4.7 Article

Secondary prevention with bezafibrate therapy for the treatment of dyslipidemia

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 459-465

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.09.048

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives This study was designed to evaluate the long-term cardiovascular benefit of bezafibrate therapy in coronary heart disease patients enrolled in the BIP (Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention) trial. Background The BIP trial yielded a nonsignificant 7.3% reduction in the rate of major cardiac events after a mean follow-up period of 6.2 years, possibly owing to an increasing unbalanced usage of nonstudy lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs) during the course of the trial. Methods The adjusted risk for the combined end point of cardiac death or nonfatal myocardial infarction during an extended mean 8.2-year follow-up period of the BIP trial was assessed in 3,090 patients allocated to the original bezafibrate (n = 1,548) and placebo (n = 1,542) groups of the trial. Results During the extended follow-up period, nonstudy LLDs were administered to a significantly greater proportion of placebo-allocated patients (57%) than bezafibrate-allocated patients (53%; p = 0.02). Interaction-term analysis, demonstrated that the benefit of bezafibrate therapy was pronounced (18% risk reduction; p = 0.03) without or before treatment with nonstudy LLDs initiated during follow-up and attenuated (hazard ratio 1.05; p = 0.85) after therapy with nonstudy LILDs initiated during the observation period. Consistent with these findings, treatment with bezafibrate was shown to be associated with a significant 17% risk reduction (p = 0.03) when study patients were censored from the analysis upon initiation of therapy with nonstudy LLDs. Conclusions The data demonstrate that bezafibrate therapy in the BIP trial was associated with significant long-term cardiovascular protection that was attenuated by an unbalanced usage of nonstudy LILDs during the course of the. trial.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available