American College of Cardiology: Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin - JUPITER Trial Summary |
Fonte: Cardiosource - ACC |
Title:
Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial
Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER Presented at AHA 2008) Description The study was terminated earlier, after a median of 1.9 years of follow-up (planned maximum follow-up was 5 years). Rosuvastatin was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of the primary endpoint of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, unstable angina, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death, compared with placebo (0.77 vs. 1.36 events per 100 person-years (PY) of follow-up, hazard ratio [HR] 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.69, p < 0.00001). This translated into a number needed to treat with rosuvastatin of 95 patients for 2 years, and 31 patients for 4 years. There was also a significant reduction in the incidence of individual endpoints: nonfatal MI (0.12 vs. 0.33 events per 100 PY, HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.58, p < 0.00001), nonfatal stroke (0.16 vs. 0.31 events per 100 PY, HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.80, p = 0.003), arterial revascularization (0.38 vs. 0.71 events per 100 PY, HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.72, p < 0.0001), as well as all-cause mortality (1.0 vs. 1.25 events per 100 PY, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.97, p = 0.02). Various subgroup analyses were done, including based on gender, race, body mass index, and Framingham risk score, which all yielded consistent results for the primary outcome. At 4 years, rosuvastatin was associated with a significant reduction in the levels of hs-CRP (median: 1.8 vs. 3.3 mg/dl, p < 0.0001), LDL (median: 55 vs. 109 mg/dl), triglycerides (99 vs. 118 mg/dl, p < 0.0001), but not HDL (50 vs. 50 mg/dl, p = 0.34). The
overall incidence of serious adverse effects was similar between the two
groups (15.2% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.60), including muscle weakness, stiffness,
or pain (16.0 vs. 15.4%, p = 0.34), and newly diagnosed cancer (3.4% vs.
3.5%, p = 0.51). The incidence of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >3
x upper limit of normal was similar between the two groups (0.3% vs. 0.2%,
p = 0.34). There was a higher incidence of physician-reported diabetes
in the rosuvastatin arm (3.0% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.01), as well as higher median
glycated hemoglobin at 2 years with rosuvastatin (5.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.001);
the median fasting glucose at 2 years was similar between the two arms
(98 vs. 98 mg/dl, p = 0.12). Some of the issues that need further clarification include the long-term safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of utilizing statins in asymptomatic, apparently healthy patients, as well as whether these findings can be considered as a class effect of statins, or as specific to rosuvastatin, which exhibits several pharmacokinetic differences from other statins. It is also not entirely clear whether the observed benefit in this trial is from LDL cholesterol lowering, hs-CRP lowering, or both. Further,
there are some conflicting data regarding a direct correlation between
elevated levels of hs-CRP and cardiovascular risk. A recent study found
no relationship between genetic polymorphisms resulting in high hs-CRP
levels and cardiovascular risk. Inclusion of patients with levels of hs-CRP
<2.0 mg/dl and a comparison of their risk with the rosuvastatin arm
in this trial may have helped answer this question. Last, the higher risk
of new-onset diabetes with rosuvastatin, as compared with placebo, will
need to be examined in future statin trials. Conditions Therapies Study
Design Patients
Screened: 89,890
Nonfatal
MI Secondary Endpoints Arterial
revascularization or hospitalization for unstable angina Males
=50 years, females =60 years Previous
or current use of lipid-lowering agents Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al., on behalf of the JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195-207. Source
|