Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this trial, patients with an acute coronary syndrome within the previous 10 days were randomly assigned to simvastatin plus either ezetimibe or placebo. At a median of 6 years, the rate of cardiovascular events was modestly but significantly lower with simvastatin–ezetimibe. The use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) reduces both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with and those without cardiovascular disease. 1 – 4 Intensive statin therapy, as compared with moderate-dose statin therapy, incrementally lowers LDL cholesterol levels and rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events. 5 – 9 Because of the residual risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and safety concerns associated with high-dose statin therapy, 10 additional lipid-modifying therapies have been sought. 11 – 14 Ezetimibe targets the Niemann–Pick C1–like 1 (NPC1L1) protein, thereby reducing absorption of cholesterol from the intestine. 15 , 16 When added to statins, ezetimibe reduces LDL cholesterol . . .

Purpose of Review The Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) demonstrated the clinical benefit of the combination of ezetimibe-simvastatin compared to placebo-simvastatin following acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This review highlights key findings from this study with particular attention to the practice-changing impact on guidelines for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction after ACS, especially among high-risk populations. Recent Findings Consistent reductions in LDL-C have been reported with newer lipid-lowering therapies (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, cholesterol ester transfer proteins, bempedoic acid) in combination with statin in high-risk subgroups. Since high-risk subgroups remain a focus of guidelines, exploration of high-risk subgroups can help define the optimal use of new therapies. Summary Ezetimibe reduced the LDL-C by 16.7 mg/dL compared to placebo at 1 year, resulting in a significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint (absolute risk difference 2.0%; relative risk difference 6.4%, hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P  = 0.016). The benefits achieved with ezetimibe in both LDL-C reduction and the primary clinical composite across 10 pre-specified high-risk subgroups, including the elderly; women; patients with diabetes, prior coronary artery bypass graft, history of stroke, polyvascular disease, low baseline LDL-C, renal dysfunction, prior heart failure, and an elevated TIMI risk score for secondary prevention, were similar or greater than in the corresponding non-high-risk subgroups. Safety events were similar between ezetimibe and placebo across the high-risk subgroups. These data support the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy in high-risk patients who require additional therapy to lower the LDL-C post-ACS.

Risk prediction following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains challenging. Data-driven machine-learning algorithms can potentially identify patients at high risk of clinical events. The Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial randomized 18,144 post-ACS patients to ezetimibe + simvastatin or placebo + simvastatin. We performed hierarchical cluster analysis to identify patients at high risk of adverse events. Associations between clusters and outcomes were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, unstable angina hospitalization, or coronary revascularization ≥30 days after randomization. We evaluated ezetimibe's impact on outcomes across clusters and the ability of the cluster analysis to discriminate for outcomes compared with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score. Five clusters were identified. In cluster 1 (n = 13,252), most patients experienced a non-STEMI (54.8%). Cluster 2 patients (n = 2,719) had the highest incidence of unstable angina (n = 83.3%). Cluster 3 patients (n = 782) all identified as Spanish descent, whereas cluster 4 patients (n = 803) were primarily from South America (56.2%). In cluster 5 (n = 587), all patients had ST elevation. Cluster analysis identified patients at high risk of adverse outcomes (log-rank p <0.0001); Cluster 2 (vs 1) patients had the highest risk of outcomes (hazards ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.24 to 1.43). Compared with GRACE risk, cluster analysis did not provide superior outcome discrimination. A consistent ezetimibe treatment effect was identified across clusters (interaction p = 0.882). In conclusion, cluster analysis identified significant difference in risk of outcomes across cluster groups. Data-driven strategies to identify patients who may differentially benefit from therapies and for risk stratification require further evaluation.

This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individual's absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10 000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (ie, 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and in 500 patients (ie, 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (primary prevention). Statin therapy has been shown to reduce vascular disease risk during each year it continues to be taken, so larger absolute benefits would accrue with more prolonged therapy, and these benefits persist long term. The only serious adverse events that have been shown to be caused by long-term statin therapy—ie, adverse effects of the statin—are myopathy (defined as muscle pain or weakness combined with large increases in blood concentrations of creatine kinase), new-onset diabetes mellitus, and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. Typically, treatment of 10 000 patients for 5 years with an effective regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily) would cause about 5 cases of myopathy (one of which might progress, if the statin therapy is not stopped, to the more severe condition of rhabdomyolysis), 50–100 new cases of diabetes, and 5–10 haemorrhagic strokes. However, any adverse impact of these side-effects on major vascular events has already been taken into account in the estimates of the absolute benefits. Statin therapy may cause symptomatic adverse events (eg, muscle pain or weakness) in up to about 50–100 patients (ie, 0·5–1·0% absolute harm) per 10 000 treated for 5 years. However, placebo-controlled randomised trials have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (ie, they represent misattribution). The large-scale evidence available from randomised trials also indicates that it is unlikely that large absolute excesses in other serious adverse events still await discovery. Consequently, any further findings that emerge about the effects of statin therapy would not be expected to alter materially the balance of benefits and harms. It is, therefore, of concern that exaggerated claims about side-effect rates with statin therapy may be responsible for its under-use among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events. For, whereas the rare cases of myopathy and any muscle-related symptoms that are attributed to statin therapy generally resolve rapidly when treatment is stopped, the heart attacks or strokes that may occur if statin therapy is stopped unnecessarily can be devastating.

In this study, patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who were not receiving statins were assigned to receive simvastatin or placebo. At 28 days, there were no significant between-group differences in survival or in the number of ventilator-free days. The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common, devastating clinical syndrome characterized by life-threatening respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and by multiple organ failure. In ARDS there is an uncontrolled inflammatory response that results in alveolar damage, with the exudation of protein-rich pulmonary-edema fluid in the alveolar space that results in respiratory failure. 1 The inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase with statins has been shown to modify a number of the underlying mechanisms implicated in the development of ARDS. 2 Statins decrease inflammation and histologic evidence of lung injury in murine models of ARDS. 3 Simvastatin reduced pulmonary and systemic . . .

In this study involving patients who were at high risk for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease but had no other indication for statin treatment, simvastatin at a daily dose of 40 mg did not affect the exacerbation rate. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States. 1 It is characterized by acute exacerbations that are associated with increased hospitalizations and costs of care, worsened quality of life, and increased mortality. 2 – 9 Effective therapies for the treatment or prevention of exacerbations are limited. Statins are 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors that reduce the risks of acute cardiac events and death. 10 – 13 Although widely used for their lipid-lowering effects, statins are also reported to have antiinflammatory effects. 14 – 19 Multiple retrospective studies have shown that statins are beneficial in COPD. Reported benefits include . . .

In this clinical trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, the addition of niacin to intensive statin therapy provided no additional clinical benefit over a period of 3 years, despite favorable changes in lipid levels. More than 18 million North Americans have coronary heart disease, and despite profound advances in both pharmacologic and interventional management, both morbidity and mortality remain appreciable. 1 , 2 Elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are an established predictor of the risk of coronary heart disease. Multiple primary and secondary prevention trials have shown a significant reduction of 25 to 35% in the risk of cardiovascular events with statin therapy 3 ; however, residual risk persists despite the achievement of target LDL cholesterol levels. Epidemiologic studies have shown that, in addition to elevated LDL cholesterol levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol . . .

In this trial of simvastatin involving critically ill patients with Covid-19, which was stopped owing to reduced cases, simvastatin did not meet the prespecified criteria for superiority to control treatment.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were evaluated for progression of diabetic retinopathy after being randomly assigned to receive several medical therapies. At 4 years, the rate of progression was significantly lower with intensive glycemia therapy than with standard glycemia therapy and significantly lower with simvastatin plus fenofibrate than with simvastatin plus placebo. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were evaluated for progression of diabetic retinopathy after being randomly assigned to receive several medical therapies. At 4 years, the rate of progression was significantly lower with intensive glycemia therapy than with standard glycemia therapy and significantly lower with simvastatin plus fenofibrate than with simvastatin plus placebo. Diabetic retinopathy, an important microvascular complication of diabetes, is a leading cause of blindness in the United States. 1 Randomized, controlled clinical trials in cohorts of patients with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes have shown the beneficial effects of intensive glycemic control 2 – 5 and intensive treatment of elevated blood pressure 6 on the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Elevated serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels have been implicated, in observational studies and small trials, as additional risk factors for the development of diabetic retinopathy and visual loss. 7 – 14 The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study (Current Controlled . . .

In a randomized trial, 5518 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were all treated with simvastatin and assigned to receive either fenofibrate or placebo. At a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, the rates of the primary outcome (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death) did not differ significantly between the two study groups. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were all treated with simvastatin and either fenofibrate or placebo. At a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, the rates of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two groups. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have an increased incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1 – 4 This increase is attributable, in part, to associated risk factors, including hypertension and dyslipidemia. The latter is characterized by elevated plasma triglyceride levels, low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles. 5 , 6 The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study was designed to test the effect of intensive treatment of blood glucose and either blood pressure or plasma lipids on cardiovascular outcomes in 10,251 patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. . . .