Population Characteristics and Study Quality of Included Trials , by Combination Therapy Agent and Potency Comparison Long-Term Clinical Outcomes We found insufficient evidence to compare long-term clinical outcomes ( mortality , acute coronary events , cerebrovascular events , and revascularization procedures ) for all combination therapy and statin intensity comparisons .
Figure 1 presents an evidence map of studies that evaluated these
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) affects more than 15 million Americans ( 1 ) and is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States ( 2 ) .
Trials have demonstrated reductions in low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) cholesterol levels ( 3 ) and decreased ASCVD risk with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor ( statin ) monotherapy ( 4 ) .
Over the past decade , statins have often been used in combination with other lipid-modifying agents .
Recently , several high-profile r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) have evaluated add-on therapy ( 57 ) , wherein statin monotherapy is compared with the combination of the same statin dose and another lipid-modifying agent .
Add-on combination therapy can lead to superior lipid outcomes , but studies have not shown decreased rates of cardiovascular death , myocardial infa rct ion , revascularization , or stroke ( 57 ) .
Therefore , the 2013 American College of Cardiology ( ACC ) and American Heart Association ( AHA ) guidelines recommend moderate- or high-intensity statin monotherapy as the first-line strategy for ASCVD risk reduction among patients with LDL cholesterol levels of 4.91 mmol/L or greater ( 190 mg/dL ) , preexisting ASCVD , diabetes mellitus ( DM ) , or estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5 % or greater ( 8) .
Adverse effects are more common with higher-intensity statin regimens ( 9 ) , and musculoskeletal adverse events occur frequently among patients with the C variant in the SLCO1B1 gene ( 10 ) .
The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines suggest that clinicians consider moderated combination therapy with a lower-intensity statin and another lipid-modifying medication among high-risk patients ( LDL cholesterol level 4.91 mmol/L [ 190 mg/dL ] , preexisting ASCVD , or DM ) who are intolerant of or unresponsive to statins ( evidence grade E : expert opinion ) ( 8) .
Yet , it is unclear whether this strategy results in similar ASCVD risk reductions and fewer adverse effects compared with higher-intensity statin monotherapy .
A 2009 systematic review that examined these questions found insufficient evidence to weigh benefits and risks of moderated combination therapy ( 12 ) .
We aim ed to compare the effectiveness , safety , and tolerability of moderated combination therapy of statin with another lipid-modifying medication ( bile acid sequestrant , ezetimibe , fibrate , niacin , or -3 fatty acid ) with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy among high-risk patients .
We sought to compare the long-term clinical benefits and short-term lipid effects of moderated combination therapy with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy , as well as to determine whether these regimens differ in rates of adherence and harms .
Given the recent release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines ( 8) , we narrowed the scope of this manuscript to focus on evidence most relevant to high-risk population s for whom combination therapy might be considered .
Prior studies have suggested schemes to group statins on the basis of their reported LDL cholesterol reduction ( 17 , 18 ) , which are similar to the strategy used by the ACC/AHA committee ( 8) .
Atorvastatin versus Four Statin–Fibrate Combinations in Patients with Familial Combined Hyperlipidaemia
Background Statin – fibrate combinations are very effective in the treatment of familial combined hyperlipidaemia ( FCHL ) . Nonetheless , they have not been extensively used because of the fear of side effects . Thus , a therapeutic alternative is required for this lipid disorder . Objective To compare the long-term ( one-year ) efficacy of atorvastatin monotherapy with those of four statin – fibrate combinations in 675 FCHL patients . Methods Patients were r and omly assigned to atorvastatin monotherapy ( A 20 mg/day ) n=134 , or pravastatin ( P 20 mg/day)+gemfibrozil ( G 1200 mg/day ) n=135 , simvastatin ( S 20 mg/day)+G ( 1200 mg/day ) n=137 , P ( 20 mg/day)+ciciprofibrate ( C 100 mg/day ) n=135 , and S ( 20 mg/day)+C ( 100 mg/day ) n=134 . Results Twelve patients on statin – fibrate combinations were withdrawn from the study because of side effects : Three because of CK elevation , two because of myalgia and seven due to increase in serum transaminase levels . One patient on A was withdrawn because of persistent epigastric discomfort .  Atorvastatin  reduced low density lipoprotein cholesterol and apoprotein B more than all four combinations ( −45 % vs. maximum −40 % of S+C , and −39 % vs. maximum −32 % of the same combination , respectively , P < 0.001 for both ) , but had a lesser effect on triglycerides ( −38 % vs. maximum −53 % of S+C , P=0.0002 ) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol ( 6 % vs. maximum 21 % of S+G , P=0.0003 ) . The effect of A on plasma fibrinogen was analogous to that of G combinations ( −8 % vs. −9 % of P+G and −11 % of S+G , P = NS vs. baseline and among each other ) and inferior to that of the ciprofibrate combinations ( −8 % vs. −24 % of P+C , P=0.0002 and −26 % S+C , P=0.0001 ) . A had a lower treatment cost and better patient compliance , P=0.04 vs. C combinations and P=0.02 vs. G combinations . Conclusions The data suggest that statin – fibrate combinations have a beneficial effect on all lipid parameters . Atorvastatin monotherapy has a better effect on LDL-C and apoprotein B than statin – fibrate combinations , but a lesser effect on HDL-C , TG and in the case of ciprofibrate combinations , fibrinogen . The clinical significance of these findings should be tested in a large , long-term survival study
Population Characteristics and Study Quality of Included Trials , by Combination Therapy Agent and Potency Comparison Long-Term Clinical Outcomes We found insufficient evidence to compare long-term clinical outcomes ( mortality , acute coronary events , cerebrovascular events , and revascularization procedures ) for all combination therapy and statin intensity comparisons .
Figure 1 presents an evidence map of studies that evaluated these
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ( ASCVD ) affects more than 15 million Americans ( 1 ) and is the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States ( 2 ) .
Trials have demonstrated reductions in low-density lipoprotein ( LDL ) cholesterol levels ( 3 ) and decreased ASCVD risk with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor ( statin ) monotherapy ( 4 ) .
Over the past decade , statins have often been used in combination with other lipid-modifying agents .
Recently , several high-profile r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) have evaluated add-on therapy ( 57 ) , wherein statin monotherapy is compared with the combination of the same statin dose and another lipid-modifying agent .
Add-on combination therapy can lead to superior lipid outcomes , but studies have not shown decreased rates of cardiovascular death , myocardial infa rct ion , revascularization , or stroke ( 57 ) .
Therefore , the 2013 American College of Cardiology ( ACC ) and American Heart Association ( AHA ) guidelines recommend moderate- or high-intensity statin monotherapy as the first-line strategy for ASCVD risk reduction among patients with LDL cholesterol levels of 4.91 mmol/L or greater ( 190 mg/dL ) , preexisting ASCVD , diabetes mellitus ( DM ) , or estimated 10-year ASCVD risk of 7.5 % or greater ( 8) .
Adverse effects are more common with higher-intensity statin regimens ( 9 ) , and musculoskeletal adverse events occur frequently among patients with the C variant in the SLCO1B1 gene ( 10 ) .
The 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines suggest that clinicians consider moderated combination therapy with a lower-intensity statin and another lipid-modifying medication among high-risk patients ( LDL cholesterol level 4.91 mmol/L [ 190 mg/dL ] , preexisting ASCVD , or DM ) who are intolerant of or unresponsive to statins ( evidence grade E : expert opinion ) ( 8) .
Yet , it is unclear whether this strategy results in similar ASCVD risk reductions and fewer adverse effects compared with higher-intensity statin monotherapy .
A 2009 systematic review that examined these questions found insufficient evidence to weigh benefits and risks of moderated combination therapy ( 12 ) .
We aim ed to compare the effectiveness , safety , and tolerability of moderated combination therapy of statin with another lipid-modifying medication ( bile acid sequestrant , ezetimibe , fibrate , niacin , or -3 fatty acid ) with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy among high-risk patients .
We sought to compare the long-term clinical benefits and short-term lipid effects of moderated combination therapy with those of higher-intensity statin monotherapy , as well as to determine whether these regimens differ in rates of adherence and harms .
Given the recent release of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines ( 8) , we narrowed the scope of this manuscript to focus on evidence most relevant to high-risk population s for whom combination therapy might be considered .
Prior studies have suggested schemes to group statins on the basis of their reported LDL cholesterol reduction ( 17 , 18 ) , which are similar to the strategy used by the ACC/AHA committee ( 8) .