4.5 Article

Treatment strategies in patients with statin intolerance: The Cleveland Clinic experience

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 166, 期 3, 页码 597-603

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.06.004

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL076491, P01 HL098055] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Statin therapy is a proven effective treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, a significant number of patients cannot tolerate statins. This study was conducted to review treatment strategies for patients intolerant to statin therapy with a focus on intermittent statin dosing. Methods and results We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of 1,605 patients referred to the Cleveland Clinic Preventive Cardiology Section for statin intolerance between January 1995 and March 2010 with at least a 6-month follow-up. The changes in lipid profile, achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and statin tolerance rate were analyzed. Most (72.5%) of patients with prior statin intolerance were able to tolerate a statin for the median follow-up time of 31 months. Patients on intermittent statin dosing (n = 149) had significantly lower LDL-C reduction compared with daily dosing group (n = 1,014; 21.3% +/- 4.0% vs 27.7% +/- 1.4%, P < .04). However, compared with the statin discontinued group (n = 442), they had a significantly higher LDL-C reduction (21.3% +/- 4.0% vs 8.3 +/- 2.2%, P < .001), and a significantly higher portion achieved their Adult Treatment Panel III goal of LDL-C (61% vs 44%, P < .05). There was a trend toward a decrease in all-cause mortality at 8 years for patients on daily and intermittent statin dosing compared with those who discontinued statin (P = .08). Conclusions Most patients with previous statin intolerance can tolerate subsequent trial of statin. A strategy of intermittent statin dosing can be an effective therapeutic option in some patients and may result in reduction in LDL-C and achievement of LDL-C goals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据