19 resultados para fluvastatin
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: Though guidelines emphasize low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering as an essential strategy for cardiovascular risk reduction, achieving target levels may be difficult. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, controlled, open-label trial examining the effectiveness and safety of high-dose fluvastatin or a standard dosage of simvastatin plus ezetimibe, both with an intensive guideline-oriented cardiac rehabilitation program, in achieving the new ATP III LDL-C targets in patients with proven coronary artery disease. 305 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: the simvastatin (40 mg/d) plus ezetimibe (10 mg/d) and the fluvastatin-only group (80 mg/d). Patients in both study groups received the treatment for 21 days in addition to nonpharmacological measures, including advanced physical, dietary, psychosocial, and educational activities. RESULTS: After 21 days of treatment, a significant reduction in LDL-C was found in both study groups as compared to the initial values, however, the reduction in LDL-C was significantly stronger in the simvastatin plus ezetimibe group: simvastatin plus ezetimibe treatment decreased LDL-C to a mean level of 57.7 +/- 1.7 mg/ml, while fluvastatin achieved a reduction to 84.1 +/- 2.4 mg/ml (p < 0.001). In the simvastatin plus ezetimibe group, 95% of the patients reached the target level of LDL-C < 100 mg/dl. This percentage was significantly higher than in patients treated with fluvastatin alone (75%; p < 0.001). The greater effectiveness of simvastatin plus ezetimibe was more impressive when considering the optional goal of LDL-C < 70 mg/dl (75% vs. 32%, respectively; p < 0.001). There was no difference in occurrence of adverse events between both groups. CONCLUSION: Simvastatin 40 mg/d plus ezetimibe 10 mg/d, on the background of a guideline-oriented standardized intensive cardiac rehabilitation program, can reach 95% effectiveness in achieving challenging goals (LDL < 100 mg/dl) using lipid-lowering medication in patients at high cardiovascular risk.
Resumo:
The kidneys exhibit age-associated deterioration in function via a loss of 20% to 25% kidney mass, particularly from the renal cortex and increased fibrosis. Oxidative stress has been found to mediate age-associated renal cell injury and cell death, particularly apoptosis. Oxidative stress results from an imbalance between the levels of free radicals generated during aerobic metabolism, inflammation, and infection and the safe breakdown of these species by endogenous and exogenous scavengers. Other factors may influence these pathologies. For example, growth hormone and caloric restriction have been shown to influence life span, although neither method of prolonging life is likely to find general acceptance in humans. Some genetic knockout models offer promise; for example, knockout of the p66 isoform of the Shc gene in mice increases life span by 30%, but appetite, size, and fertility are retained. Whether the increase in life span is via increased kidney health is not yet clear, but decreasing the age-related renal pathologies will no doubt aid in increasing life span and health in general. This review looks at the role and modulation of factors that influence life span, in particular modulation of oxidative stress, with particular relevance to age-related renal pathologies. (C) 2005 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
Resumo:
Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a public health priority in the UK. The National Service Framework (NSF) has set standards for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of CHD, which include the use of cholesterol-lowering agents aimed at achieving targets of blood total cholesterol (TC) < 5.0 mmol/L and low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) < 3.0 mmol/L. In order to achieve these targets cost effectively, prescribers need to make an informed choice from the range of statins available. Aim: To estimate the average and relative cost effectiveness of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin in achieving the NSF LDL-C and TC targets. Design: Model-based economic evaluation. Methods: An economic model was constructed to estimate the number of patients achieving the NSF targets for LDL-C and TC at each dose of statin, and to calculate the average drug cost and incremental drug cost per patient achieving the target levels. The population baseline LDL-C and TC, and drug efficacy and drug costs were taken from previously published data. Estimates of the distribution of patients receiving each dose of statin were derived from the UK national DIN-LINK database. Results: The estimated annual drug cost per 1000 patients treated with atorvastatin was £289 000, with simvastatin £315 000, with pravastatin £333 000 and with fluvastatin £167 000. The percentages of patients achieving target are 74.4%, 46.4%, 28.4% and 13.2% for atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin and fluvastatin, respectively. Incremental drug cost per extra patient treated to LDL-C and TC targets compared with fluvastafin were £198 and £226 for atorvastatin, £443 and £567 for simvastatin and £1089 and £2298 for pravastatin, using 2002 drug costs. Conclusions: As a result of its superior efficacy, atorvastatin generates a favourable cost-effectiveness profile as measured by drug cost per patient treated to LDL-C and TC targets. For a given drug budget, more patients would achieve NSF LDL-C and TC targets with atorvastatin than with any of the other statins examined.
Resumo:
Statins are agents widely used to lower LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. The five statins available in the UK (simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) differ in many of their pharmacologic properties. In addition to lowering LDL-C, statins also increase HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) moderately. There have been rare reports of significant HDL-C decreases in patients commenced on fibrates and when thiazolidinediones are added to fibrates. This is known as a 'paradoxical HDL-C decrease' as both groups of agents usually increase HDL-C. This phenomenon has never been clearly documented following statin therapy. We now describe a patient with type 2 diabetes who showed this paradoxical fall in HDL-C (baseline HDL-C: 1.8 mmol/L; on simvastatin 40 mg HDL-C 0.6 mmol/L; on atorvastatin 20 mg HDL-C 0.9 mmol/L) with a similar decrease in apolipoprotein A1. No similar decrease was observed with pravastatin and rosuvastatin therapy. This phenomenon appeared to be associated with statin treatment and not a statin/fibrate combination. Our patient clearly demonstrated a paradoxical HDL-C fall with simvastatin and atorvastatin, but not pravastatin or rosuvastatin. Simvastatin and atorvastatin share many pharmacokinetic properties such as lipophilicity while pravastatin and rosuvastatin are relatively hydrophilic and are not metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4. However, these characteristics do not explain the dramatic reductions in HDL-C observed.