A Technology-Assisted Web Application for Consumer Access to a Nonprescription Statin Medication.

Background: Although statins reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes, less than one-half of eligible patients receive treatment. A nonprescription statin has the potential to improve access to statins.

Objectives: This study sought to assess concordance between clinician and consumer assessment of eligibility for nonprescription statin treatment using a technology assisted self-selection Web application (Web App) and evaluate effect on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.

Statin Use and Severe Acute Liver Injury Among Patients with Elevated Alanine Aminotransferase.

Introduction: While serious liver injury among statin users is extremely rare, baseline liver enzyme testing is still recommended prior to initiating therapy. The benefit of such screening should be reevaluated based on empirical evidence. This study compared the risk of severe acute liver injury (SALI) between statin initiators with an elevated ALT (>35U/L) matched to statin initiators with a normal ALT level (≤35U/L).

Comparative Effects of Low-Dose Rosuvastatin, Placebo, and Dietary Supplements on Lipids and Inflammatory Biomarkers.

Background: Supplements are commonly used by individuals with indications for lipid-lowering therapy, but evidence of their effectiveness to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is lacking, particularly when compared with statins.

Objectives: The trial objective was to compare the efficacy of a low-dose statin with placebo and 6 common supplements in impacting lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.

Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial among adults with no history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), an LDL-C of 70 to 189 mg/dL, and an increased 10-year risk of ASCVD.

Technology-Assisted Self-Selection of Candidates for Nonprescription Statin Therapy.

Background: Although statins reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, only about one-half of eligible patients receive treatment. Safe and appropriate consumer access to statins could have a significant positive public health impact.

Objectives: This study compares the concordance between a participant and clinician assessment of eligibility for statin therapy using a technology-assisted approach.

Comparative effects of rosuvastatin and gemfibrozil on glucose, insulin, and lipid metabolism in insulin-resistant, nondiabetic patients with combined dyslipidemia.

To evaluate the pharmacologic intervention most likely to decrease cardiovascular disease risk in insulin-resistant patients with combined dyslipidemia, 39 patients with this abnormality were assessed before and after 3 months of treatment with gemfibrozil (1,200 mg/day) or rosuvastatin (40 mg/day) with regard to: (1) steady-state plasma glucose concentration at the end of a 180-minute infusion of octreotide, insulin, and glucose; (2) fasting lipid, lipoprotein, and apolipoprotein concentrations; and (3) daylong glucose, insulin, triglyceride, and remnant lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations in response to breakfast and lunch. The 2 groups were similar at baseline in age, gender, body mass index and in measurements of carbohydrate and lipoprotein metabolism. Neither gemfibrozil nor rosuvastatin enhanced insulin sensitivity or lowered daylong glucose and insulin concentrations in insulin-resistant patients with combined dyslipidemia, but both drugs significantly decreased fasting triglyceride concentrations.

Safety of rosuvastatin.

The safety and tolerability of rosuvastatin were assessed (as of August 2003) using data from 12,400 patients who received 5 to 40 mg of rosuvastatin in a multinational phase II/III program, which represented 12,212 patient-years of continuous exposure to rosuvastatin. An integrated database was used to examine adverse events and laboratory data. In placebo-controlled trials, adverse events, irrespective of causality assessment, occurred in 57.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and a high risk of coronary heart disease: a randomized, controlled trial.

Background: This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial compared rosuvastatin and atorvastatin for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults with hypercholesterolemia and a high risk of coronary heart disease.

Methods: After a 6-week dietary lead-in period, patients with LDL-C levels > or =160 and <250 mg/dL and triglyceride levels < or =400 mg/dL were randomly assigned to 24 weeks' treatment in 1 of 3 groups, each with forced dose titrations at 12 and 18 weeks. Starting and titrated doses for each group were rosuvastatin 5, 20, and 80 mg (n = 127); rosuvastatin 10, 40, and 80 mg (n = 128); and atorvastatin 10, 40, and 80 mg (n = 128).

Rosuvastatin-induced arrest in progression of renal disease.

Preclinical and limited clinical data suggest that statins decrease the progressive decline in renal function that occurs in patients with renal disease. Pooled analysis of data obtained from a population of hyperlipidemic patients enrolled in the rosuvastatin (Crestor) clinical development program permitted assessment of its effects on renal function both early and later in the course of treatment. Study participants were initially included in controlled clinical trials that evaluated the lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin when compared with placebo or other lipid-lowering agents (i.

Beneficial effects of rosuvastatin alone and in combination with extended-release niacin in patients with a combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Patients with combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels may benefit from combination therapy with a statin and niacin; therefore, we assessed the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and extended-release (ER) niacin alone and in combination in 270 patients with this atherogenic dyslipidemia. Men and women > or =18 years with fasting total cholesterol levels > or =200 mg/dl, triglycerides 200 to 800 mg/dl, apolipoprotein B > or cf=110 mg/dl, and HDL cholesterol <45 mg/dl were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments in this 24-week, open-label, multicenter trial: rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg; ER niacin 0.5 to 2 g; rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 0.

Guidelines for lowering lipids to reduce coronary artery disease risk: a comparison of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin for achieving lipid-lowering goals.

Both the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III and the Second Joint Task Force of European Societies guidelines have established low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals for lipid-lowering treatment to reduce the risk of coronary artery disease. Data from 3 trials that compared rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) with atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) and 2 trials that compared rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) with pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) and simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) were pooled separately to compare the achievement of LDL cholesterol goals over 12 weeks of treatment in hypercholesterolemic patients. Noncomparative pooling of rosuvastatin 10 mg results from all 5 trials (n = 615) showed that 80% achieved NCEP ATP III goals and 81% achieved the European goal of <3.

Comparison of effects of nisoldipine-extended release and amlodipine in patients with systemic hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris.

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS).

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin compared with pravastatin and simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, 52-week trial.

Objective: The primary objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with that of pravastatin and simvastatin for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.

Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, lipid levels were measured in 477 patients (baseline LDL-C > or =160 and <250 mg/dL) who received fixed doses of 5 mg of rosuvastatin, 10 mg of rosuvastatin, 20 mg of pravastatin, or 20 mg of simvastatin for 12 weeks. For an additional 40 weeks, individual daily doses were sequentially doubled to a maximum of 80 mg of rosuvastatin, 40 mg of pravastatin, and 80 mg of simvastatin, according to investigator discretion and if National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP II) LDL-C goals were not achieved.

Comparison of effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with type IIa or IIb hypercholesterolemia.

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 52 centers in North America to compare the effects of the new, highly effective statin, rosuvastatin, with atorvastatin and placebo in hypercholesterolemic patients. After a 6-week dietary run-in, 516 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dl) and < 6.