4.8 Article

Effect of Two Intensive Statin Regimens on Progression of Coronary Disease

Journal

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 365, Issue 22, Pages 2078-2087

Publisher

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110874

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Roche
  3. Esperion
  4. Merck
  5. Omthera
  6. Sanofi-Aventis
  7. Boehringer Ingelheim
  8. Eli Lilly
  9. Novartis
  10. Anthera
  11. LipoScience
  12. Resverlogix
  13. Abbott
  14. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  15. Genentech
  16. GlaxoSmithKline
  17. Kowa
  18. Sanofi-Synthelabo
  19. Takeda
  20. Adnexus
  21. Amarin
  22. Amylin
  23. Idera
  24. CSL Behring
  25. Pfizer
  26. Heinz Nixdorf Foundation
  27. German Research Foundation
  28. Biotronik
  29. Sanofi
  30. Pronova
  31. Sigma Tau
  32. Karo Bio
  33. Novo Nordisk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Statins reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes and slow the progression of coronary atherosclerosis in proportion to their ability to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. However, few studies have either assessed the ability of intensive statin treatments to achieve disease regression or compared alternative approaches to maximal statin administration. Methods We performed serial intravascular ultrasonography in 1039 patients with coronary disease, at baseline and after 104 weeks of treatment with either atorvastatin, 80 mg daily, or rosuvastatin, 40 mg daily, to compare the effect of these two intensive statin regimens on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis, as well as to assess their safety and side-effect profiles. Results After 104 weeks of therapy, the rosuvastatin group had lower levels of LDL cholesterol than the atorvastatin group (62.6 vs. 70.2 mg per deciliter [1.62 vs. 1.82 mmol per liter], P<0.001), and higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (50.4 vs. 48.6 mg per deciliter [1.30 vs. 1.26 mmol per liter], P=0.01). The primary efficacy end point, percent atheroma volume (PAV), decreased by 0.99% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.19 to -0.63) with atorvastatin and by 1.22% (95% CI, -1.52 to -0.90) with rosuvastatin (P=0.17). The effect on the secondary efficacy end point, normalized total atheroma volume (TAV), was more favorable with rosuvastatin than with atorvastatin: -6.39 mm(3) (95% CI, -7.52 to -5.12), as compared with -4.42 mm(3) (95% CI, -5.98 to -3.26) (P = 0.01). Both agents induced regression in the majority of patients: 63.2% with atorvastatin and 68.5% with rosuvastatin for PAV (P = 0.07) and 64.7% and 71.3%, respectively, for TAV (P=0.02). Both agents had acceptable side-effect profiles, with a low incidence of laboratory abnormalities and cardiovascular events. Conclusions Maximal doses of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin resulted in significant regression of coronary atherosclerosis. Despite the lower level of LDL cholesterol and the higher level of HDL cholesterol achieved with rosuvastatin, a similar degree of regression of PAV was observed in the two treatment groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available