کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
2954216 | 1577464 | 2007 | 10 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
ObjectivesWe sought to assess the relationship between the magnitude of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and rates of elevated liver enzymes, rhabdomyolysis, and cancer.BackgroundAlthough it is often assumed that statin-associated adverse events are proportional to LDL-C reduction, that assumption has not been validated.MethodsAdverse events reported in large prospective randomized statin trials were evaluated. The relationship between LDL-C reduction and rates of elevated liver enzymes, rhabdomyolysis, and cancer per 100,000 person-years was assessed using weighted univariate regression.ResultsIn 23 statin treatment arms with 309,506 person-years of follow-up, there was no significant relationship between percent LDL-C lowering and rates of elevated liver enzymes (R2<0.001, p = 0.91) or rhabdomyolysis (R2= 0.05, p = 0.16). Similar results were obtained when absolute LDL-C reduction or achieved LDL-C levels were considered. In contrast, for any 10% LDL-C reduction, rates of elevated liver enzymes increased significantly with higher statin doses. Additional analyses demonstrated a significant inverse association between cancer incidence and achieved LDL-C levels (R2= 0.43, p = 0.009), whereas no such association was demonstrated with percent LDL-C reduction (R2= 0.09, p = 0.92) or absolute LDL-C reduction (R2= 0.05, p = 0.23).ConclusionsRisk of statin-associated elevated liver enzymes or rhabdomyolysis is not related to the magnitude of LDL-C lowering. However, the risk of cancer is significantly associated with lower achieved LDL-C levels. These findings suggest that drug- and dose-specific effects are more important determinants of liver and muscle toxicity than magnitude of LDL-C lowering. Furthermore, the cardiovascular benefits of low achieved levels of LDL-C may in part be offset by an increased risk of cancer.
Journal: Journal of the American College of Cardiology - Volume 50, Issue 5, 31 July 2007, Pages 409–418