Dataset Information

A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Controversy persists regarding the extent of shared pathways between arterial and venous thrombosis and whether treatments of known efficacy for one disease process have consistent benefits for the other. Observational studies have yielded variable estimates of the effect of statin therapy on the risk of venous thromboembolism, and evidence from randomized trials is lacking.

Methods

We randomly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg per liter or higher to receive rosuvastatin, 20 mg per day, or placebo. We followed participants for the first occurrence of pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis and performed analyses of the data on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

During a median follow-up period of 1.9 years (maximum, 5.0), symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in 94 participants: 34 in the rosuvastatin group and 60 in the placebo group. The rates of venous thromboembolism were 0.18 and 0.32 event per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio with rosuvastatin, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.86; P=0.007); the corresponding rates for unprovoked venous thromboembolism (i.e., occurring in the absence of a known malignant condition, trauma, hospitalization, or surgery) were 0.10 and 0.17 (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.09; P=0.09) and for provoked venous thromboembolism (i.e., occurring in patients with cancer or during or shortly after trauma, hospitalization, or surgery), 0.08 and 0.16 (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.96; P=0.03). The rates of pulmonary embolism were 0.09 in the rosuvastatin group and 0.12 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.45; P=0.42), whereas the rates of deep-vein thrombosis only were 0.09 and 0.20, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.79; P=0.004). Consistent effects were observed in all the subgroups examined. No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the rates of bleeding episodes.

Conclusions

In this trial of apparently healthy persons, rosuvastatin significantly reduced the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00239681.)

SUBMITTER: Glynn RJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2710995 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Glynn Robert J RJ Danielson Eleanor E Fonseca Francisco A H FA Genest Jacques J Gotto Antonio M AM Kastelein John J P JJ Koenig Wolfgang W Libby Peter P Lorenzatti Alberto J AJ MacFadyen Jean G JG Nordestgaard Børge G BG Shepherd James J Willerson James T JT Ridker Paul M PM

The New England journal of medicine 20090329 18

<h4>Background</h4>Controversy persists regarding the extent of shared pathways between arterial and venous thrombosis and whether treatments of known efficacy for one disease process have consistent benefits for the other. Observational studies have yielded variable estimates of the effect of statin therapy on the risk of venous thromboembolism, and evidence from randomized trials is lacking.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with both low-density lipop ...[more]

PMID: 19329822

Similar Datasets

Project description:Essentials The role of statins in hemostasis and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is not clear. This trial assessed whether rosuvastatin use affects thrombin generation in patients with VTE. Endogenous thrombin potential and peak were decreased by 10% and 5% with rosuvastatin therapy. These results provide basis for trials on the efficacy of statins in reducing recurrent VTE risk. SUMMARY: Background Statin therapy could form an alternative prophylactic treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE) if statins are proven to downregulate hemostasis and prevent recurrent VTE, without increasing bleeding risk. Objectives The STAtins Reduce Thrombophilia (START) trial investigated whether statin affects coagulation in patients with prior VTE. Patients/methods After anticoagulation withdrawal, patients were randomized to rosuvastatin 20 mg day-1 for 4 weeks or no intervention. Plasma samples taken at baseline and at the end of the study were analyzed employing thrombin generation assay. Results and conclusions The study comprised 126 rosuvastatin users and 119 non-users. Mean age was 58 years, 61% were men, 49% had unprovoked VTE and 75% had cardiovascular (CV) risk factors. Endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) increased from baseline to end of study in non-statin users (mean 97.22 nm*min; 95% CI, 40.92-153.53) and decreased in rosuvastatin users (mean -24.94 nm*min; 95% CI, -71.81 to 21.93). The mean difference in ETP change between treatments was -120.24 nm*min (95% CI, -192.97 to -47.51), yielding a 10.4% ETP reduction by rosuvastatin. The thrombin peak increased in both non-statin (mean 20.69 nm; 95% CI, 9.80-31.58) and rosuvastatin users (mean 8.41 nm; 95% CI -0.86 to 17.69). The mean difference in peak change between treatments was -11.88 nm (95% CI, -26.11 to 2.35), yielding a 5% peak reduction by rosuvastatin. Other thrombin generation parameters did not change substantially. The reduction in ETP and peak by rosuvastatin was more pronounced in the subgroups of participants with CV risk factors and with unprovoked VTE. We conclude that rosuvastatin reduces thrombin generation potential in patients who had VTE.

Project description:BackgroundFactor XIa inhibitors for the prevention and treatment of venous and arterial thromboembolism may be more effective and result in less bleeding than conventional anticoagulants. Additional data are needed regarding the efficacy and safety of milvexian, an oral factor XIa inhibitor.MethodsIn this parallel-group, phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned 1242 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty to receive one of seven postoperative regimens of milvexian (25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg twice daily or 25 mg, 50 mg, or 200 mg once daily) or enoxaparin (40 mg once daily). The primary efficacy outcome was venous thromboembolism (which was a composite of asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, confirmed symptomatic venous thromboembolism, or death from any cause). The principal safety outcome was bleeding.ResultsAmong the patients receiving milvexian twice daily, venous thromboembolism developed in 27 of 129 (21%) taking 25 mg, in 14 of 124 (11%) taking 50 mg, in 12 of 134 (9%) taking 100 mg, and in 10 of 131 (8%) taking 200 mg. Among those receiving milvexian once daily, venous thromboembolism developed in 7 of 28 (25%) taking 25 mg, in 30 of 127 (24%) taking 50 mg, and in 8 of 123 (7%) taking 200 mg, as compared with 54 of 252 patients (21%) taking enoxaparin. The dose-response relationship with twice-daily milvexian was significant (one-sided P<0.001), and the 12% incidence of venous thromboembolism with twice-daily milvexian was significantly lower than the prespecified benchmark of 30% (one-sided P<0.001). Bleeding of any severity occurred in 38 of 923 patients (4%) taking milvexian and in 12 of 296 patients (4%) taking enoxaparin; major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 1% and 2%, respectively; and serious adverse events were reported in 2% and 4%, respectively.ConclusionsPostoperative factor XIa inhibition with oral milvexian in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty was effective for the prevention of venous thromboembolism and was associated with a low risk of bleeding. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen Research and Development; AXIOMATIC-TKR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03891524.).

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer involve commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship overcomes feasibility limitations inherent in RCTs, such as recruitment and funding, but has attracted scrutiny for its potential for bias.ObjectivesIn RCTs of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do trial characteristics compare between commercially sponsored RCTs and noncommercially sponsored RCTs?MethodsMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs that investigated at least 1 pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Screening and data extraction were conducted by independent reviewers. Outcomes included trial characteristics, reporting of favorable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancies, and appraisal of spin. Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias.ResultsOf the 54 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favorable outcomes, presence of spin, retrospective registration, or protocol-manuscript discrepancy. Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]).Commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis. Noncommercially sponsored trials were more likely to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and the use of composite primary outcomes.ConclusionThere were few significant differences between trial characteristics, suggesting that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer is unlikely to be subject to bias attributable to commercial sponsorship.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets