April 29th, 2013
Unconventional Analysis Finds Threshold for LDL Reduction with Statins
Larry Husten, PHD
Using an unconventional mathematical approach, a group of Japanese researchers say there may be no good reason to reduce LDL cholesterol more than 40 mg/dl. Their research letter has been published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
According to the authors, members of the ALICE (All-Literature Investigation of Cardiovascular Evidence) Group, most meta-analyses use linear models that assume “a constantly increasing or decreasing risk as the exposure increases or decreases.” Linear models, however, can be “misleading,” they write, because they assume a specific dose-response relationship. By contrast, their new analysis utilizes “flexible” models that can more readily uncover “threshold effects.”
Reanalyzing data from 25 large randomized controlled trials including 155,613 participants, the authors found “almost no additional benefit in the use of statins beyond a 40 mg/dL decrease in LDL-C level in preventing major vascular events.” They point to a somewhat similar finding by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration that increasing the dose of atorvastatin from 40 to 80 mg would yield only marginal improvements in efficacy but would also increase adverse effects and noncompliance.
The authors write that “definitive evidence supporting maximal lowering of LDL-C level or maximal dose of statins is still lacking and that guidelines, if they are to be evidence based, should acknowledge this uncertainty.” They conclude that “further analysis” is required to confirm their findings.
Asked for his response to the paper, Sanjay Kaul said that it “makes sense: Biological phenomena, except for our thought process, are seldom linear!” He strongly agreed with the authors’ conclusion about the lack of definitive evidence for aggressive statin therapy.
Categories: General, Prevention
Tags: LDL cholesterol, meta-analysis, statins, threshold effect
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed.
Pages
Archives
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
Categories
- Anticoagulation (172)
- Cardiac Imaging (70)
- Cardiac Surgery (173)
- Electrophysiology (248)
- Events (29)
- General (1,653)
- Heart Failure (191)
- Hypertension (12)
- Interventional Cardiology (3)
- Pediatric Cardiology (3)
- Prevention (705)
- Vascular (68)
-
Tag Cloud
- ACS AF AHA anticoagulation aortic valve replacement apixaban aspirin atrial fibrillation CABG cardiovascular risk cholesterol clopidogrel dabigatran diabetes diet drug-eluting stents epidemiology ESC exercise FDA FDA approvals Fellowship training guidelines HDL heart failure hypertension ICDs MI myocardial infarction obesity PCI Primary PCI risk factors rivaroxaban statins STEMI stents stroke stroke prevention TAVI TAVR type 2 diabetes venous thromboembolism warfarin women
