Dataset Information

Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention: an analysis from the JUPITER trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In view of evidence that statin therapy increases risk of diabetes, the balance of benefit and risk of these drugs in primary prevention has become controversial. We undertook an analysis of participants from the JUPITER trial to address the balance of vascular benefits and diabetes hazard of statin use.

Methods

In the randomised, double-blind JUPITER trial, 17,603 men and women without previous cardiovascular disease or diabetes were randomly assigned to rosuvastatin 20 mg or placebo and followed up for up to 5 years for the primary endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke, admission to hospital for unstable angina, arterial revascularisation, or cardiovascular death) and the protocol-prespecified secondary endpoints of venous thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and incident physician-reported diabetes. In this analysis, participants were stratified on the basis of having none or at least one of four major risk factors for developing diabetes: metabolic syndrome, impaired fasting glucose, body-mass index 30 kg/m(2) or higher, or glycated haemoglobin A(1c) greater than 6%. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00239681.

Findings

Trial participants with one or more major diabetes risk factor (n=11,508) were at higher risk of developing diabetes than were those without a major risk factor (n=6095). In individuals with one or more risk factors, statin allocation was associated with a 39% reduction in the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 0·61, 95% CI 0·47-0·79, p=0·0001), a 36% reduction in venous thromboembolism (0·64, 0·39-1·06, p=0·08), a 17% reduction in total mortality (0·83, 0·64-1·07, p=0·15), and a 28% increase in diabetes (1·28, 1·07-1·54, p=0·01). Thus, for those with diabetes risk factors, a total of 134 vascular events or deaths were avoided for every 54 new cases of diabetes diagnosed. For trial participants with no major diabetes risk factors, statin allocation was associated with a 52% reduction in the primary endpoint (HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·33-0·68, p=0·0001), a 53% reduction in venous thromboembolism (0·47, 0·21-1·03, p=0·05), a 22% reduction in total mortality (0·78, 0·59-1·03, p=0·08), and no increase in diabetes (0·99, 0·45-2·21, p=0·99). For such individuals, a total of 86 vascular events or deaths were avoided with no new cases of diabetes diagnosed. In analysis limited to the 486 participants who developed diabetes during follow-up (270 on rosuvastatin vs 216 on placebo; HR 1·25, 95% CI 1·05-1·49, p=0·01), the point estimate of cardiovascular risk reduction associated with statin therapy (HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·25-1·60) was consistent with that for the trial as a whole (0·56, 0·46-0·69). By comparison with placebo, statins accelerated the average time to diagnosis of diabetes by 5·4 weeks (84·3 [SD 47·8] weeks on rosuvastatin vs 89·7 [50·4] weeks on placebo).

Interpretation

In the JUPITER primary prevention trial, the cardiovascular and mortality benefits of statin therapy exceed the diabetes hazard, including in participants at high risk of developing diabetes.

Funding

AstraZeneca.

SUBMITTER: Ridker PM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3774022 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention: an analysis from the JUPITER trial.

Ridker Paul M PM Pradhan Aruna A MacFadyen Jean G JG Libby Peter P Glynn Robert J RJ

Lancet (London, England) 20120801 9841

<h4>Background</h4>In view of evidence that statin therapy increases risk of diabetes, the balance of benefit and risk of these drugs in primary prevention has become controversial. We undertook an analysis of participants from the JUPITER trial to address the balance of vascular benefits and diabetes hazard of statin use.<h4>Methods</h4>In the randomised, double-blind JUPITER trial, 17,603 men and women without previous cardiovascular disease or diabetes were randomly assigned to rosuvastatin 2 ...[more]

PMID: 22883507

Similar Datasets

Project description:Osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease may share common biological pathways, with inflammation playing a role in the development of both. Although observational studies have suggested that statin use is associated with a lower risk of fractures, randomized trial data addressing this issue are scant.To determine whether statin therapy reduces the risk of fracture and, in a secondary analysis, whether baseline levels of the inflammatory biomarker high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) are associated with the risk of fracture.The JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) trial was an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolling 17,802 men older than 50 years and women older than 60 years with hs-CRP level of at least 2 mg/L. Participants were screened from 2003 to 2006 and observed prospectively for up to 5 years (median follow-up, 1.9 years).Rosuvastatin calcium, 20 mg daily, or placebo.Incident fracture was a prespecified secondary end point of JUPITER. Fractures were confirmed by radiographs, computed tomography, bone scan, or other methods. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and associated 95% confidence intervals for the risk of fracture according to randomized treatment assignment, as well as increasing tertiles of hs-CRP, controlling for potential confounders.During the study, 431 incident fractures were reported and confirmed. Among participants allocated to rosuvastatin, 221 fractures were confirmed, compared with 210 among those allocated to placebo, such that the incidence of fracture in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups was 1.20 and 1.14 per 100 person-years, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.88-1.28]; P = .53). Overall, increasing baseline hs-CRP level was not associated with an increased risk of fractures (adjusted HR for each unit increase in hs-CRP tertile, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.94-1.20]; P for trend, .34).Among men and women with elevated hs-CRP level enrolled in a large trial of rosuvastatin therapy for cardiovascular disease, statin therapy did not reduce the risk of fracture. Higher baseline hs-CRP level was not associated with an increased risk of incident fracture.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00239681.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomized-trial data on the risks and benefits of antiretroviral therapy (ART) as compared with zidovudine and single-dose nevirapine to prevent transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in HIV-infected pregnant women with high CD4 counts are lacking. METHODS:We randomly assigned HIV-infected women at 14 or more weeks of gestation with CD4 counts of at least 350 cells per cubic millimeter to zidovudine and single-dose nevirapine plus a 1-to-2-week postpartum "tail" of tenofovir and emtricitabine (zidovudine alone); zidovudine, lamivudine, and lopinavir-ritonavir (zidovudine-based ART); or tenofovir, emtricitabine, and lopinavir-ritonavir (tenofovir-based ART). The primary outcomes were HIV transmission at 1 week of age in the infant and maternal and infant safety. RESULTS:The median CD4 count was 530 cells per cubic millimeter among 3490 primarily black African HIV-infected women enrolled at a median of 26 weeks of gestation (interquartile range, 21 to 30). The rate of transmission was significantly lower with ART than with zidovudine alone (0.5% in the combined ART groups vs. 1.8%; difference, -1.3 percentage points; repeated confidence interval, -2.1 to -0.4). However, the rate of maternal grade 2 to 4 adverse events was significantly higher with zidovudine-based ART than with zidovudine alone (21.1% vs. 17.3%, P=0.008), and the rate of grade 2 to 4 abnormal blood chemical values was higher with tenofovir-based ART than with zidovudine alone (2.9% vs. 0.8%, P=0.03). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the ART groups (P>0.99). A birth weight of less than 2500 g was more frequent with zidovudine-based ART than with zidovudine alone (23.0% vs. 12.0%, P<0.001) and was more frequent with tenofovir-based ART than with zidovudine alone (16.9% vs. 8.9%, P=0.004); preterm delivery before 37 weeks was more frequent with zidovudine-based ART than with zidovudine alone (20.5% vs. 13.1%, P<0.001). Tenofovir-based ART was associated with higher rates than zidovudine-based ART of very preterm delivery before 34 weeks (6.0% vs. 2.6%, P=0.04) and early infant death (4.4% vs. 0.6%, P=0.001), but there were no significant differences between tenofovir-based ART and zidovudine alone (P=0.10 and P=0.43). The rate of HIV-free survival was highest among infants whose mothers received zidovudine-based ART. CONCLUSIONS:Antenatal ART resulted in significantly lower rates of early HIV transmission than zidovudine alone but a higher risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; PROMISE ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01061151 and NCT01253538 .).

Project description:The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol treatment guidelines have wide-scale implications for treating adults without history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) with statins.To estimate the cost-effectiveness of various 10-year ASCVD risk thresholds that could be used in the ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines.Microsimulation model, including lifetime time horizon, US societal perspective, 3% discount rate for costs, and health outcomes. In the model, hypothetical individuals from a representative US population aged 40 to 75 years received statin treatment, experienced ASCVD events, and died from ASCVD-related or non-ASCVD-related causes based on ASCVD natural history and statin treatment parameters. Data sources for model parameters included National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, large clinical trials and meta-analyses for statin benefits and treatment, and other published sources.Estimated ASCVD events prevented and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.In the base-case scenario, the current ASCVD threshold of 7.5% or higher, which was estimated to be associated with 48% of adults treated with statins, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $37,000/QALY compared with a 10% or higher threshold. More lenient ASCVD thresholds of 4.0% or higher (61% of adults treated) and 3.0% or higher (67% of adults treated) had ICERs of $81,000/QALY and $140,000/QALY, respectively. Shifting from a 7.5% or higher ASCVD risk threshold to a 3.0% or higher ASCVD risk threshold was estimated to be associated with an additional 161,560 cardiovascular disease events averted. Cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to changes in the disutility associated with taking a pill daily, statin price, and the risk of statin-induced diabetes. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, there was a higher than 93% chance that the optimal ASCVD threshold was 5.0% or lower using a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/QALY.In this microsimulation model of US adults aged 45 to 75 years [corrected], the current 10-year ASCVD risk threshold (?7.5% risk threshold) used in the ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines has an acceptable cost-effectiveness profile (ICER, $37,000/QALY), but more lenient ASCVD thresholds would be optimal using cost-effectiveness thresholds of $100,000/QALY (?4.0% risk threshold) or $150,000/QALY (?3.0% risk threshold). The optimal ASCVD threshold was sensitive to patient preferences for taking a pill daily, changes to statin price, and the risk of statin-induced diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundStatins are an important intervention for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to establish the variation in primary preventive treatment for CVD with statins in the English population.MethodsCross sectional analyses of 6155 English primary care practices with 40,017,963 patients in 2006/7. Linear regression was used to model prescribing rates of statins for primary CVD prevention as a function of IMD (index of multiple deprivation) quintile, proportion of population from an ethnic minority, and age over 65 years. Defined Daily Doses (DDD) were used to calculate the numbers of patients receiving a statin. Statin prescriptions were allocated to primary and secondary prevention based on the prevalence of CVD and stroke.ResultsWe estimated that 10.5% (s.d.3.7%) of the registered population were dispensed a statin for any indication and that 6.3% (s.d. 3.0%) received a statin for primary CVD prevention. The regression model explained 21.2% of the variation in estimates of prescribing for primary prevention. Practices with higher prevalence of hypertension (? co-efficient 0.299 p <0.001) and diabetes (? co-efficient 0.566 p < 0.001) prescribed more statins for primary prevention. Practices with higher levels of ethnicity (? co-efficient-0.026 p <0.001), greater deprivation (? co-efficient -0.152 p < 0.001) older patients (? co-efficient -0.032 p 0.002), larger lists (? co-efficient -0.085, p < 0.001) and were more rural (? co-efficient -0.121, p0.026) prescribed fewer statins. In a small proportion of practices (0.5%) estimated prescribing rates for statins were so low that insufficient prescriptions were issued to meet the predicted secondary prevention requirements of their registered population.ConclusionsAbsolute estimated prescribing rates for primary prevention of CVD were 6.3% of the population. There was evidence of social inequalities in statin prescribing for primary prevention. These findings support the recent introduction of a financial incentive for primary prevention of CVD in England.

Project description:ImportanceWhile statin therapy for primary cardiovascular prevention has been associated with reductions in cardiovascular morbidity, the effect on all-cause mortality has been variable. There is little evidence to guide the use of statins for primary prevention in adults 75 years and older.ObjectivesTo examine statin treatment among adults aged 65 to 74 years and 75 years and older when used for primary prevention in the Lipid-Lowering Trial (LLT) component of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT).Design, setting, and participantsPost hoc secondary data analyses were conducted of participants 65 years and older without evidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; 2867 ambulatory adults with hypertension and without baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were included. The ALLHAT-LLT was conducted from February 1994 to March 2002 at 513 clinical sites.InterventionsPravastatin sodium (40 mg/d) vs usual care (UC).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome in the ALLHAT-LLT was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal coronary heart disease combined (coronary heart disease events).ResultsThere were 1467 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.3 [5.2] years) in the pravastatin group (48.0% [n = 704] female) and 1400 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.2 [5.2] years) in the UC group (50.8% [n = 711] female). The baseline mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 147.7 (19.8) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 147.6 (19.4) mg/dL in the UC group; by year 6, the mean (SD) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were 109.1 (35.4) mg/dL in the pravastatin group and 128.8 (27.5) mg/dL in the UC group. At year 6, of the participants assigned to pravastatin, 42 of 253 (16.6%) were not taking any statin; 71.0% in the UC group were not taking any statin. The hazard ratios for all-cause mortality in the pravastatin group vs the UC group were 1.18 (95% CI, 0.97-1.42; P = .09) for all adults 65 years and older, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.85-1.37; P = .55) for adults aged 65 to 74 years, and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.98-1.84; P = .07) for adults 75 years and older. Coronary heart disease event rates were not significantly different among the groups. In multivariable regression, the results remained nonsignificant, and there was no significant interaction between treatment group and age.Conclusions and relevanceNo benefit was found when pravastatin was given for primary prevention to older adults with moderate hyperlipidemia and hypertension, and a nonsignificant direction toward increased all-cause mortality with pravastatin was observed among adults 75 years and older.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

Dataset Information

Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention: an analysis from the JUPITER trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention: an analysis from the JUPITER trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure