| registrieren | anmelden | FAQ | [?] |
Low-density lipoprotein-dependent and -independent effects of cholesterol-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein: a meta-analysis.by: S Kinlay
J Am Coll Cardiol, Vol. 49, No. 20. (22 May 2007), pp. 2003-2009.
|
Reviews
[Write a review of this article]
There are no reviews of this article
Notes for this articleThis analysis of 23 studies found the vast majority of hs-CRP reduction observed in statin trials tracks with LDL-C lowering. Thus, only a small amount (2-11%) of hs-CRP change is independent of LDL-C reduction. This non-LDL-C change could be do to weight loss, smoking cessation, or other new healthy behaviours adoped by trial participants. This paper sets the stage for what is going to be a difficult interpretation of the JUPITER trial results with rosuvastatin. This trial will attempt to show that the hs-CRP reduction with a statin reduces cardiovascular outcomes independently from the LDL-C lowering effect. The present study predicts that rosuvastatin will lower LDL-C, lower hs-CRP in most, reduce cardiovascular events, and create controversey over how statins really exert their beneficial effects in the cardiovascular system.--Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Find related articles from these CiteULike users
Find related articles with these CiteULike tags
AbstractOBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the contribution of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-dependent and LDL-independent effects of LDL-lowering therapies to changes in C-reactive protein (CRP) in healthy or stable subjects. BACKGROUND: Correlations of change in LDL and CRP in individuals are lowered by their measurement variability. By using average changes in LDL and CRP in study groups, meta-analysis reduces this variability to better assess their correlation. METHODS: A systematic search for randomized placebo-controlled trials reporting change in LDL and CRP with LDL-lowering interventions retrieved 23 studies with 57 groups treated with a variety of statins, nonstatin drugs, or other regimens. Meta-analysis techniques assessed the relationships between average mean differences (placebo - treatment) in change in CRP and LDL. RESULTS: The overall reduction in CRP was 28% (95% confidence interval 26% to 30%). Significantly greater CRP reduction occurred in statin and statin-ezetimibe interventions, interventions using 80 mg/day of statins, and with greater LDL lowering. Meta-regression analysis showed a strong correlation between the change in LDL and CRP (r = 0.80, p < 0.001). Statin therapies had no significant effect on CRP after adjusting for the change in LDL. In a multivariate model applied to a range of LDL reduction typically seen with statins (20% to 60%), 89% to 98% of CRP change was related to LDL lowering and 2% to 11% was related to non-LDL effects of statins. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, most of the anti-inflammatory effect of LDL-lowering therapies is related to the magnitude of change in LDL. The potential non-LDL effects of statins on inflammation are much smaller in magnitude.
BibTeX record
RIS record