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) .
Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added to atorvastatin versus atorvastatin uptitration or switching to rosuvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.
Hypercholesterolemic patients ( n = 1,547 ) at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) levels ≥100 and ≤160 mg/dl while treated with atorvastatin 10 mg/day entered a multicenter , r and omized , double-blind , active-controlled , clinical trial using two 6-week study periods . Period I compared the efficacy/safety of ( 1 ) adding ezetimibe 10 mg ( ezetimibe ) to stable atorvastatin 10 mg , ( 2 ) doubling atorvastatin to 20 mg , or ( 3 ) switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg . Subjects in the latter 2 groups who persisted with elevated LDL-C levels ( ≥100 and ≤160 mg/dl ) after period I , entered period II ; subjects on atorvastatin 20 mg had ezetimibe added to their atorvastatin 20 mg , or uptitrated their atorvastatin to 40 mg ; subjects on rosuvastatin 10 mg switched to atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe or uptitrated their rosuvastatin to 20 mg . Some subjects on atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe continued the same treatment into period II . At the end of period I , ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg ( 22.2 % vs 9.5 % or 13.0 % , respectively , p < 0.001 ) . At the end of period II , ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin 40 mg ( 17.4 % vs 6.9 % , p < 0.001 ) ; switching from rosuvastatin 10 mg to ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than uptitrating to rosuvastatin 20 mg ( 17.1 % vs 7.5 % , p < 0.001 ) . Relative to comparative treatments , ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 mg ( period I ) or atorvastatin 20 mg ( period II ) produced significantly greater percent attainment of LDL-C targets < 100 or < 70 mg/dl , and significantly greater percent reductions in total cholesterol , non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol , most lipid and lipoprotein ratios , and apolipoprotein B ( except ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 20 vs atorvastatin 40 mg ) . Reports of adverse experiences were generally similar among groups . In conclusion , treatment of hypercholesterolemic subjects at high cardiovascular risk with ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg produced significantly greater improvements in key lipid parameters and significantly greater attainment of LDL-C treatment targets than doubling atorvastatin or switching to ( or doubling ) rosuvastatin at the compared doses
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) .