60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial

      research-article
      a , * , a , a , a , b , c , d , d , e , f , e , g , h , i , j , k , l , m , n , o , p , q , r , s , t , u , v , w , x , y , a , a , a , z , a , aa , ab , ac , a , a , a , a , a , a , a , a , a , ad , a , a , on behalf of the SHARP Investigators
      Lancet
      Lancet Publishing Group

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients.

          Methods

          This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and ISRCTN54137607.

          Findings

          4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0·85 mmol/L (SE 0·02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4·9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11·3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13·4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·74–0·94; log-rank p=0·0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4·6%] vs 230 [5·0%]; RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·76–1·11; p=0·37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2·8%] vs 174 [3·8%]; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·94; p=0·01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6·1%] vs 352 [7·6%]; RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68–0·93; p=0·0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10 000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0·2%] vs 5 [0·1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0·5%] vs 18 [0·4%]), gallstones (106 [2·3%] vs 106 [2·3%]), or cancer (438 [9·4%] vs 439 [9·5%], p=0·89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14·4%] vs 612 [13·2%], p=0·13).

          Interpretation

          Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

          Funding

          Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170 000 participants in 26 randomised trials

          Summary Background Lowering of LDL cholesterol with standard statin regimens reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events in a wide range of individuals. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with statin therapy. Methods We undertook meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials involving at least 1000 participants and at least 2 years' treatment duration of more versus less intensive statin regimens (five trials; 39 612 individuals; median follow-up 5·1 years) and of statin versus control (21 trials; 129 526 individuals; median follow-up 4·8 years). For each type of trial, we calculated not only the average risk reduction, but also the average risk reduction per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction at 1 year after randomisation. Findings In the trials of more versus less intensive statin therapy, the weighted mean further reduction in LDL cholesterol at 1 year was 0·51 mmol/L. Compared with less intensive regimens, more intensive regimens produced a highly significant 15% (95% CI 11–18; p<0·0001) further reduction in major vascular events, consisting of separately significant reductions in coronary death or non-fatal myocardial infarction of 13% (95% CI 7–19; p<0·0001), in coronary revascularisation of 19% (95% CI 15–24; p<0·0001), and in ischaemic stroke of 16% (95% CI 5–26; p=0·005). Per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, these further reductions in risk were similar to the proportional reductions in the trials of statin versus control. When both types of trial were combined, similar proportional reductions in major vascular events per 1·0 mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction were found in all types of patient studied (rate ratio [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·76–0·80; p<0·0001), including those with LDL cholesterol lower than 2 mmol/L on the less intensive or control regimen. Across all 26 trials, all-cause mortality was reduced by 10% per 1·0 mmol/L LDL reduction (RR 0·90, 95% CI 0·87–0·93; p<0·0001), largely reflecting significant reductions in deaths due to coronary heart disease (RR 0·80, 99% CI 0·74–0·87; p<0·0001) and other cardiac causes (RR 0·89, 99% CI 0·81–0·98; p=0·002), with no significant effect on deaths due to stroke (RR 0·96, 95% CI 0·84–1·09; p=0·5) or other vascular causes (RR 0·98, 99% CI 0·81–1·18; p=0·8). No significant effects were observed on deaths due to cancer or other non-vascular causes (RR 0·97, 95% CI 0·92–1·03; p=0·3) or on cancer incidence (RR 1·00, 95% CI 0·96–1·04; p=0·9), even at low LDL cholesterol concentrations. Interpretation Further reductions in LDL cholesterol safely produce definite further reductions in the incidence of heart attack, of revascularisation, and of ischaemic stroke, with each 1·0 mmol/L reduction reducing the annual rate of these major vascular events by just over a fifth. There was no evidence of any threshold within the cholesterol range studied, suggesting that reduction of LDL cholesterol by 2–3 mmol/L would reduce risk by about 40–50%. Funding UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, European Community Biomed Programme, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and National Heart Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in chronic renal disease.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative meta-analysis.

              Substantial controversy surrounds the use of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria to define chronic kidney disease and assign its stages. We undertook a meta-analysis to assess the independent and combined associations of eGFR and albuminuria with mortality. In this collaborative meta-analysis of general population cohorts, we pooled standardised data for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality from studies containing at least 1000 participants and baseline information about eGFR and urine albumin concentrations. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality associated with eGFR and albuminuria, adjusted for potential confounders. The analysis included 105,872 participants (730,577 person-years) from 14 studies with urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) measurements and 1,128,310 participants (4,732,110 person-years) from seven studies with urine protein dipstick measurements. In studies with ACR measurements, risk of mortality was unrelated to eGFR between 75 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 105 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and increased at lower eGFRs. Compared with eGFR 95 mL/min/1.73 m(2), adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality were 1.18 (95% CI 1.05-1.32) for eGFR 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 1.57 (1.39-1.78) for 45 mL/min/1.73 m(2), and 3.14 (2.39-4.13) for 15 mL/min/1.73 m(2). ACR was associated with risk of mortality linearly on the log-log scale without threshold effects. Compared with ACR 0.6 mg/mmol, adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality were 1.20 (1.15-1.26) for ACR 1.1 mg/mmol, 1.63 (1.50-1.77) for 3.4 mg/mmol, and 2.22 (1.97-2.51) for 33.9 mg/mmol. eGFR and ACR were multiplicatively associated with risk of mortality without evidence of interaction. Similar findings were recorded for cardiovascular mortality and in studies with dipstick measurements. eGFR less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and ACR 1.1 mg/mmol (10 mg/g) or more are independent predictors of mortality risk in the general population. This study provides quantitative data for use of both kidney measures for risk assessment and definition and staging of chronic kidney disease. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), US National Kidney Foundation, and Dutch Kidney Foundation. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet Publishing Group
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                9 June 2011
                9 June 2011
                : 377
                : 9784
                : 2181-2192
                Affiliations
                [a ]Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [b ]University College London, London, UK
                [c ]North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
                [d ]Department of Medicine 1, Division of Nephrology, University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany
                [e ]The George Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [f ]Sydney School of Public Health, Children's Hospital at Westmead, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
                [g ]China Oxford Centre for International Health Research, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China
                [h ]Department of Medicine and Haemodialysis Unit, Sultanah Aminah Hospital, Johor Bahru, Malaysia
                [i ]University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
                [j ]National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
                [k ]Harvard Medical School, VA Boston, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [l ]University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [m ]Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand
                [n ]Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Division of Nephrology, Amiens University Hospital, and INSERM ERI-12, University of Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France
                [o ]Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [p ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
                [q ]Renal Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand
                [r ]University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
                [s ]Renal Section, Department of Organ Transplantation, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
                [t ]Department of Nephrology, First School of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
                [u ]Department of Nephrology, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
                [v ]Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
                [w ]Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
                [x ]Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
                [y ]Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK
                [z ]Royal Darwin Hospital, Darwin, NT, Australia
                [aa ]Berman Center for Outcomes and Clinical Research, Hennepin County Medical Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [ab ]University of Oslo and Centre of Preventive Medicine, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Oslo, Norway
                [ac ]Tobert Medical Consulting LLC, Warren, NJ, USA
                [ad ]Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Colin Baigent, Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK sharpclinical@ 123456ctsu.ox.ac.uk
                [†]

                Collaborators listed in the online webappendix

                Article
                LANCET60739
                10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60739-3
                3145073
                21663949
                b04a7acd-8bd5-4998-8c69-7572cc76d58a
                © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                Categories
                Fast track — Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article