1 / 34

Aggressive DLP Management Reduces Risk …the Lower the Better

JUPITER: the Greatest but Not the Only In the Galaxy of Rosuvastatin Data Michal Vrablík Centre for Preventive Cardiology 3 rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague Czech Republic CARDIONALE, November 26, 2010, Prague. 30. 4S - Pl. 25.

jlerner
Download Presentation

Aggressive DLP Management Reduces Risk …the Lower the Better

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. JUPITER: theGreatestbut Not theOnly In theGalaxyofRosuvastatin DataMichal VrablíkCentre for Preventive Cardiology3rd Department of Internal Medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in PragueCzech RepublicCARDIONALE, November 26, 2010, Prague

  2. 30 4S - Pl 25 Rx - Statin therapy Pl - Placebo 20 4S - Rx - Primary prevention LIPID - Pl - Secondary prevention Event rate (%) 15 LIPID - Rx CARE - Pl PROSPER - Pl CARE - Rx HPS - Pl PROSPER - Rx 10 HPS - Rx WOSCOPS - Pl ALLHAT - Pl ALLHAT - Rx 5 WOSCOPS - Rx AFCAPS/TexCAPS - Pl AFCAPS/TexCAPS - Rx ASCOT - Pl ASCOT - Rx 0 70 (1.8) 90 (2.3) 110 (2.8) 130 (3.4) 150 (3.9) 170 (4.4) 190 (5.0) 210 (5.4) LDL-C achieved mg/dL (mmol/L) Aggressive DLP Management Reduces Risk…the Lower the Better Adapted from Ballantyne CM et al. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:3Q–12Q.

  3. Can you recognize them ? Statins lower LDL-c and CVD risk across all high risk population groups

  4. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c lowering efficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowing progression/regression of atherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Good safety profile • Added value • Acceptable cost

  5. Does rosuvastatin fulfill these requirements ?

  6. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  7. Stellar study: LDL-C: Percentage Change from Baseline at Week 6 Change from baseline (%) 0 -5 -10 -15 20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -50 -55 -60 10 mg 20 mg 40 mg rosuvastatin 10 mg 20 mg 40 mg 80 mg atorvastatin *** ^^^ ^^^ 10 mg 20 mg 40 mg 80 mg simvastatin *** *** *** ^^^ 10 mg 20 mg 40 mg pravastatin *** *** *** Rosuva 10mg (-46%) Rosuva 20mg (-52%) ***p<0.001 vs rosuv 10mg ^^^p<0.002 vs rosuva 20mg Jones PH, Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jul 15;92(2):152-60

  8. Stellar Study: Percentage of Patients Achieving Joint European Recommendations LDL-C Goal at Week 6 100 93 91 80 # ‡ 81 80 79 # 77 *#‡ 68 60 * 63 *# Patients achieving LDL-C goal (%) 52 46 40 *# ‡ * 27 26 Titrationneed *# OneandFirst step 20 * 5 15 n=164 n=160 Dose (mg) n=156 n=159 n=157 n=158 n=154 n=156 n=165 n=165 n=162 n=158 n=163 n=159 0 10 20 40 10 20 40 80 10 20 40 80 10 20 40 rosuvastatin atorvastatin simvastatin pravastatin * p<0.001 vs rosuva 10mg#p<0.001 vs rosuva 20mg ‡ p<0.001 vs rosuva 40mg LDL-C goal: <116mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) Jones PH, Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jul 15;92(2):152-60

  9. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  10. Stellar Study: HDL-C: Percentage Change from Baselineat Week 6 12 10 8 LS mean % change from baseline 6 4 2 0 10 20 40 80 Log scale Dose (mg) rosuvastatin atorvastatin simvastatin pravastatin Jones PH, Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jul 15;92(2):152-60

  11. rosuvastatin atorvastatin simvastatin pravastatin Stellar Study: TG: Percentage Change from Baselineat Week 6 Dose (mg) 10 20 40 80 Log scale (mg) 0 -5 -10 -15 LS mean % change from baseline -20 -25 -30 -35 Jones PH, Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jul 15;92(2):152-60

  12. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  13. Rosuvastatin: Imaging Studies

  14. Rosuvasatin: Asteroid StudyLet Us Take a Look Inside

  15. Rosuvastatin: Asteroid - Design

  16. Rosuvastatin: AsteroidLipid changes EOS Lipid Levels

  17. And What About Atherosclerosis?

  18. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  19. JUPITER TRIAL

  20. JUPITER – study design No history of CAD men ≥50 yrs women ≥60 yrs LDL-C <130 mg/dL CRP ≥2.0 mg/L Rosuvastatin 20 mg (n=8901) Placebo run-in Placebo (n=8901) Visit:Week: 1–6 2–4 30 413 Final 6-monthly Lead-in/eligibility Randomisation Lipids CRP Tolerability Lipids CRP Tolerability Lipids CRP Tolerability HbA1C Median follow-up 1.9 years CAD=coronary artery disease; LDL-C=low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; CRP=C-reactive protein; HbA1c=glycated haemoglobin Ridker P et al. N Eng J Med 2008;359: 2195-2207

  21. JUPITER - Study Endpoints • Primary Endpoint • Time to the first occurrence of a major cardiovascular event, composite of: • cardiovascular death • Stroke • MI • unstable angina • arterial revascularisation • Secondary Endpoints: • total mortality • non-cardiovascular mortality • development of diabetes mellitus • development of venous thromboembolic events • bone fractures • discontinuation of study medication due to adverse effects. Ridker PM. Circulation 2003; 108: 2292–2297

  22. JUPITER - Major inclusion criteria • Men aged ≥50 years; women aged ≥60 years • Fasting LDL-C levels  130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L), CRP levels ≥2.0 mg/L and TG levels  500 mg/dL(5.7 mmol/L) on initial screening Ridker PM. Circulation 2003; 108: 2292–2297

  23. JUPITER - Baseline characteristics* Rosuvastatin Placebo n=8901 n=8901 Age (years) 66 (60-71) 66 (60-71) Male sex (%) 61.5 62.1 BMI (kg/m2)28.3 (25.3-32.0) 28.4 (25.3-32.0) BP (mmHg) 134/80 134/80 TC (mg/dL/mmol/L)186 (4,8)185 (4,8) LDL –c (mg/dL/mmol/L) 108 (2,8) 108 (2,8) HDL – c (mg/dL/mmol/L) 49 (1,3) 49 (1,3) Triglycerides (mg/dL/mmol/L) 118 (1,3) 118 (1,3) hsCRP (mg/L) 4.2 (2.8-7.1) 4.3 (2.8-7.2) Glucose(mg/dL/mmol/L)94 (5,2) 94 (5,2) HbA1c(%)5.7 (5.4-5.9) 5.7 (5.5-5.9) *All values are median (interquartile range) or N (%). Ridker P et al. N Eng J Med 2008;359: 2195-2207

  24. JUPITER - Primary EndpointTime to first occurrence of a CV death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatalMI, unstable angina or arterial revascularization Placebo 0.08 Hazard Ratio 0.56 (95% CI 0.46-0.69) P<0.00001 0.06 Cumulative Incidence Rosuvastatin 20 mg 0.04 NNT for 2y = 95 5y* = 25 0.02 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 Follow-up (years) Number at Risk Rosuvastatin 8,901 8,631 8,412 6,540 3,893 1,958 1,353 983 544 157 Placebo 8,901 8,621 8,353 6,508 3,872 1,963 1,333 955 534 174 *Extrapolated figure based on Altman and Andersen method Ridker P et al. N Eng J Med 2008;359: 2195-2207

  25. JUPITER - Total MortalityDeath from any cause 0.06 Hazard Ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.97) p=0.02 Placebo 0.05 Rosuvastatin 20mg 0.04 Cumulative Incidence 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 Follow-up (years) Number at Risk Rosuvastatin 8,901 8,847 8,787 6,999 4,312 2,268 1,602 1,192 683 227 Placebo 8,901 8,852 8,775 6,987 4,319 2,295 1,614 1,196 684 246 Ridker P et al. N Eng J Med 2008;359: 2195-2207

  26. JUPITER - Dual Treatment Target Hazard Ratios for Incident CV Events According to Achieved Concentrations of LDL-C and hsCRP Group N (Event rate*) HR** 95% CI P-value Placebo 7832 (1.11) 1.00 Rosuvastatin [Dual target: LDL-C < 70mg/dL, hsCRP < 2mg/L] Dual target achieved 2685 (0.38) 0.35 0.23-0.54 Dual target not achieved 5031 (0.74) 0.64 0.49-0.84 P-value (active treatment) 0.033 P-value (trend across groups) <0.0001 LDLC ≥ 70mg/dL 2110 (0.91) 0.85 0.60-1.21 LDLC < 70mg/dL 5606 (0.51) 0.45 0.33-0.59 P-value (trend across hsCRP strata) <0.0001 hsCRP ≥ 2mg/L 4305 (0.77) 0.68 0.51-0.89 hsCRP < 2mg/L 3411 (0.42) 0.36 0.24-0.54 P-value (trend across LDL-C strata) <0.0001 Conversion: LDL-C < 70 mg/dL = 1.8 mmol/L * Rates are per 100 person years; **Fully adjusted model controlled for age (years), baseline LDL-C (mg/dL), baseline hsCRP (mg/L), baseline HDL-C (mg/dL, blood pressure, gender, body mass index (kg/m2), smoking status and parental history of premature coronary heart disease. Ridker PM et al. The Lancet 2009. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60447-5 HR – Hazard Ratio; CI – Confidence Interval

  27. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  28. JUPITERTolerability and safety data Placebo Rosuvastatin p-value [n=8901][n=8901] • Adverse Events, (%) • Any serious adverse event 15.5 15.2 0.60 • Muscle weakness, stiffness, pain 15.4 16.0 0.34 • Myopathy 0.1 0.1 0.82 • Rhabdomyolysis 0.0 <0.1* ---- • Newly diagnosed cancer 3.5 3.4 0.51 • Death from cancer 0.7 0.4 0.02 • Gastrointestinal disorders 19.2 19.7 0.43 • Renal disorders 5.4 6.0 0.08 • Bleeding 3.1 2.9 0.45 • Hepatic disorders 2.1 2.4 0.13 • Other events, (%) • Newly diagnosed diabetes** 2.4 3.0 0.01 • Haemorrhagic stroke 0.1 0.1 0.44 *Occurred after trial completion; **physician reported newly diagnosed diabetes Ridker P et al. N Eng J Med 2008;359: 2195-2207

  29. JUPITERLaboratory Safety Data Placebo Rosuvastatin p-value [n=8901][n=8901] • Laboratory Values, N (%) • Serum creatinine‡ 10 (0.10) 16 (0.20) 0.24 • ALT > 3 x ULN# 17 (0.20) 23 (0.30) 0.34 • Glycosuria† 32 (0.40) 36 (0.50) 0.64 • Laboratory Values, median values (IQR) • GFR*, (mL/min/1.73m2) 66.6 (58.8-76.2) 66.8 (59.1-76.5) 0.02 • % HbA1c** 5.8 (5.6-6.1) 5.9 (5.7-6.1) 0.001 • Fasting plasma glucose**, (mg/dL) 98 (90-106) 98 (91-107) 0.12 GFR = Glomerular filtration rate, HbA1c = Haemoglobin A1c # on consecutive visits, ‡ >100% increase from baseline,*at 12 months, **at 24 months, †>trace at 12 months Ridker P et al. N Eng J Med 2008;359: 2195-2207

  30. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  31. JUPITER – Venous Thromboembolic Events Occurrence of Venous Thromboembolism by Study Group • Endpoint Placebo Rosuvastatin HR 95% CI p-value • [n=8901] [n=8901] • n (rate*) n (rate*) Primary efficacy analysis, 94 cases All cases of VTE 60 (0.32) 34 (0.18) 0.57 0.37-0.86 0.007 Unprovoked VTE 31 (0.17) 19 (0.10) 0.61 0.35-1.09 0.09 Provoked VTE 29 (0.16) 15 (0.08) 0.52 0.28-0.96 0.03 Pulmonary embolism 22 (0.12) 17 (0.09) 0.77 0.41-1.45 0.42 Deep vein thrombosis 38 (0.20) 17 (0.09) 0.45 0.25-0.79 0.004 Unprovoked VTE = occurred in absence of malignancy, trauma, hospitalization or surgery within 3 months before event. Provoked VTE = includes events that occurred in patients with cancer or during or shortly after trauma or surgery * Rates are per 100 person years VTE – venous thromboembolism Glynn RJ et al. NEJM 2009; 360: (10.1056/NEJMoa0900241) HR – Hazard Ratio; CI – Confidence Interval

  32. 7 Properties of a Statin for the 21st Century • Significant TC and LDL-c loweringefficacy • Positive impact on other lipoprotein classes • Slowingprogression/regressionofatherosclerosis • Reduction in CVD events/mortality • Goodsafety profile • Addedvalue • Acceptablecost

  33. Development of Statin PricesComparison of Prices after First Introduction to Market and Current Situation

  34. Rosuvastatin: a Galaxyof Evidence

More Related