, Rosuvastatin 40mg regime was associated [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with corresponding 95%CI and p value] with statistically different outcome of PCI, as well as safety or tolerability of high-dose statin. To determine this three separate multiple logistic regression models were used. In Model 1, age, gender, tobacco use and stent type were adjusted (AOR expressed as A1OR) as covariates. In Model 2 (AOR expressed as A2OR), Comorbidity Index and in Model 3 (AOR expressed as A3OR), Comorbidity and Medication Index were adjusted additionally.

All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4.

Result

To the best of our knowledge this is the first effort to publish a head-to head comparison of safety/tolerability/effectiveness between high dose statin regimes in Indian post-PCI patients. Among 942 eligible patients who had undergone PCI during 2009–15 in a tertiary cardiac care centre of Kolkata, 321 were on Atorvastatin 80 mg while 621 were taking Rosuvastatin 40mg for three months after PCI. Both the groups (on Atorvastatin 80mg and Rosuvastatin 40mg respectively) appeared more or less similar regarding the distribution of age (mean age of 58.11 vs 57.72 years), mean Medication Index (1.43 vs 1.57), mean Comorbidity Index (1.74 vs 1.67), baseline (pre-PCI) mean serum LDL (77.45 vs 79.41) and hs-CRP level (33.30 vs 27.02) giving an impression that the baseline characteristics of the potential covariates along with immediate post-PCI prescribed management were quite comparable (as evidenced by the overlapping 95%CIs). (Table 1)

Table 1

Comparative distribution of the sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical factors among patients receiving high-dose of two statins after undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) in a tertiary cardiac care hospital of Kolkata, 2009–2016 (N = 942).

Continuous variables		Post-stenting statin regime
		Atorvastatin 80		Rosuvastatin 40
		n	Mean (95%CI)	n	Mean (95%CI)
Age		321	58.11 (57.06–59.15)	621	57.72 (56.94–58.50)
Medication index		321	1.43 (1.32–1.54)	621	1.57 (1.49–1.65)
Co-morbidity index		321	1.74 (1.62–1.85)	621	1.67 (1.59–1.75)
Pre-stenting serum level of Low-density lipoprotein (LDL)		287	77.45 (71.96–82.93)	545	79.41 (76.50–82.32)
Pre-stenting serum level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)		317	33.30 (28.16–38.43)	603	27.02 (23.69–30.35)
Categorical variables		n	Percentage (95%CI)	n	Percentage (95%CI)
Gender	Female	26	8.10 (5.10–11.10)	74	11.92 (9.36–14.47)
	Male	295	91.90 (88.90–94.90)	547	88.08 (85.53–90.64)
Any form of tobacco use	Never	222	69.16 (64.08–74.24)	382	61.51 (57.68–65.35)
	Ex-user	37	11.53 (8.01–15.04)	88	14.17 (11.42–16.92)
	Current user	62	19.31 (14.97–23.66)	151	24.32 (20.93–27.70)
Stent Type	BMS/Bare metal stent	58	18.07 (13.84–22.30)	155	24.96 (21.55–28.37)
	Drug eluting stent	198	61.68 (56.34–67.03)	345	55.56 (51.64–59.47)
	Both	65	20.25 (15.83–24.67)	121	19.48 (16.36–22.61)
Post-stenting prescribed medication	Beta Blocker	86	26.79 (21.92–31.66)	204	32.85 (29.15–36.55)
	Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors	100	31.15 (26.06–36.25)	178	28.66 (25.10–32.23)
	Angiotensin receptor blockers	70	21.81 (17.27–26.35)	150	24.15 (20.78–27.53)
	Calcium channel blocker	39	12.15 (8.56–15.74)	59	9.50 (7.19–11.81)
	Diuretics	80	24.92 (20.16–29.68)	147	23.67 (20.32–27.02)
	Nitrates	11	3.43 (1.43–5.43)	20	3.22 (1.83–4.61)
	Amiodarone	109	33.96 (28.75–39.16)	258	41.55 (37.66–45.43)
Existing medical history of	Diabetes mellites	129	40.19 (34.79–45.58)	237	38.16 (34.33–42.00)
	Hypertension	195	60.75 (55.38–66.12)	359	57.81 (53.92–61.71)
	Hyperlipidemia	314	97.82% (96.21–99.43)	576	92.75% (90.71–94.80)
	Myocardial infarction (MI)	101	31.46 (26.36–36.57)	148	23.83 (20.47–27.19)
	Low left ventricular ejection fraction	115	35.83 (30.55–41.10)	227	36.55 (32.76–40.35)
	Prior Percutaneous Coronary Intervention	11	3.43 (1.43–5.43)	23	3.70 (2.21–5.19)

N = Total number of patients studied.

n = Number of patients in each group (across the category of different variables).

95% CI = 95% Confidence Interval.

Patients in both these groups were predominantly male (91.90% vs 88.08%), about one third were exposed to tobacco (30.84% vs 38.49%), majority had drug-eluting stents used during PCI (61.68% vs 55.56%), nearly 60% had hypertension (60.75% vs 57.81%), about 40% were suffering from diabetes (40.19% vs. 38.16%), hyperlipidaemia was almost universal (97.82% vs 92.75%) and more than a third (35.83% vs 36.55%) had low (≤50%) LVEF. Overlapping 95%CIs demonstrated that distribution of these variables also did not vary much across the statin regime groups. (Table 1)

During one year post-PCI follow up, none of the post-PCI patients died and only one acute MI occurred in each group of patients. Repeated hospitalization for angina/stroke during this period happened among 2.18% patients in Atorvastatin group as opposed to 2.90% in Rosuvastatin group while number of cases with post-PCI target vessel revascularization in this period was also equally small (only 2) in both groups. We only observed one case of myalgia in Rosuvastatin 80mg group during follow up after 3 months. There were no observed significant (based on overlapping 95% Cis) differences in gastritis or any other measures for tolerability. (Table 2)

Table 2

Comparative distribution of the sociodemographic, behavioral and clinical factors among patients receiving high-dose of two statins after undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) in a tertiary cardiac care hospital of Kolkata, 2009–2016 (N = 942).

Continuous variables			Atorvastatin 80 (n = 321)		Rosuvastatin 40 (n = 621)
			n	Mean (95%CI)	n	Mean (95%CI)
Primary Outcome (during 1yr post-PCI)	Composite Primary Outcome Index		321	0.03 (0.01–0.06)	621	0.04 (0.02–0.05)
Secondary outcome (during 3mths post-PCI)	Serum Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level		291	54.62 (52.35–56.89)	556	53.99 (51.85–56.13)
	hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein)		292	4.38 (1.48–7.28)	558	2.80 (2.29–3.31)
	Composite Secondary Outcome Index		321	0.41 (0.35–0.47)	621	0.45 (0.41–0.50)
Safety (during 3mths post-PCI)	Serum glutamic oxalo-acetic transaminase (SGOT) level		298	28.75 (27.25–30.25)	600	31.01 (29.59–32.43)
	Serum glutamate-pyruvate transaminase (SGPT)		298	34.77 (32.60–36.93)	600	38.42 (36.57–40.28)
	Serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level		294	114.12 (104.32–123.92)	595	120.02 (99.56–140.49)
	Overall safety index		321	0.03 (0.01–0.05)	621	0.04 (0.02–0.06)
Tolerability	Overall intolerability index (during 3mths post-PCI)		321	0.05 (0.03–0.08)	621	0.09 (0.06–0.11)
Categorical variables			n	Percentage (95%CI)	n	Percentage (95%CI)
Primary Outcome (during 1yr post-PCI)	Death		0	-	0	-
	Acute myocardial infarction (AMI)		1	0.31 (0.00–0.92)	1	0.16 (0.00–0.48)
	Repeated hospitalization for angina/stroke		7	2.18 (0.57–3.79)	18	2.90 (1.58–4.22)
	Target vessel revascularization		2	0.62 (0.00–1.49)	2	0.32 (0.00–0.77)
	Overall	Satisfactory	311	96.88 (94.97–98.80)	600	96.62 (95.19–98.04)
		Unsatisfactory	10	3.12 (1.20–5.03)	21	3.38 (1.96–4.81)
Secondary Outcome (during 3mths post-PCI)	Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) beyond comparable safe limit (inadequate control)		59	18.38 (14.12–22.64)	87	14.01 (11.27–16.75)
	hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level beyond comparable safe limit (inadequate control)		73	22.74 (18.13–27.35)	193	31.08 (27.43–34.73)
	Overall	Satisfactory	200	62.31 (56.98–67.64)	364	58.62 (54.73–62.50)
		Unsatisfactory	121	37.69 (32.36–43.02)	257	41.38 (37.50–45.27)
Safety (during 3mths post-PCI)	Myalgia		0	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	1	0.16 (0.00–0.48)
	SGOT beyond comparable safe limit (inadequate control)		1	0.31 (0.00–0.92)	2	0.32 (0.00–0.77)
	SGPT beyond comparable safe limit (inadequate control)		0	0.00 (0.00–0.00)	2	0.32 (0.00–0.77)
	Overall Liver Function test beyond comparable safe limit (inadequate control)		1	0.31 (0.00–0.92)	3	0.48 (0.00–1.03)
	CPK beyond comparable safety limit (inadequate control)		6	1.87 (0.38–3.36)	8	1.29 (0.40–2.18)
	Discontinuation/reduction of statin dosage due to any adverse effects		3	0.93 (0.00–1.99)	13	2.09 (0.96–3.22)
	Overall safety	Safe	313	97.51 (95.79–99.22)	600	96.62 (95.19–98.04)
		Unsafe	8	2.49 (0.78–4.21)	21	3.38 (1.96–4.81)
Tolerability (at 3 month follow up)	GERD/Gastritis	No	314	97.82 (96.21–99.43)	591	95.17 (93.48–96.86)
		Yes	7	2.18 (0.57–3.79)	30	4.83 (3.14–6.52)
	Overall tolerability	Good	306	95.33 (93.01–97.65)	570	91.79 (89.62–93.95)
		Poor	15	4.67 (2.35–6.99)	51	8.21 (6.05–10.38)

SGOT: Serum Glutamic Oxalo-acetic Transaminase.

SGPT: Serum glutamate-pyruvate transaminase.

CPK: Creatine phosphokinase.

Thus, mean Composite Primary Outcome Index was 0.03 and 0.04 in Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin groups respectively with overlapping 95%CIs and proportions having unsatisf actory Overall Primary Outcome at one year post-PCI follow up were merely 3% (3.12% vs. 3.38%) across groups. (Table 2)

Secondary outcome parameters were assessed during three post-PCI months. During this period, between the statin groups, there were not much differences (in terms of the overlapping of 95%CIs) in mean serum LDL (54.62 vs 53.99mg/dl) or hs-CRP (4.38 vs 2.80 mg/l) levels as well as in the proportions of patients having these post-PCI 3month follow up levels beyond comparable safe limits for LDL (18.38% vs. 14.01%). But proportion of patients with 3-month post-PCI hs-CRP level beyond comparable safe limit (inadequate control) was considerably low in the Atorvastatin 80mg treated group [22.74% (95%CI = 18.13–27.35)] compared to their Rosuvastatin treated counterparts [31.08% (95%CI = 27.43–34.73)]. (Table 2)

Mean Composite Secondary Outcome Index was almost same for both the groups (0.41 vs 0.45) and close to 40% patients overall had some (37.69% vs. 41.38%) unsatisfactory secondary outcome. (Table 2)

Three months after the high-dose statin therapy across both regime groups, comparable SGOT, SGPT, CPK levels made the mean Overall Safety Index appear same (0.03 vs. 0.04). Proportion of patients for whom high-dose statin therapy found to be unsafe were also very low (2.49% vs. 3.38%) for both the drugs. Still it appeared that the mean serum levels of SGOT (28.75 vs. 31.01) and SGPT (34.77 vs. 38.02) were marginally lower (major portion of the 95%Cis did not overlap) for Atorvastatin compared to Rosuvastatin group. (Table 2)

Regarding tolerability it appeared that GERD/Gastritis was a bit less (through mostly non-overlapping 95%CI) common (2.18% vs 4.83%) in the Atorvastatin 80mg treated group, leading to a relatively lower mean Overall Intolerability Index (0.05 vs. 0.09) for Atorvastatin 80mg group. Proportion of patients in Atorvastatin 80mg group having poor Overall Tolerability (4.67% vs. 8.21%) was also almost half (95%CIs mostly non-overlapping) of that in the Rosuvastatin group. (Table 2)

Multiple logistic regression models (all three, with or without adjustment for Comorbidity and Medication Index) did show that with reference to Atorvastatin 80mg regime, patients on Rosuvastatin 40 mg were more likely (A3OR = 1.45, p = 0.0202) to have hs-CRP levels beyond comparable safe limits. Except this neither any other component nor the overall primary and secondary outcome of PCI did differ statistically across the two high-dose regimes of statins. (Table 3)

Table 3

Association of Post PTCA Statin regime (Ref: Atorvastatin 80mg) with primary and secondary outcomes among patients receiving high-dose of two statins after undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) in a tertiary cardiac care hospital of Kolkata, 2009–2016 (N = 942).

		Adjusted Model 1		Adjusted Model 2		Adjusted Model 3
		A1OR (95%CI)	p value	A2OR (95%CI)	p value	A3OR (95%CI)	p value
Primary outcome	Repeated hospitalization for angina/stroke (Ref = No)	1.30 (0.54–3.17)	0.5586	1.20 (0.49–2.95)	0.6854	1.33 (0.55–3.23)	0.5317
	Poor overall primary outcome (Ref = Good)	1.06 (0.49–2.29)	0.8811	0.96 (0.44–2.10)	0.9258	1.08 (0.50–2.34)	0.8445
Secondary outcome	LDL level beyond comparable safe limit (adequate control) (Ref = No)	0.72 (0.50–1.04)	0.0790	0.71 (0.49–1.02)	0.0664	0.73 (0.51–1.05)	0.0918
	CRP level beyond comparable safe limit (Ref = No)	1.47 (1.07–2.01)	0.0175	1.46 (1.06–2.00)	0.0192	1.45 (1.06–2.00)	0.0202
	Poor overall secondary outcome (Ref = Good)	1.12 (0.85–1.49)	0.4156	1.11 (0.84–1.47)	0.4571	1.11 (0.84–1.47)	0.4740

Model 1 adjusted for age, gender, tobacco use and stent type.

Model 2 additionally adjusted for Comorbidity Index.

Model 3 additionally adjusted for Medication Index.

Relatively higher likelihood (A3OR = 2.07) of having adverse effects needing dose reduction/discontinuation of statin, having relatively poorer safety profile (A3OR = 1.23), suffering from GERD/Gastritis (A3OR = 1.50) and having overall poor tolerability (A3OR = 1.50) were apparent (as 95%CI limits were shifted more towards positive association) among patients on Rosuvastatin 40mg as opposed to their counterparts on Atorvastatin 80mg, although results were not statistically significant due to sparse data points in the category of patients for whom high-dose statins (either regime) appeared unsafe or poorly tolerated. (Table 4)

Table 4

Association of Post PTCA Statin regime (Ref: Atorvastatin 80mg) with safety and tolerability among patients receiving high-dose of two statins after undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) in a tertiary cardiac care hospital of Kolkata, 2009–2016 (N = 942).

			Adjusted Model 1		Adjusted Model 2		Adjusted Model 3
			A1OR (95%CI)	p value	A2OR (95%CI)	p value	A3OR (95%CI)	p value
Safety	Any adverse effects which needed dose reduction or discontinuation of statins (Ref = No)	Yes	2.16 (0.61–7.71)	0.2338	2.20 (0.61–7.87)	0.2274	2.07 (0.58–7.41)	0.2617
	Overall safety profile (Ref = Good)	Poor	1.27 (0.55–2.91)	0.5801	1.30 (0.56–3.02)	0.5379	1.23 (0.53–2.83)	0.6355
Tolerability	Suffered from: GERD/Gastritis (Ref = No)	Yes	2.09 (0.90–4.84)	0.0846	1.96 (0.84–4.56)	0.1171	2.16 (0.93–5.00)	0.0728
	Overall Tolerability (Ref = Good)	Poor	1.69 (0.93–3.06)	0.0869	1.63 (0.90–2.98)	0.1091	1.69 (0.93–3.07)	0.0854

Model 1 adjusted for age, gender, tobacco use and stent type.

Model 2 additionally adjusted for Comorbidity Index.

Model 3 additionally adjusted for Medication Index.

Discussion

In this record-based non-concurrent cohort study involving 942 patients aged 18–75 years, who had undergone PCI in a tertiary cardiac care center in Kolkata, India, between 2009 and 2016, post-PCI regimes of high dose statins (321 on Atorvastatin 80mg and 621 on Rosuvastatin 40mg) were found to be quite safe (for 97%) and well tolerated (by 93%).

Baseline characteristics of the potential covariates, existing comorbidities and the immediate post-PCI prescribed management were quite similarly distributed among the study subjects across the statin regime groups (Atorvastatin 80mg and Rosuvastatin 40mg) making the two groups quite comparable.

Corroborating with prior studies [23, 45], based on primary end-points of MACE, PCI was found to be producing mostly (in 97%) satisfactory primary outcomes (similarly across statin regimes, as evidenced earlier also [46]) for all eligible post-PCI patients recruited in the study. During the one-year post-PCI follow up: nobody died in either group, only one patient in each group had acute MI, repeated hospitalization for angina/stroke were observed in only a small proportion and post-PCI target vessel revascularization was needed for only a few.

Secondary outcomes across statin regimes were compared using serum level of LDL as an indicator for hyperlipidaemia and hs-CRP as the marker for inflammation, three months after PCI. Regarding the control of serum LDL, both Atorvastatin 80mg and Rosuvastatin 40mg regimes appeared to be about equally effective in achieving overall satisfactory secondary outcomes in approximately two third of the patients during this follow up. Among these patients, majority had satisfactory control on serum lipids (84%) and plasma hs-CRP levels (72%) as also were evidenced previously by other researchers [47]. Based on previous studies it also appeared that cumulative effect of serum LDL levels and plasma CRP indicated important implications on atherosclerosis [48, 49].

But compared to those on Rosuvastatin 40mg, patients on Atorvastatin 80mg had statistically significantly better reduction in plasma levels of hs-CRP after adjustment for all other factors, indicating that this high-dose regime of Atorvastatin was more effective in inflammation control as opposed to the Rosuvastatin regime. Elsewhere also, the role of Atorvastatin in successfully reducing CRP level had been demonstrated previously [50, 51].

Both regimes of high dose statins were found to be quite safe (for 97%) for the post-PCI patients as during three post-PCI month follow up, very few patients (in both statin groups) developed deranged liver function, high serum CK/CPK level or development of any adverse events culminating into dose-reduction or withdrawal. Similar findings were also reported from the POLARIS study, STELLER study and others [52-56] Digging deeper, it was evident that relatively better safety profile may be assigned to high dose Atorvastatin (vs. Rosuvastatin) regime.

As also evidenced in available literature [49], high dose statins were mostly (93%) well tolerated by the patients recruited in the current study. GERD/Gastritis occurred a bit less commonly among patients on Atorvastatin 80 compared to their counterparts on Rosuvastatin 40mg. Overall tolerability also appeared to be shed better among those on high dose Atorvastatin compared to the other drug.

The current study also had some limitations. Unequal dose reduction may appear as a potential factor for variation in the outcome. Based on the available literature on therapeutic levels and dosage of Atorvastatin vs Rosuvastatin, comparison after dose reduction to 10mg for both was found to be most relevant, therapeutically indicated, plausible and thus conducted. As per the available evidences, to have equal dose reduction, comparison between reductions to Atorvastatin 10mg vs Rosuvastatin 5mg was not possible [57] to maintain the therapeutic target of lowering LDL level to ≤50% among post-PCI patients, lowered dose for both had to be 10mg [57, 58]. This dose being the most commonly used as well as median lowered dose of statin in such high-risk groups in real world scenario (especially among Asians) had to be administered and thus compared in this study [59-62]. Available literature strongly suggesting comparable outcome in terms of LDL lowering with Atorvastatin 10mg vs Rosuvastatin 10mg in real world actually made it more relevant [60]. Furthermore, the comparison of therapeutic impact of dose reduction remained beyond the pursuit of this effort.

Although, in Indian context, Rosuvastatin fared better regarding plaque regression and lipid control [63], with some more evidence elsewhere [63-65], specific data on such high-dose comparison in post-PCI were scanty. Despite the limitations, through parge sample size and robust analysis, the current could probably generate important insight regarding direct comparison of effectiveness in terms of controlling inflammation, preventing major adverse cardiac events and tolerance of high-dose statins among Indian post-PCI patients.

Conclusion

High dose statins were found to be very effective, quite safe and well tolerated by post-PCI patients. Post-PCI regime of Atorvastatin 80mg/day was found to be more effective in controlling inflammatory process and relatively better tolerated as opposed to Rosuvastatin 40mg.While both these regimes were found to be equally effective in lowering serum LDL level and preventing major adverse cardiac events among post-PCI patients, given its relatively less market price, Atorvastatin 80mg/day appeared to be a more cost-effective high-dose option as the lipid lowering regime to be prescribed immediate post-PCI. A head-to-head cost-effectiveness as well as efficacy trial may be the need of the hour.

Data description codebook.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Dataset.

(XLS)

Click here for additional data file.

28 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-32015

Comparing effectiveness of high-dose Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin among patients undergone Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: a non-concurrent cohort study in India

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Roy,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 30 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please explain the equivalence between reduction to 10 mg in both arms from Rosuvastatin 40 mg vs Atorvastatin 80 mg after three months. Outcome may vary because of the unequal reduction of doses.

Kindly further explain the differences between the side effects in two groups like myalgia/statin intolerance.

Reviewer #2: The authors studied high dose Atorvastatin as compared to high dose Rosuvastatin post Percutaneous Coronary Interventions. This was an observation study with its limitations. The authors concluded that "Post-PCI regime of

Atorvastatin-80mg/day was more effective in controlling endothelial inflammation and relatively better tolerated as opposed to Rosuvastatin-40mg. Would would like to congratulate the authors for their work. I have the following observation to make.

Abstract:

The conclusion presented in the manuscript sounds very biased. High dose Rosuvastatin as compared to Atorvastatin reported a non significant difference in primary outcome, as suggested by overlapping confidence intervals. The decrease in hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) is an indirect evidence of endothelial inflammation. Hence it would be better concluded as- " High dose Rosuvastatin as compared to high dose Atorvastatin are similar in their clinical efficacy. Patients treated with Atrovastatin had significantly lower number of patients with hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level beyond comparable safe limit".

The authors should discuss why Atorvastatin was relatively better than Rosuvastatin, at least in Indian context. There is considerable evidence regarding Rosuvstatin being a better statin as compared to Atorvastatin, with regards to plaque regression and better lipid control. Anything that explains why this results were not reproduced in the present study.

The introduction is larger than discussion in the present manuscript. I would prefer seeing more content discussing the results in an original research submission. The introduction section can be shortened.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Apr 2020

Response to Editor’s Comments

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Done

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

We have done the needful as instructed.

2. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

This work was conducted in collaboration between two organizations:

1. Department of Cardiology, Narayana Hrudayalaya Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

2. Mission Arogya Health and Information Technology Research Foundation, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Doctors attached to the Department of Cardiology of Narayana Hrudayalaya Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, Kolkata, West Bengal, India: Dr. Debabrata Roy, Dr. Kaushik Manna, Dr. Ayan Kar, Dr. Saiyed Rana, Dr. Abhishek Roy, Dr. Pallab Bose and Epidemiologist/Public Health Specialists of Mission Arogya Health and Information Technology Research Foundation, Kolkata, West Bengal, India: Dr. Tanmay Mahapatra, Barnali Banerjee, Srutarshi Paul and Dr. Sandipta Chakraborty, collaborated together to conduct this research, analysis and manuscript development.

During submission of the manuscript, the affiliations were marked serially with numerical superscripts and while doing that mistakenly some of the authors were marked with 3 and 4 as affiliation marker. Actually, only two such affiliating organizations were to be listed. The mistakes have been corrected in the revised manuscript. We are sorry for the mistake.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Please explain the equivalence between reduction to 10 mg in both arms from Rosuvastatin 40 mg vs Atorvastatin 80 mg after three months. Outcome may vary because of the unequal reduction of doses.

We are thankful to the reviewer for this valuable opinion and we are extremely sorry for not explaining this earlier in the previously submitted version of the manuscript. While we agree that unequal reduction of doses may apparently appear as a potential factor for variation in the outcome, but based on the available literature on therapeutic levels and dosage of Atorvastatin vs Rosuvastatin, comparison after dose reduction to 10mg for both was found to be most relevant, therapeutically indicated and plausible. The reasons being:

1. To have equal reduction of dose, we had the option of comparing between reductions to Atorvastatin 10mg vs Rosuvastatin 5mg. but it was not possible [1]because:

a. Therapeutic target for the management of patients who had undergone Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, was to maintain the statin dose in such level that LDL remained reduced by 50% or more.

b. Real world data shows that with Rosuvastatin 5mg, LDL was not expected to be reduced by more than 50%[1, 2]

2. The most commonly used regimes of statin in such high-risk groups in real world scenario remained to be 10mg for both Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin with this being the median dose for both across such studies. [1] Furthermore this dose for both the drugs was the most common baseline statin therapy.[6]

3. Comparisons between 10mg dosing of Atorvastatin vs Rosuvastatin were suggested in literature, with aforementioned biological plausibility in studies conducted among Asian patients.[3]

4. Available literature also strongly suggested comparable outcome in terms of LDL lowering with Atorvastatin 10mg vs Rosuvastatin 10mg in real world.[4]

5. Studies that did compare baseline lower dose of these two statins also did compare between Atorvastatin 10mg vs Rosuvastatin 10mg before switching to higher doses.[1, 5]

Owing to these evidences, we did include patients in this study with dose reduction to 10mg for both as the literature mostly suggested comparability of therapeutic indications of Atorvastatin with Rosuvastatin respectively at 80mg vs 40mg at high dose and 10mg each at low dose.[1-4, 6] It can also be noted that comparison of therapeutic impact of such dose reduction was not made in this manuscript.

In the revised manuscript we have incorporated this limitation and changes are marked with tracking.

Kindly further explain the differences between the side effects in two groups like myalgia/statin intolerance.

We are thankful to the reviewer for this valuable opinion and we are extremely sorry for not explaining this earlier in the previously submitted version of the manuscript. In the revised manuscript we have incorporated this as per the instruction and changes are marked with tracking.

Reviewer #2:

The authors studied high dose Atorvastatin as compared to high dose Rosuvastatin post Percutaneous Coronary Interventions. This was an observation study with its limitations. The authors concluded that "Post-PCI regime of

Atorvastatin-80mg/day was more effective in controlling endothelial inflammation and relatively better tolerated as opposed to Rosuvastatin-40mg. Would would like to congratulate the authors for their work. I have the following observation to make.

Abstract:

The conclusion presented in the manuscript sounds very biased. High dose Rosuvastatin as compared to Atorvastatin reported a non significant difference in primary outcome, as suggested by overlapping confidence intervals. The decrease in hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) is an indirect evidence of endothelial inflammation. Hence it would be better concluded as- " High dose Rosuvastatin as compared to high dose Atorvastatin are similar in their clinical efficacy. Patients treated with Atrovastatin had significantly lower number of patients with hs-CRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein)/C-reactive protein (CRP) level beyond comparable safe limit".

We are very much thankful to the reviewer for the applause and not only pointing out the apparently undue emphasize in our conclusion, but also providing us with the corrected expression. We have incorporated this as per the instruction in the conclusion of the abstract and changes are marked with tracking.

The authors should discuss why Atorvastatin was relatively better than Rosuvastatin, at least in Indian context. There is considerable evidence regarding Rosuvstatin being a better statin as compared to Atorvastatin, with regards to plaque regression and better lipid control. Anything that explains why this results were not reproduced in the present study.

We are grateful to the reviewer, for pointing this out and we are extremely sorry for not discussing this contrast in our manuscript in the previously submitted version.

We had discussed this in introduction, mentioning: “Trials like GISSI-HF, JUPITER on the other hand observed a marked reduction in the cardiac endpoints and overall better outcome with rosuvastatin treatment” and “But comparative analysis between Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin over 20 years treatment effect in a simulated trial using the Archimedes model and involving the results of CARDS, ASCOT, JUPITER, and the TNT trial revealed better potency of Rosuvastatin”.

Actually, what we found was, while in Indian context, Rosuvastatin was found to do better with regards to plaque regression, better lipid control and some more, those comparisons were mainly made among patients with comparable dosing across whole spectrum of therapeutic indications.[7, 8] Also tolerability of these high dose statins remained a question for Indian patients, with literature suggesting that direct comparison with patients on similar indication, keeping the universe for the research for comparison limited to such specific high-risk groups were to be conducted to infer on those.[7-9] Comparison of Atorvastatin 80mg with Rosuvastatin 40mg among post-PCI patients was thus undertaken to compare their overall effectiveness in terms of Major Adverse Cardiac Event while tolerance and inflammation control were compared directly to address that specific research question.

In the revised manuscript we have incorporated these discussions to ensure that the points of view remain fully inclusive and rationale for the inference get further clarified.

The introduction is larger than discussion in the present manuscript. I would prefer seeing more content discussing the results in an original research submission. The introduction section can be shortened.

We are very much indebted for this valuable opinion of the reviewer and admit that, while summarizing background literature, we were unable to shorten the introduction further, which should have been done in addition to strengthening the discussion furthermore, contextualizing our results, in light of available

References:

1. Bullano MF, Kamat S, Wertz DA, Borok GM, Gandhi SK, McDonough KL, et al. Effectiveness of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing lipid levels and achieving low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol goals in a usual care setting. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2007;64(3):276-84. Epub 2007/01/25. doi: 10.2146/060104. PubMed PMID: 17244877.

2. Ohsfeldt RL, Gandhi SK, Fox KM, Stacy TA, McKenney JM. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin among high-risk patients in usual clinical practice. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(15 Suppl):S412-23. Epub 2006/11/23. PubMed PMID: 17112329.

3. Zhu JR, Tomlinson B, Ro YM, Sim KH, Lee YT, Sriratanasathavorn C. A randomised study comparing the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin for achieving lipid goals in clinical practice in Asian patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (DISCOVERY-Asia study). Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23(12):3055-68. Epub 2008/01/16. doi: 10.1185/030079907x242809. PubMed PMID: 18196620.

4. Davidson MH. Differences between clinical trial efficacy and real-world effectiveness. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12(15 Suppl):S405-11. Epub 2006/11/23. PubMed PMID: 17112328.

5. Rosenson RS, Otvos JD, Hsia J. Effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on LDL and HDL particle concentrations in patients with metabolic syndrome: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(6):1087-91. Epub 2009/03/07. doi: 10.2337/dc08-1681. PubMed PMID: 19265025; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2681027.

6. Toth PP, Foody JM, Tomassini JE, Sajjan SG, Ramey DR, Neff DR, et al. Therapeutic practice patterns related to statin potency and ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapies in lowering LDL-C in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease. J Clin Lipidol. 2014;8(1):107-16. Epub 2014/02/18. doi: 10.1016/j.jacl.2013.09.009. PubMed PMID: 24528691.

7. Kumar A, Shariff M, Doshi R. Impact of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on coronary atherosclerotic plaque volume - a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized control trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019:2047487319868035. Epub 2019/08/07. doi: 10.1177/2047487319868035. PubMed PMID: 31382809.

8. Qian C, Wei B, Ding J, Wu H, Cai X, Li B, et al. Meta-analysis comparing the effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on regression of coronary atherosclerotic plaques. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116(10):1521-6. Epub 2015/09/20. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.08.010. PubMed PMID: 26385518.

9. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Fleurence R, Tsoi B, Toor H, Ades AE. Comparative benefits of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of major coronary events and all-cause mortality: a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2013;20(4):641-57. Epub 2013/03/01. doi: 10.1177/2047487313480435. PubMed PMID: 23447425.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

1 May 2020

Comparing effectiveness of high-dose Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin among patients undergone Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: a non-concurrent cohort study in India

PONE-D-19-32015R1

Dear Dr. Roy,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

8 May 2020

PONE-D-19-32015R1

Comparing effectiveness of high-dose Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin among patients undergone Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: a non-concurrent cohort study in India

Dear Dr. Roy:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Corstiaan den Uil

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE