Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs

FDA Drug Safety Communication: Important safety label changes to cholesterol-lowering statin drugs

Facts about statins

A class of prescription drugs used together with diet and exercise to reduce blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (“bad cholesterol”) Marketed as single-ingredient products, including Lipitor (atorvastatin), Lescol (fluvastatin), Mevacor (lovastatin), Altoprev (lovastatin extended-release), Livalo (pitavastatin), Pravachol (pravastatin), Crestor (rosuvastatin), and Zocor (simvastatin) Also marketed as combination products, including Advicor (lovastatin/niacin extended-release), Simcor (simvastatin/niacin extended-release), and Vytorin (simvastatin/ezetimibe)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safety Announcement

[2-28-2012] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved important safety label changes for the class of cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins. These changes were made to provide the public with more information for the safe and effective use of statins and are based on FDA’s comprehensive review of the statin class of drugs (see Data Summary below). The changes include the following:

Infographic About Cholesterol and Statins1 2

Monitoring Liver Enzymes
Labels have been revised to remove the need for routine periodic monitoring of liver enzymes in patients taking statins. The labels now recommend that liver enzyme tests should be performed before starting statin therapy and as clinically indicated thereafter. FDA has concluded that serious liver injury with statins is rare and unpredictable in individual patients, and that routine periodic monitoring of liver enzymes does not appear to be effective in detecting or preventing serious liver injury.

Adverse Event Information
Information about the potential for generally non-serious and reversible cognitive side effects (memory loss, confusion, etc.) and reports of increased blood sugar and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels has been added to the statin labels. FDA continues to believe that the cardiovascular benefits of statins outweigh these small increased risks.

Drug Interactions
The lovastatin label has been extensively updated with new contraindications (situations when the drug should not be used) and dose limitations when it is taken with certain medicines that can increase the risk for muscle injury (see Lovastatin Dose Limitations below).

Healthcare professionals should refer to the drug labels for the latest recommendations for prescribing statins (also see Additional Information for Healthcare Professionals below). Patients should contact their healthcare professional if they have any questions or concerns about statins.

Additional Information for Patients

• The statin drug labels have been revised to provide patients with more information on the safe and effective use of statins. Patients should be aware of the following information:
  • There have been rare reports of serious liver problems in patients taking statins. Patients should notify their healthcare professional right away if they have the following symptoms: unusual fatigue or weakness; loss of appetite; upper belly pain; dark-colored urine; or yellowing of the skin or the whites of the eyes.
  • Memory loss and confusion have been reported with statin use. These reported events were generally not serious and went away once the drug was no longer being taken.
  • Increases in blood sugar levels have been reported with statin use.
  • Certain medicines should never be taken (are contraindicated) with lovastatin (Mevacor) (see Lovastatin Dose Limitations below).
• Patients should contact their healthcare professional if they have any questions or concerns about statins.
• Patients should report side effects from the use of statins to the FDA MedWatch program, using the information in the "Contact FDA" box at the bottom of the page.
  

Additional Information for Healthcare Professionals

• Healthcare professionals should perform liver enzyme tests before initiating statin therapy in patients and as clinically indicated thereafter. If serious liver injury with clinical symptoms and/or hyperbilirubinemia or jaundice occurs during treatment, therapy should be interrupted. If an alternate etiology is not found, the statin should not be restarted.
• There have been rare post-marketing reports of cognitive impairment (e.g., memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, confusion) associated with statin use. These reported symptoms are generally not serious and reversible upon statin discontinuation, with variable times to symptom onset (1 day to years) and symptom resolution (median of 3 weeks).
• Increases in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting serum glucose levels have been reported with statin use.
• Healthcare professionals should follow the recommendations in the lovastatin label regarding drugs that may increase the risk of myopathy/rhabdomyolysis when used with lovastatin (see Lovastatin Dose Limitations below).
• Healthcare professionals should report adverse events involving statins to the FDA MedWatch program using the information in the "Contact FDA" box at the bottom of this page.
  

Data Summary

Removal of routine monitoring of liver enzymes from drug labels

FDA reviewed current monitoring guidelines, including the National Lipid Association’s Liver Expert Panel and Statin Safety Task Force recommendations.^{1, 2} The Liver Expert Panel stated that the available scientific evidence does not support the routine monitoring of liver biochemistries in asymptomatic patients receiving statins. The Panel made this recommendation because (1) irreversible liver damage resulting from statins is exceptionally rare and is likely idiosyncratic in nature, and (2) no data exist to show that routine periodic monitoring of liver biochemistries is effective in identifying the very rare individual who may develop significant liver injury from ongoing statin therapy. The Panel believed that routine periodic monitoring will instead identify patients with isolated increased aminotransferase levels, which could motivate physicians to alter or discontinue statin therapy, thereby placing patients at increased risk for cardiovascular events.¹ The National Lipid Association’s Statin Task Force also stated that routine monitoring of liver function tests is not supported by the available evidence.²

FDA reviewed post-marketing data to evaluate the risk of clinically serious hepatotoxicity associated with statins. FDA had conducted several post-marketing reviews of statins and hepatotoxicity between years 2000 and 2009 by searching the Agency’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) database. Those reviews consistently noted that reporting of statin-associated serious liver injury to the AERS database was extremely low (reporting rate of ≤2 per one million patient-years). FDA’s updated review focused on cases of severe liver injury, defined as a 4 (severe liver injury) or a 5 (death or liver transplant) using the Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) liver injury severity scale, which were reported to AERS from marketing of each statin through 2009. Cases meeting those criteria were further assessed for causality. Seventy-five cases (27 cases with a severity score of 4, and 48 cases with a severity score of 5 (37 deaths and 11 liver transplants) were assessed for causality. Thirty of the 75 cases (14 deaths, 7 liver transplantations, and 9 severe liver injury) were assessed as possibly or probably associated with statin therapy. No cases were assessed as highly likely or definitely associated with statin therapy. FDA concluded that, despite a rising use of statins as a class since the late 1990s, there has not been a detectable increase in the annual rates of fatal or severe liver injury cases possibly or probably causally associated with statin use.

FDA also reviewed cases from the DILIN and Acute Liver Failure Study Group (ALFSG), organizations that have been submitting reports to FDA of drug-associated liver injury in their liver injury outcome studies. As of January 1, 2011, DILIN had submitted 25 reports of statin-associated liver injury to FDA, 12 of which gave hospitalization as an outcome. A 2010 article from ALFSG included 133 prospectively identified cases of idiopathic drug-induced liver injury resulting in acute liver failure.³ Of these 133 patients, 15 were taking statins, and in six of these 15 individuals a statin was identified as the only potential drug to cause drug-induced liver injury.

Based on all available data, FDA has determined that all currently marketed statins appear to be associated with a very low risk of serious liver injury and that routine periodic monitoring of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) does not appear to detect or prevent serious liver injury in association with statins.

Cognitive adverse events

FDA reviewed the AERS database, the published medical literature (case reports and observational studies),^4-13 and randomized clinical trials to evaluate the effect of statins on cognition.^14-17

The post-marketing adverse event reports generally described individuals over the age of 50 years who experienced notable, but ill-defined memory loss or impairment that was reversible upon discontinuation of statin therapy. Time to onset of the event was highly variable, ranging from one day to years after statin exposure. The cases did not appear to be associated with fixed or progressive dementia, such as Alzheimer’s disease. The review did not reveal an association between the adverse event and the specific statin, the age of the individual, the statin dose, or concomitant medication use.

Data from the observational studies and clinical trials did not suggest that cognitive changes associated with statin use are common or lead to clinically significant cognitive decline.

Increases in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose

FDA’s review of the results from the Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) reported a 27% increase in investigator-reported diabetes mellitus in rosuvastatin-treated patients compared to placebo-treated patients. High-dose atorvastatin had also been associated with worsening glycemic control in the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy – Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 22 (PROVE-IT TIMI 22) substudy.¹⁸

FDA also reviewed the published medical literature.^19-26 A meta-analysis by Sattar et al.,19 which included 13 statin trials with 91,140 participants, reported that statin therapy was associated with a 9% increased risk for incident diabetes (odds ratio [OR] 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.17), with little heterogeneity (I2=11%) between trials. A meta-analysis by Rajpathak et al.,²⁰ which included 6 statin trials with 57,593 participants, also reported a small increase in diabetes risk (relative risk [RR] 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.23), with no evidence of heterogeneity across trials. A recent study by Culver et al.,²⁶ using data from the Women’s Health Initiative, reported that statin use conveys an increased risk of new-onset diabetes in postmenopausal women, and noted that the effect appears to be a medication class effect, unrelated to potency or to individual statin.

Based on clinical trial meta-analyses and epidemiological data from the published literature, information concerning an effect of statins on incident diabetes and increases in HbA1c and/or fasting plasma glucose was added to statin labels.

Lovastatin drug-drug interactions

Information regarding drug-drug interactions and contraindications and dose limitations has been added to the lovastatin label. Subsequent to the June 2011 label revisions to the simvastatin-containing products, which were based largely on the Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and Homocysteine (SEARCH) trial,²⁷ a review of drug-drug interactions with lovastatin was conducted because the physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of lovastatin are comparable to those of simvastatin.

Lovastatin is a sensitive in vivo cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) substrate. Strong CYP3A4 inhibitors are predicted to significantly increase lovastatin exposure. A literature review indicates that itraconazole, a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor, increases lovastatin exposure up to 20-fold and the drug interaction appears to result in rhabdomyolysis.²⁸ The effect of itraconazole on lovastatin exposure can therefore be extrapolated to other strong CYP3A4 inhibitors, including ketoconazole, posaconazole, erythromycin, clarithromycin, telithromycin, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors, boceprevir, telaprevir, and nefazodone.

Lovastatin Dose Limitations

Previous lovastatin label	New lovastatin label
Avoid lovastatin with: Itraconazole Ketoconazole Erythromycin Clarithromycin Telithromycin HIV protease inhibitors Nefazodone	Contraindicated with lovastatin: Itraconazole Ketoconazole Posaconazole Erythromycin Clarithromycin Telithromycin HIV protease inhibitors Boceprevir Telaprevir Nefazodone
Do not exceed 20 mg lovastatin daily with: Gemfibrozil Other fibrates Lipid-lowering doses (≥1 g/day) of niacin Cyclosporine Danazol	Avoid with lovastatin: Cyclosporine Gemfibrozil
	Do not exceed 20 mg lovastatin daily with: Danazol Diltiazem Verapamil
Do not exceed 40 mg lovastatin daily with: Amiodarone Verapamil	Do not exceed 40 mg lovastatin daily with: Amiodarone
Avoid large quantities of grapefruit juice (>1 quart daily)	Avoid large quantities of grapefruit juice (>1 quart daily)

References

1. Cohen DE, Anania FA, Chalasani N; for the National Lipid Association Statin Safety Task Force Liver Expert Panel. An assessment of statin safety by hepatologists. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):77C-81C.
2. McKenney JM, Davidson MH, Jacobson TA, Guyton JR. Final conclusions and recommendations of the National Lipid Association Statin Safety Assessment Task Force. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97(8A):89C-94C.
3. Reuben A, Koch DG, Lee WM; for the Acute Liver Failure Study Group. Drug-induced acute liver failure: results of a U.S. multicenter, prospective study. Hepatology. 2010;52(6):2065-2076.
4. Orsi A, Sherman O, Woldeselassie Z. Simvastatin-associated memory loss. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21:767-9.
5. Wagstaff LR, Mitton MW, Arvik BM, Doraiswamy PM. Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:871-80.
6. Evans MA, Golomb BA. Statin-associated adverse cognitive effects: survey results from 171 patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29:800-811.
7. Parker BA, Polk DM, Rabdiya V, et al. Changes in memory function and neuronal activation associated with atorvastatin therapy. Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30(6):236e-240e.
8. Zamrini E, McGwin G, Roseman JM. Association between statin use and Alzheimer's disease. Neuroepidemiology. 2004;23:94-98.
9. Zandi PP, Sparks DL, Khachaturian AS, et al. Do statins reduce risk of incident dementia and Alzheimer disease? The Cache County Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:217-224.
10. Zhou B, Teramukai S, Fukushima M. Prevention and treatment of dementia or Alzheimer's disease by statins: a meta-analysis. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2007;23:194-201.
11. Beydoun MA, Beason-Held LL, Kitner-Triolo MH, et al. Statins and serum cholesterol's associations with incident dementia and mild cognitive impairment. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65:949-957.
12. Bettermann K, Arnold AM, Williamson J, et al. Statins, risk of dementia, and cognitive function: secondary analysis of the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2010.11.002³. Accessed January 31, 2012.
13. Benito-León J, Louis ED, Vega S, Bermejo-Pareja F. Statins and cognitive functioning in the elderly: a population-based study. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;21:95-102.
14. Muldoon MF, Barger SD, Ryan CM, et al. Effects of lovastatin on cognitive function and psychological well-being. Am J Med. 2000;108:538-546.
15. Muldoon MF, Ryan CM, Sereika SM, Flory JD, Manuck SB. Randomized trial of the effects of simvastatin on cognitive functioning in hypercholesterolemic adults. Am J Med. 2004;117:823-829.
16. Trompet S, van Vliet P, de Craen AJ, et al. Pravastatin and cognitive function in the elderly. Results of the PROSPER study. J Neurol. 2010;257:85-90.
17. Feldman HH, Doody RS, Kivipelto M, et al. Randomized controlled trial of atorvastatin in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: LEADe. Neurology. 2010;74:956-964.
18. Sabatine MS, Wiviott SD, Morrow DA, McCabe CH, Cannon CP. High-dose atorvastatin associated with worse glycemic control: a PROVE-IT TIMI 22 substudy. Circulation. 2004;110(Suppl I):S834.
19. Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray HM, et al. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet. 2010;375(9716):735-742.
20. Rajpathak SN, Kumbhani DJ, Crandall J, Barzilai N, Alderman M, Ridker PM. Statin therapy and risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2009;32(10):1924-1929.
21. Sukhija R, Prayaga S, Marashdeh M, et al. Effect of statins on fasting plasma glucose in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. J Investig Med. 2009;57:495-499.
22. Koh KK, Quon MJ, Han SH, Lee Y, Kim SJ, Shin EK. Atorvastatin causes insulin resistance and increases ambient glycemia in hypercholesterolemic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1209-1216.
23. Thongtang N, Ai M, Otokozawa S, et al. Effects of maximal atorvastatin and rosuvastatin treatment on markers of glucose homeostasis and inflammation. Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:387-392.
24. Kostapanos MS, Liamis GL, Milionis HJ, Elisaf MS. Do statins beneficially or adversely affect glucose homeostasis? Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2010;8:612-631.
25. Mills EJ, Wu P, Chong G, et al. Efficacy and safety of statin treatment for cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis of 170,255 patients from 76 randomized trials. QJM. 2011;104:109-124.
26. Culver AL, Ockene IS, Balasubramanian R, et al. Statin use and risk of diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(2):144-152.
27. Armitage J, Bowman L, Wallendszus K; for the Study of the Effectiveness of Additional Reductions in Cholesterol and Homocysteine (SEARCH) Collaborative Group. , et al. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:1658-1669.
28. Lees RS, Lees AM. Rhabdomyolysis from the coadministration of lovastatin and the antifungal agent itraconazole. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:664-555.

=====================================================================
Read the complete article here.

More statin shenanigans

If you read the papers or watch the news you’ve probably heard about the recently published JUPITER study, advertised with bold headlines such as “Cholesterol drug causes risk of heart attack to plummet” and “Cholesterol-fighting drug shows wider benefit”. If you’ve been following this blog (and perhaps even if you haven’t), you are by now aware that such claims cannot be taken at face value.

You might suspect, for example, that the study was sponsored by a drug company and authored by researchers with financial interests tied to those drug companies. You might wonder if these associations could possibly – just possibly – influence not only the results of the study, but how those results are reported. You might also find yourself questioning the objectivity of a study with the title “Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin” (JUPITER).

If you’re asking yourself these questions, you are definitely on the right track. The study was indeed sponsored by a drug company, AstraZeneca. And each author of this study received money in the form of grants, consulting fees and honoraria from pharmaceutical companies – in some cases up to twelve different companies, including AstraZeneca, the study sponsor. Take a look at this list detailing the financial interests of the study authors (now required by the New England Journal of Medicine and other prominent publications):

Dr. Ridker reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Abbott, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulting fees or lecture fees or both from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Merck–Schering-Plough, Sanofi-Aventis, Isis, Dade Behring, and Vascular Biogenics; and is listed as a coinventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital that relate to the use of inflammatory biomarkers in cardiovascular disease, including the use of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in the evaluation of patients’ risk of cardiovascular disease. These patents have been licensed to Dade Behring and AstraZeneca. Dr. Fonseca reports receiving research grants, lecture fees, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Schering-Plough, Sanofi-Aventis, and Merck; and Dr. Genest, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Schering-Plough, Merck–Schering-Plough, Pfizer, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Merck Frosst, Schering-Plough, Pfizer, Novartis, Resverlogix, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Gotto reports receiving consulting fees from Dupont, Novartis, Aegerion, Arisaph, Kowa, Merck, Merck–Schering-Plough, Pfizer, Genentech, Martek, and Reliant; serving as an expert witness; and receiving publication royalties. Dr. Kastelein reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Merck–Schering-Plough, Isis, Genzyme, and Sanofi-Aventis; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck–Schering-Plough, Roche, Isis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Pfizer, Isis, Genzyme, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Merck–Schering-Plough, and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Koenig reports receiving grant support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Anthera, Dade Behring and GlaxoSmithKline; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, DiaDexus, Roche, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Medlogix, Anthera, and Roche. Dr. Libby reports receiving lecture fees from Pfizer and lecture or consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, VIA Pharmaceuticals, Interleukin Genetics, Kowa Research Institute, Novartis, and Merck–Schering-Plough. Dr. Lorenzatti reports receiving grant support, lecture fees, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, and Novartis; Dr. Nordestgaard, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and BG Medicine; Dr. Shepherd, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Merck and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Nicox, and Oxford Biosciences; and Dr. Glynn, grant support from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

 

Now, the fact that these researchers receive money from all of these drug companies doesn’t mean that they are dishonest or that their data are invalid. However, if you think these conflicts of interest do not influence the outcomes of clinical research, then I suggest you read an article I published a few months ago called When It Comes To Drug Claims, Skepticism Is Healthy.

Now that you’ve put on your “Healthy Skeptic” goggles, we can move on and more closely examine the study itself. There are several things you need to be aware of as we discuss it.

First, although the press articles claim that the study looked at statin use in healthy populations, the subjects were people who had normal cholesterol but high CRP levels. CRP, or C-Reactive Protein, is a measure of inflammation in the body. It is now widely accepted even in the mainstream medical community that inflammation is a major risk factor for heart disease. And because inflammation is a sign of an underlying disease process, these patients were not, in fact, “healthy” as claimed.

There is little doubt that statins reduce inflammation, which can help prevent atherosclerosis. It appears that the benefits of statins are mainly due to this characteristic, rather than to their cholesterol-lowering effects. So it’s no surprise that the statins reduced rates of heart disease and mortality in this population that had inflammation going into the study.

I should also mention, however, that the predictive value of CRP for heart disease is highly controversial. Though some studies show a correlation between high CRP levels and heart disease, many others do not. Many physicians feel that CRP is not a useful indicator in clinical practice.

The second thing you need to be aware of is the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction. Relative risk reduction (RRR) measures how much the risk is reduced in the experimental group compared to a control group. Absolute risk reduction (ARR) is just the absolute difference in outcome rates between the control and treatment groups.

To make this more clear, let’s consider an example. Say that 2000 people enter a study for a particular drug and 1000 of them are randomized to placebo. At the end of the study, one person in the drug group died versus two people in the placebo group. The relative risk reduction of the drug group would thus be 50% (0.002 – 0.001/0.002). That sounds really impressive! The headline for this study might read “New drug reduces chance of dying by 50%!”. While technically true, you can see how misleading this can be. Why? Because when most people read that headline, they will interpret it to mean that if they take that drug, their risk of dying will be reduced by 50%, which is not even close to being true.

The absolute risk reduction, on the other hand, is always a much more modest number. Using the same example above, the absolute risk reduction in the drug group would have been a paltry one-tenth of a percent, or 0.1% (0.002 – 0.001). That’s not a very catchy headline, is it? “New drug reduces risk of dying by one-tenth of a percent”. It just doesn’t grab you the same way. But this is actually a more realistic view of what happened in the study and what we could expect to happen in the real world.

In fact, one could just as accurately say that in this hypothetical study, a patient has a 1-in-1000 (0.1%) chance of their life being saved by the drug. Said another way, 1,000 patients would have to be treated with this drug in order to save a single life. This measurement is called the Needed Number to Treat, and is another means for interpreting the results of clinical trials.

With that in mind, let’s examine the data from the JUPITER study. The actual numbers were 198 deaths out of 8901 in the statin group and 247 deaths out of 8901 in the placebo group. The relative risk reduction for total mortality (deaths) in the drug group was 19.8% [(247/8901 - 198/8901) / (247/8901)]. That means that the risk of death for people taking Crestor was 19.8% smaller than those taking placebo.

But what happens when we look at the absolute risk reduction numbers? According to the data, 2.77% (0.02774) of people taking the placebo died after two years versus 2.24% (0.02224) of people taking Crestor. This amounts to a difference of 0.55%, or one-half of one percent.

Here’s a graphical illustration of the difference in mortality between the Crestor and placebo group:

If you’re having trouble making much of a difference, I don’t blame you!

To make this even more clear, let’s use the Needed Number to Treat method of evaluating these results. According to the study data, 182 people would have to be treated with Crestor for two years in order to save a single life.

Now that may not sound like a large number to you, especially if yours was one of the lives saved. However, when evaluating the viability of any potential treatment three considerations (above and beyond the efficacy of the treatment) must be taken into account: cost, side effects, and alternatives.

Let’s look at cost first. The cost of one patient taking Crestor for one year is approximately $1,300. Therefore, to prevent 49 deaths 8,901 people would have to take Crestor for two years at a cost of $23 million dollars. That is an enormously expensive treatment by any measure.

Second, this particular study did not register significant side effects in the statin group. This is very fishy, though, since nearly every other study on statins to date has shown significant side effects and the approval of Crestor itself was delayed by the FDA due to concern about Crestor side effects.

While all statins are associated with rare instances of rhabdomyolysis, a breakdown of muscle cells, Crestor had shown in studies before its approval that the potentially deadly disease had surfaced in seven people. Crestor’s potential muscle- and liver-damaging side effects become more worrisome and difficult to justify in patients who are essentially healthy.

What’s more, the study only lasted two years. That’s not long enough to adequately establish safety for the drug, especially if people are going to use it “preventatively”, which means they could be taking it for several years and even decades. Statins have caused cancer in every single animal study to date. Since cancer can take up to 25 years to develop after initial exposure to the carcinogen, we simply cannot know at this point that statins won’t also significantly increase the risk of cancer in adults.

Finally, before jumping on the statin bandwagon and recommending that we spend billions of dollars treating healthy people with Crestor, we should consider if there isn’t a less costly and risky way of preventing deaths due to inflammation and heart disease.

Wouldn’t you know it, there sure is!

For the last decade medical research has increasingly demonstrated that heart disease is caused not by high cholesterol levels, but by inflammation and oxidative damage. A full explanation of these mechanisms is beyond the scope of this post, but for more details you can read two previous articles: Cholesterol Doesn’t Cause Heart Disease and How To Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease.

So, if we want to prevent and even treat heart disease, we need to address the causes of inflammation and oxidative damage. Again, there’s not room to go into great detail on this here but in general the primary causes of inflammation and oxidative damage are 1) a diet high in polyunsaturated oil (PUFA) and refined flour and sugar, 2) lack of physical activity, 3) stress and 4) smoking.

We can thus prevent heart disease by avoiding PUFA and refined/processed food, getting adequate exercise, reducing stress and not smoking. These simple dietary and lifestyle changes are likely to produce even better results than a statin, for a fraction of the cost and without any side effects. In fact, the only side effects of this approach are improved physiological and psychological health! For more specific recommendations, read my article Preventing Heart Disease Without Drugs.

Taking a statin to “prevent” inflammation and heart disease is rather like bailing water with a pail to prevent a boat from sinking instead of simply plugging the leak. Unfortunately, our entire health care system is oriented around “bailing water with a pail”, which is to say treating the symptoms of disease, instead of “plugging the leak”, or addressing the causes of disease before it develops. The reason this is the case is because there’s a lot more money to be made from drugs, surgery and other costly interventions than there is from encouraging people to eat well, exercise and reduce stress.

Even if we ignore all of the issues I’ve pointed out above, the best thing we can say about this study is that a small group of unusual patients – those with low LDL-cholesterol AND high C-reactive protein – may slightly decrease their risk for all-cause mortality by taking a drug that costs them almost $1,300 per year and slightly increases their risk for developing diabetes.

That’s the best spin possible given the data from this study. Compare that to the mainstream media headlines, and you’ll have a clear understanding of how financial conflicts of interest are seriously damaging the integrity and value of clinical research.

At least the media wasn’t completely fooled. They did manage to at least include the perspective of sane doctors who questioned the desirability of millions of relatively healthy people taking drugs for the rest of their lives. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Moreover, despite large relative benefits, the actual number of patients helped was small. Those on the drug suffered 142 major cardiovascular events compared with 251 on placebo, a difference of 109. Dr. Hlatky said that raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of CRP screening and the value of putting millions of low-risk patients on medication for the rest of their lives.

From the New York Times:

Some consumer advocates and doctors raised concerns about the expense of putting relatively healthy patients on statins, which would cost the health system billions of dollars.

From Fox News:

About 120 people would have to take Crestor for two years to prevent a single heart attack, stroke or death, said Stanford University cardiologist Dr. Mark Hlatky. He wrote an editorial accompanying the study published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Everybody likes the idea of prevention. We need to slow down and ask how many people are we going to be treating with drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent heart disease, versus a lot of other things we’re not doing” to improve health, Hlatky said.

If you know of someone who is considering a statin after reading about the JUPITER study, please do them a favor and send them a link to this article first. They should hear both sides of the story before making such a significant decision.
==============================================================
Read the full article here.

Statins for healthy people? Hang on a minute…

Statins for healthy people? Hang on a minute…

I’ve had a few emails today alerting me to reports of a study concerning the use of statins in healthy individuals. The study in question is a meta-analysis (grouping together of similar studies) of statin trials [1]. Part of this meta-analysis involved assessing the impact of statin therapy in individuals deemed to be at relatively low risk of cardiovascular events such as heart attacks and strokes. One of the stand-out findings of this study is that statins led to a statistically significant reduction in risk of ‘major vascular events’. This was even true for individuals at less than 10 per cent risk of vascular events over a 5-year period. This has led to the suggestion that statins used might be widened to even people at low risk of cardiovascular problems.

Before we swallow this idea, though, it is perhaps a good idea to see just how effective statins were found to be in this meta-analsysis. First of all, what is meant by ‘major vascular events’? Actually, this is a term that includes many different potential outcomes including fatal and non-fatal heart attacks and strokes and ‘revascularisation’ procedures (such as placing tubes called stents in the coronary arteries). When a lot of different outcomes are grouped together, it makes it much more likely that a ‘statistically significant’ results will emerge.

When the outcomes are narrowed a little, the results are less impressive. For example, when we look at risk of death from any vascular event (a heart attack or stroke), we find that statins did not reduce risk in individuals deemed to be at low risk (<10 per cent over 5 years). This, by the way, was even true for those who had known vascular disease.

The ‘positive’ findings from this study have, as is often the case, been expressed as reductions in relative risk. The risk of vascular events overall was 21 per cent lower for each 1 mmol/l (39 mg/ml) reduction in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, when overall risk is low, then a relative risk reduction might not amount to much in real terms.

We’re told by the authors this meta-analysis that treating with statins prevented 11 major vascular events for every 1000 people treated for a period of 5 years. Put another way, 91 people would need to be treated for 5 years to prevent one major vascular event. Or in other words, only about 1 per cent of people treated with statins for 5 years will benefit (and about 99 per cent won’t).

Overall, lowering LDL-C by 1 mmol/l was found to reduce the risk of death by 9 per cent over a 5-year period. Again, this might sound like a positive finding to some, but the actual reduction in risk of death was 0.2 per cent per year. What this means is that at this level of cholesterol reduction, 500 individuals would need to be treated with statins for a year for one person to have his/her life saved.
The authors of this meta-analysis give us some soothing reassurances about the fact that the benefits of statins vastly outweighing the risks of adverse events such as myopapthy (muscle pain and weakness). They quote of the excess incidence of myopathy as 0.5 cases per 1000 people over 5 years. However, the source they quote is based on diagnosing myopathy once the marker for muscle damage (creatine kinase) is at least TEN TIMES the upper limit of normal. Many individuals will have significant pain and weakness with much lower levels of creatine kinase. Statins are also linked with adverse effects on the liver and kidneys, and increase risk of diabetes too.

Despite the very positive interpretation of the data by the study authors and the media, this meta-analysis shows us again what previous evidence has revealed: statins are highly ineffective in terms of improving health and saving lives. And their risks are generally downplayed.

Collectively, the authors of the meta-analysis are referred to as the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators, including researchers from Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit at Oxford University. The conflicts of interest statement which accompanies this paper informs us that: “Some members of the writing committee have received reimbursement of costs to participate in scientific meetings from the pharmaceutical industry.” I suppose this may account, at least in part, for a data interpretation that appears so heavily biased towards statins.

References:
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta
-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. The Lancet epub 17th May 2012
============================================================================
Read the full atricle here.http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/05/18/statins-for-healthy-people-hang-on-a-minute/

Why statin side effects are likely to be much more common than official statistics suggest

 Why statin side effects are likely to be much more common than official statistics suggest

By : Dr John Briffa

In the UK, the most popular ‘drugs bible’ goes by the name of the British National Formulary (BNF). Within its pages is found a wealth of information about pills and potions that are available over-the-counter and by prescription, including indications and advice of dosages. A significant proportion of the pages in the BNF are taken up with information about contraindications (situations where the drug should be avoided or used with caution) and side-effects. This information is now to be found as part of the packet insert which comes with medication. I’ve known many, many people to read this information and decide that they’ll give the medication a miss.

One class of medication with a range of known side-effects are the statins. These cholesterol-reducing drugs are known to have the potential to cause symptoms such as muscle pain and fatigue, as well as cause damage to organs such as the liver and kidneys. About a year ago I was at a medical lecture, and one (doctor) member of the audience commented that he felt his patients experienced side effects from taking statins far more commonly than official statistics suggested. My own experience supports this observation.

Could there be an explanation for this phenomenon?

One explanation has to do with the design of statin studies. Quite often, individuals who are in poor health and perhaps at increased risk of side-effects are automatically barred from entering a study. Yet, in the real world, even people who are poor candidates in this respect may end up being prescribed a statin. Individuals with a history of problems such as muscular pain or damage to the liver or kidneys (all of which can be exacerbated by statins) are typically excluded from studies too, further reducing the chance that side-effects will arise.

Even those who make it through this screening process, however, may be subjected to what is known as an ‘run in’ period prior to the study. Here, individuals may be treated with a statin with idea being that individuals who are ‘non-compliant’ (do not take their medication as instructed) are weeded out. However, the run-in period also affords the researchers the opportunity to detect individuals who are susceptible to statin side-effects and stop them getting into the study proper.

In other words, in formal studies participants are often at a significantly lower risk of side-effects than those in the general population.

Another problem with conventional studies is how side-effects are defined. Muscle pain is a quite-frequent side-effect of statins. In extreme cases, statins can cause a break-down of muscle tissue known as ‘rhabdomyolysis’ which can have potentially fatal consequences. In some studies, the focus has been on rhabdomyolysis, which means less severe side-effects such as muscle pain or fatigue may ‘go missing’.

Another way in which the bar for side-effects can be set very high concerns the blood parameters used to detect damage. For instance, in a recent study muscle damage was only deemed to have occurred when muscle enzyme levels (a marker for muscle damage) were at least 5 times the upper limit of normal [1]. In this same study, liver damage (another potential hazard of statins) was only deemed to have occurred when liver enzymes were at least 3 times the upper limit of normal. In both cases, a more logical approach would be to regard a rise of any amount above the top end of the normal range as abnormal and significant. This would be more how it is in actual clinical practice.
The elimination of individuals prone to side-effects and the setting of the bar very high for abnormalities help explain why the side-effects from statins seem much more common in the real world than officially quoted statistics.

However, even in the real world, there might be under-recognition of the damage statins can do. That’s because, quite often, doctors will dismiss the idea that statins might be the cause for someone’s symptoms, even when scientific evidence supports such as link. For more on this, see here.

References:
1. Nicholls S, et al. Effect of Two Intensive Statin Regimens on Progression of Coronary Disease. NEJM 2011;365(22):2078-87
======================================================================================================
Read the complete article here.