Atorvastatin compared with simvastatin-based therapies in the management of severe familial hyperlipidaemias

We compared atorvastatin with simvastatin-based therapies in a prospective observational study of 201 patients with severe hyperlipidaemia. Atorvastatin 10 mg therapy was substituted for simvastatin 20 mg, 20 mg for 40 mg, 40 mg for simvastatin 40 mg plus resin, and 80 mg for simvastatin-fibrate-resin therapy. Lipid and safety profiles were assessed. Atorvastatin reduced total cholesterol by 31 +/- 11-40 +/- 14% vs. 25 +/- 12-31 +/- 11%; LDL by 38 +/- 16-45 +/- 18% vs. 31 +/- 18-39 +/- 18% and geometric mean triglycerides by 29.3-37.3% vs. 16.6-24.8%, but reduced HDL 11% +/- 47% at 80 mg compared with a 16% +/- 34% increase with simvastatin-based therapy. Target LDL < 3.5 mmol/l was achieved more often with atorvastatin (63% vs. 50%; p < 0.001). Atorvastatin increased geometric mean fibrinogen by 12-20% vs. a 0-6% fall with simvastatin (p << 0.001). Side effects were noted in 10-36% of patients, including one case of rhabdomyolysis, and 36% discontinued therapy. These data suggest that atorvastatin is more effective than current simvastatin-based therapies in achieving treatment targets in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia but at the expense of a possible increase in side-effects. This issue needs further study in randomized controlled trials.

Impact of recommendation updates in well-controlled patients on nonrecommended antiretroviral therapies: the Swiss HIV cohort study

BACKGROUND HIV treatment recommendations are updated as clinical trials are published. Whether recommendations drive clinicians to change antiretroviral therapy in well-controlled patients is unexplored. METHODS We selected patients with undetectable viral loads (VLs) on nonrecommended regimens containing double-boosted protease inhibitors (DBPIs), triple-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), or didanosine (ddI) plus stavudine (d4T) at publication of the 2006 International AIDS Society recommendations. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics with those of control patients with undetectable VL not on these regimens and examined clinical outcome and reasons for treatment modification. RESULTS At inclusion, 104 patients were in the DBPI group, 436 in the triple-NRTI group, and 19 in the ddI/d4T group. By 2010, 28 (29%), 204 (52%), and 1 (5%) patient were still on DBPIs, triple-NRTIs, and ddI plus d4T, respectively. 'Physician decision,' excluding toxicity/virological failure, drove 30% of treatment changes. Predictors of recommendation nonobservance included female sex [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1 to 7.26; P = 0.01] for DPBIs, and undetectable VL (aOR 3.53, 95% CI 1.6 to 7.8; P = 0.002) and lack of cardiovascular events (aOR 2.93, 95% CI 1.23 to 6.97; P = 0.02) for triple-NRTIs. All patients on DBPIs with documented diabetes or a cardiovascular event changed treatment. Recommendation observance resulted in lower cholesterol values in the DBPI group (P = 0.06), and more patients having undetectable VL (P = 0.02) in the triple-NRTI group. CONCLUSION The physician's decision is the main factor driving change from nonrecommended to recommended regimens, whereas virological suppression is associated with not switching. Positive clinical outcomes observed postswitch underline the importance of observing recommendations, even in well-controlled patients.

Paying with karma in the Buddha’s Flower Shop: Spiritual Economics in Early Indian Buddhism

Shen Weirong