Dataset Information

Statin Effects on Aggression: Results from the UCSD Statin Study, a Randomized Control Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Low/ered cholesterol is linked to aggression in some study designs. Cases/series have reported reproducible aggression increases on statins, but statins also bear mechanisms that could reduce aggression. Usual statin effects on aggression have not been characterized.

Methods

1016 adults (692 men, 324 postmenopausal women) underwent double-blind sex-stratified randomization to placebo, simvastatin 20mg, or pravastatin 40mg (6 months). The Overt-Aggression-Scale-Modified-Aggression-Subscale (OASMa) assessed behavioral aggression. A significant sex-statin interaction was deemed to dictate sex-stratified analysis. Exploratory analyses assessed the influence of baseline-aggression, testosterone-change (men), sleep and age.

Results

The sex-statin interaction was significant (P=0.008). In men, statins tended to decrease aggression, significantly so on pravastatin: difference=-1.0(SE=0.49)P=0.038. Three marked outliers (OASMa-change ?40 points) offset otherwise strong significance-vs-placebo: statins:-1.3(SE=0.38)P=0.0007; simvastatin:-1.4(SE=0.43)P=0.0011; pravastatin:-1.2(SE=0.45)P=0.0083. Age?40 predicted greater aggression-decline on statins: difference=-1.4(SE=0.64)P=0.026. Aggression-protection was emphasized in those with low baseline aggression: age<40-and-low-baseline-aggression (N=40) statin-difference-vs-placebo=-2.4(SE=0.71)P=0.0016. Statins (especially simvastatin) lowered testosterone, and increased sleep problems. Testosterone-drop on statins predicted aggression-decline: ?=0.64(SE=0.30)P=0.034, particularly on simvastatin: ?=1.29(SE=0.49)P=0.009. Sleep-worsening on statins significantly predicted aggression-increase: ?=2.2(SE=0.55)P<0.001, particularly on simvastatin (potentially explaining two of the outliers): ?=3.3(SE=0.83)P<0.001. Among (postmenopausal) women, a borderline aggression-increase on statins became significant with exclusion of one younger, surgically-menopausal woman (N=310) ?=0.70(SE=0.34)P=0.039. The increase was significant, without exclusions, for women of more typical postmenopausal age (?45): (N=304) ?=0.68(SE=0.34)P=0.048 - retaining significance with modified age-cutoffs (?50 or ?55). Significance was observed separately for simvastatin. The aggression-increase in women on statins was stronger in those with low baseline aggression (N=175) ?=0.84(SE=0.30)P=0.006. No statin effect on whole blood serotonin was observed; and serotonin-change did not predict aggression-change.

Conclusion

Statin effects on aggression differed by sex and age: Statins generally decreased aggression in men; and generally increased aggression in women. Both findings were selectively prominent in participants with low baseline aggression - bearing lower change-variance, rendering an effect more readily evident.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00330980.

SUBMITTER: Golomb BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4488854 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Statin Effects on Aggression: Results from the UCSD Statin Study, a Randomized Control Trial.

Golomb Beatrice A BA Dimsdale Joel E JE Koslik Hayley J HJ Evans Marcella A MA Lu Xun X Rossi Steven S Mills Paul J PJ White Halbert L HL Criqui Michael H MH

PloS one 20150701 7

<h4>Background</h4>Low/ered cholesterol is linked to aggression in some study designs. Cases/series have reported reproducible aggression increases on statins, but statins also bear mechanisms that could reduce aggression. Usual statin effects on aggression have not been characterized.<h4>Methods</h4>1016 adults (692 men, 324 postmenopausal women) underwent double-blind sex-stratified randomization to placebo, simvastatin 20mg, or pravastatin 40mg (6 months). The Overt-Aggression-Scale-Modified- ...[more]

PMID: 26132393

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOsteoporosis 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.ObjectiveTo 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.Design, setting, and participantsThe 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).InterventionRosuvastatin calcium, 20 mg daily, or placebo.Main outcomes and measuresIncident 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.ResultsDuring 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).Conclusions and relevanceAmong 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.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00239681.

Project description:BackgroundSimple nudges such as reminders and feedback reports to either a patient or a partner may facilitate improved medication adherence.ObjectiveTo test the impact of a pill bottle used to monitor adherence, deliver a daily alarm, and generate weekly medication adherence feedback reports on statin adherence.DesignThree-month, three-arm randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480530).ParticipantsOne hundred and twenty-six veterans with known coronary artery disease and poor adherence (medication possession ratio <80 %).InterventionPatients were randomized to one of three groups: (1) a control group (n = 36) that received a pill-monitoring device with no alarms or feedback; (2) an individual feedback group (n = 36) that received a daily alarm and a weekly medication adherence feedback report; and (3) a partner feedback group (n = 54) that received an alarm and a weekly feedback report that was shared with a friend, family member, or a peer. The intervention continued for 3 months, and participants were followed for an additional 3 months after the intervention period.Main measuresAdherence as measured by pill bottle. Secondary outcomes included change in LDL (mg/dl), patient activation, and social support.Key resultsDuring the 3-month intervention period, medication adherence was higher in both feedback arms than in the control arm (individual feedback group 89 %, partner feedback group 86 %, control group 67 %; p < 0.001 and = 0.001). At 6 months, there was no difference in medication adherence between either of the feedback groups and the control (individual feedback 60 %, partner feedback 52 %, control group 54 %; p = 0.75 and 0.97).ConclusionsDaily alarms combined with individual or partner feedback reports improved statin medication adherence. While neither an individual feedback nor partner feedback strategy created a sustainable medication adherence habit, the intervention itself is relatively easy to implement and low cost.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months.Design, setting, and participantsThis 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019.InterventionsThe interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months.ResultsAmong 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Project description:Minimal invasive approaches to managing caries, such as partial caries removal techniques, are showing increasing evidence of improved outcomes over the conventional complete caries removal. There is also increasing interest in techniques where no caries is removed. We present the 1-yr results of clinical efficacy for 3 caries management options for occlusoproximal cavitated lesions in primary molars: conventional restorations (CR; complete caries removal and compomer restoration), Hall technique (HT; no caries removal, sealing in with stainless steel crowns), and nonrestorative caries treatment (NRCT; no caries removal, opening up the cavity, teaching brushing and fluoride application). In sum, 169 children (3-8 yr old; mean, 5.56 ± 1.45 yr) were enrolled in this secondary care-based, 3-arm, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. Treatments were carried out by specialist pediatric dentists or postgraduate trainees. One lesion per child received CR, HT, or NRCT. Outcome measures were clinical failure rates, grouped as minor failure (restoration loss/need for replacement, reversible pulpitis, caries progression, etc.) and major failure (irreversible pulpitis, abscess, etc.). There were 148 children (87.6%) with a minimum follow-up of 11 mo (mean, 12.23 ± 0.98 mo). Twenty teeth were recorded as having at least 1 minor failure: NRCT, n = 8 (5%); CR, n = 11 (7%); HT, n = 1 (1%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Only the comparison between NRCT and CR showed no significant difference (p = .79, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.80). Nine (6%) experienced at least 1 major failure: NRCT, n = 4 (2%); CR, n = 5 (3%); HT, n = 0 (0%) (p = .002, 95% CI = 0.001 to 0.003). Individual comparison of NRCT and CR showed no statistically significant difference in major failures (p = .75, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.76). Success and failure rates were not significantly affected by pediatric dentists' level of experience (p = .13, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.14). The HT was significantly more successful clinically than NRCT and CR after 1 yr, while pairwise analyses showed comparable results for treatment success between NRCT and CR (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01797458).

Project description:ImportanceFinancial incentives may improve health by rewarding patients for focusing on present actions-such as medication regimen adherence-that provide longer-term health benefits.ObjectiveTo identify barriers to improving statin therapy adherence and control of cholesterol levels with financial incentives and insights for the design of future interventions.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study involved retrospective interviews with participants in a preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of financial incentives for statin therapy adherence. A total of 636 trial participants from several US insurer or employer populations and an academic health system were rank ordered by change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) levels. Participants with the most LDLC level improvement (high-improvement group) and those with LDLC levels that did not improve (nonimprovement group) were purposively targeted, stratified across all trial groups, for semistructured telephone interviews that were performed from April 1 to June 30, 2018. Interviews were coded using a team-based, iterative approach. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was mean change in LDLC level from baseline to 12 months; the secondary outcome, statin therapy adherence during the first 6 months.ResultsA total of 54 patients were interviewed, divided equally between high-improvement and nonimprovement groups, with a mean (SD) age of 43.5 (10.3) years; 36 (66.7%) were women, 28 (51.9%) had diabetes, and 18 (33.3%) had cardiovascular disease. Compared with the high-improvement group, the nonimprovement group had fewer interviewees with an annual income of greater than $50 000 (11 [40.7%] vs 22 [81.5%]), worse self-reported health (fair to poor, 13 [48.1%] vs 3 [11.1%]), more Black interviewees (16 [59.3%] vs 4 [14.8%]), and lower baseline LDLC levels (>160 mg/dL, 2 [7.4%] vs 25 [92.6%]). Participants in the nonimprovement group had a greater burden of chronic illness (≥2 chronic conditions, 13 [48.1%] vs 6 [22.2%]) and were less frequently employed (full-time, 6 [22.2%] vs 12 [44.4%]). In interviews, the nonimprovement group was less focused on risks of high LDLC levels, described less engagement in LDLC level management, articulated fewer specific nutritional choices for optimizing health, and recounted greater difficulty obtaining healthy food. Participants in both groups had difficulty describing the structure of the financial incentives but did recall features of the electronic pill containers used to track adherence and how those containers affected medication routines.Conclusions and relevanceParticipants in a statin adherence trial whose LDLC levels did not improve found it more difficult to create medication routines and respond to financial incentives in the context of complex living conditions and a high burden of chronic illness. These findings suggest that future studies should be more attentive to socioeconomic circumstances of trial participants.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Dataset Information

Statin Effects on Aggression: Results from the UCSD Statin Study, a Randomized Control Trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Statin Effects on Aggression: Results from the UCSD Statin Study, a Randomized Control Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets