Advertisement






Click here for more guidelines.
CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2000; 36:1419-1425
© 2000 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Forrester, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Kaul, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Forrester, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Kaul, S.

The aggressive low density lipoprotein lowering controversy

James S. Forrester, MD, FACCa,b, C. Noel Bairey-Merz, MD, FACCa,b and Sanjay Kaul, MDa

a Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
b University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA



View larger version (20K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1 The relation between risk of CHD events and LDL levels achieved with statin therapy in secondary and primary prevention trials. In the secondary prevention trials (A), patients are at higher antecedent risk of a coronary event, and there appears to be a curvilinear relation, similar to the epidemiologic relation. In the primary prevention trials (B), with lower risk patients, the relation is much less steep. 4S = Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study; CARE = Cholesterol And Recurrent Events trial; LIPID = Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease Study; WOSCOPS = West Of Scotland COronary Prevention Study; AFCAPS/TexCAPS = Air Force Coronary/Texas Atherosclerosis Prevention Study. P = placebo; T = treatment.

 


View larger version (14K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2 Relation of percent reduction in CHD events and pretreatment LDL cholesterol, percent LDL reduction and post-treatment LDL in major clinical trials of statin therapy. The best correlation is with pretreatment LDL. The regression curve is derived from the following regression equations: pretreatment LDL (y = –1.73 + 0.18 pretreatment LDL, R2 = 0.86, p = 0.015); percent LDL reduction (y = 4.69 + 0.82 percent LDL reduction, R2 = 0.36, p = 0.17); post-treatment LDL (y = 3.77 + 0.20 post-treatment LDL, R2 = 0.27, p = 0.21). See Figure 1 legend for study acronyms.

 


View larger version (25K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3 Interpopulation differences in CAD mortality according to quartiles of total serum cholesterol levels (27). Between countries, there are major differences in the cardiac event rate at approximately the same level of serum cholesterol.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 4 Predicted CHD deaths at different cholesterol levels as predicted from epidemiologic studies (Framingham risk model) versus observed therapy (WOSCOPS [30]). One explanation for the difference in cardiac events is that statins may also reduce cardiac events by non-LDL–lowering effects. There are a number of variables, however, that may confound such a comparison. For example, there are differences in age, gender, distribution of ethnic groups and prevalence of risk factors in the two populations. As seen in Figure 3, the impact of these and other variables may be substantial.

 




 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement