Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76-1.10]). CONCLUSIONS: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).

CONTEXT: Data regarding effects of lower-dose GH on cardiopulmonary function in GH-deficient (GHD) adults are limited. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess effects of lower-dose GH on exercise capacity and echocardiographic parameters in GHD adults. DESIGN: The study was a 6-month double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. SETTING: The study was conducted at the General Clinical Research Center. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty hypopituitary adults with GHD were studied. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to recombinant human GH or placebo for 6 months, followed by open-label recombinant human GH for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints were exercise duration, maximal oxygen consumption, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Secondary endpoints were echocardiographic indices of systolic and diastolic function, left ventricular mass, lipids, and body composition. RESULTS: In the 6-month double-blind phase, mean GH dose was 0.64 mg/d. Mean IGF-I sd score increased from -4.5 to -1.0. Exercise duration, maximal oxygen consumption, left ventricular ejection fraction, and other echocardiographic parameters were normal at baseline and did not change. GH decreased total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 7.5% (P = 0.016) and 14.7% (P = 0.002) (P = 0.04 vs. placebo). Mean lean body mass increased by 2.2 kg (P = 0.004), fat mass decreased by 1.7 kg (P = 0.21), and percent body fat decreased by 2.5% (P = 0.018), although between-group changes were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Human GH did not improve exercise performance or echocardiographic parameters or decrease fat mass but significantly decreased total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increased IGF-I, and increased lean body mass. These results indicate that responses to human GH are variable and should be assessed at baseline and during treatment

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Controversy surrounds whether the ratio of apolipoprotein B (ApoB) to apolipoprotein A-I (ApoA-I) is the best lipoprotein discriminator of CHD risk in non-diabetic populations, but the issue has never been investigated in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In 2,627 participants without known vascular disease in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study, ApoB, ApoA-I, LDL-cholesterol (LDLC) and HDL-cholesterol (HDLC) were assayed at baseline. RESULTS: There were 108 CHD and 59 stroke endpoints over 3.9 years. The ApoB:A-I ratio at baseline was the lipoprotein variable most closely predicting CHD risk both by comparison of the hazard ratio for a 1 SD change or tertiles of frequency distribution. The areas under the receiver-operator curve for the ApoB:ApoA-I and the LDLC to HDLC [corrected] ratios, although not significantly different from each other, were greater (p = 0.0005 and p = 0.0125 respectively) than that of non-HDLC:HDLC. The 27% decrease in the ApoB:ApoA-I ratio on atorvastatin predicted a 32% (95% CI 5.4-51.2%) risk reduction in CHD, close to the 36% decrease observed. Neither the ApoB:ApoA-I nor any other lipoprotein concentration or ratio predicted the stroke outcome. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Overall, the ApoB:ApoA-I ratio improved on the non-HDLC:HDLC ratio in predicting CHD, but, depending on the assessment chosen, its superiority over LDLC:HDLC may be marginal. The statin-induced decrease in stroke risk may not be lipoprotein mediated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00327418. FUNDING: The study was supported by unrestricted grants from Diabetes UK, the Department of Health and Pfizer to the University of Manchester and to University College, London

BACKGROUND: LDL can vary considerably in its cholesterol content; thus, lowering LDL cholesterol (LDLC) as a goal of statin treatment implies the existence of considerable variation in the extent to which statin treatment removes circulating LDL particles. This consideration is particularly applicable in diabetes mellitus, in which LDL is frequently depleted of cholesterol. METHODS: Type 2 diabetes patients randomly allocated to 10 mg/day atorvastatin (n = 1154) or to placebo (n = 1196) for 1 year were studied to compare spontaneous and statin-induced apolipoprotein B (apo B) concentrations (a measure of LDL particle concentration) at LDLC and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDLC) concentrations proposed as statin targets in type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Patients treated with atorvastatin produced lower serum apo B concentrations at any given LDLC concentration than patients on placebo. An LDLC concentration of 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) during atorvastatin treatment was equivalent to a non-HDLC concentration of 2.59 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) or an apo B concentration of 0.8 g/L. At the more conservative LDLC targets of 2.59 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) and 3.37 mmol/L (130 mg/dL) for non-HDLC, however, the apo B concentration exceeded the 0.9-g/L value anticipated in the recent Consensus Statement from the American Diabetes Association and the American College of Cardiology. CONCLUSIONS: The apo B concentration provides a more consistent goal for statin treatment than the LDLC or non-HDLC concentration

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of atorvastatin 10 mg compared with placebo in 2,838 patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of coronary heart disease who were enrolled in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) and followed for 3.9 years. The percentages of patients experiencing treatment-associated adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs in the atorvastatin (n=1,428) and placebo (n=1,410) groups were 23.0% vs. 25.4%, 1.1% vs. 1.1% and 2.9% vs. 3.4%, respectively. The most common treatment-associated AEs in the atorvastatin and placebo groups were digestive system-related (8.9% vs. 10.0%). All-cause and treatment-associated myalgia were reported in 4.0% and 1.0% of atorvastatin-treated patients, and 4.8% and 1.2% of placebo-treated patients. An analysis of selected AEs by tertiles of baseline low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol showed no relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and the incidence of myalgia, cancer or nervous system AEs in either treatment group. Overall, these data demonstrate that atorvastatin 10 mg was well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes during long-term treatment

Atorvastatin has been shown to reduce coronary events and revascularization procedures in patients with multiple risk factors for coronary heart disease. Recent studies with atorvastatin 80 mg support the overall safety of this dose during long-term treatment. However, physicians appear reluctant to use high doses of statins. A retrospective analysis of pooled data from 49 clinical trials of atorvastatin in 14,236 patients treated for an average period of 2 weeks to 52 months was conducted. The study compared the safety of atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 7,258), atorvastatin 80 mg (n = 4,798), and placebo (n = 2,180) and included analyses on treatment-associated adverse events; nonserious and serious adverse events related to the musculoskeletal, hepatic, and renal systems; the incidence of elevations of creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN); and hepatic transaminases >3 times ULN. Percentages of patients experiencing > or =1 adverse event were similar across all 3 groups. Withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events were observed in 2.4%, 1.8%, and 1.2% of patients in the atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. Serious adverse events were rare and seldom led to treatment withdrawal with any dose. Treatment-associated myalgia was observed in 1.4%, 1.5%, and 0.7% of patients in the atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. No cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in any group. Persistent elevations in hepatic transaminases >3 times ULN were observed in 0.1%, 0.6%, and 0.2% of patients in the atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 80 mg, and placebo groups, respectively. The incidence of treatment-associated adverse events for atorvastatin 80 mg was similar to that of atorvastatin 10 mg and placebo. In conclusion, the results of this analysis support the positive safety profile of atorvastatin at the highest dose.

This analysis assessed the safety of atorvastatin in the 10- to 80-mg dose range using pooled data from 44 completed trials comprising 16,495 dyslipidemic patients treated with atorvastatin (n = 9,416), placebo (n = 1,789), and other statins (n = 5,290). A retrospective analysis was conducted and included treatment-associated adverse events, serious adverse events, and musculoskeletal and hepatic adverse events. Only 3% (n = 241) of atorvastatin-treated patients withdrew from studies due to treatment-associated adverse events, compared with 1% of those (n = 16) on placebo and 4% of those (n = 188) receiving other statins; the most frequently reported treatment-associated adverse events were related to the digestive system. Serious adverse events were rare and seldom led to withdrawal. Persistent elevations in hepatic transaminases to >3 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) were experienced by 0.5% (n = 47) of atorvastatin-treated patients. A persistent elevation in creatine phosphokinase (CPK) (>10 x ULN) was observed in only 1 atorvastatin-treated patient and was not associated with myopathy. The incidence of treatment-associated myalgia was low in the atorvastatin (1.9% [n = 181]), placebo (0.8% [n = 14]), and other statin (2.0% [n = 105]) groups, and was not related to the atorvastatin dose. No cases of rhabdomyolysis or myopathy were reported. Thus, the overall incidence of treatment-associated adverse events observed with atorvastatin did not increase in the 10- to 80-mg dose range, and was similar to that observed with placebo and in patients treated with other statins. Specific analysis of musculoskeletal and hepatic adverse events showed that these occurred infrequently and rarely resulted in treatment discontinuation.

Both somatostatin analogues, which bind to the somatostatin receptor subtypes 2 and 5, and dopamine agonists, which are specific for the D2 receptor, have been used to treat acromegaly. Each of these classes of drugs contains several compounds that vary in duration of action, efficacy, and side effect profile. Although somatostatin analogues reduce GH levels and alleviate symptoms in most patients and restore IGF-1 levels to normal in 60% to 65% of patients, tumor shrinkage is limited to 40% of patients. evidence in the literature supports the use of these medications as secondary therapy in patients with acromegaly who have had surgery and who continue to have elevated GH levels (above 2 ng/mL during an oral glucose tolerance test) with or without IGF-1 concentrations that are above the upper limit of normal for age. In addition, medical therapy indicated in patients who refuse surgery and in patients who are poor surgical candidates. The controversial question is whether medical therapy should be an option for primary treatment of the acromegalic patient. Currently, ther are no data from prospective randomized trials comparing the effects of surgery versus somatostatin analogues as first-line therapy for for newly diagnosed acromegalic patients. Limited data from nonrandomized studies demonstrate that somatostatin analogues are effective long-term in suppressing GH and reducing IGF-1 into the normal range in approximately two-thirds of patients who have never undergone previous treatment. It is still the consensus that patients with GH-secreting microadenomas should undergo surgical resection, because the likelihood of complete cure by an experience neurosurgeon is high, at least 70% or greater. Successful surgical treatment has the advantage of completely removing the tumor in contrast to medical therapy, which rarely produces shrinkage greater than 50% despite the fact that IGF-1 and GH levels may be normal. In patients with macroadenomas of a size and location that suggest that the chance of complete resection is 40% or less, primary treatment with a somatostatin analogue should be considered as one option in the initial management of the patient. Another option in such an individual would be surgical debulking followed by medical therapy, because it is theoretically possible that biochemical cure with medical therapy after surgical debulking might be achieved with lower doses. The cost-effectiveness of these approaches has not yet been determined. Once the decision has been made to begin medical therapy, a choice must be made between dopamine agonists and somatostatin analogues. Most evidence suggests that somatostatin analogues are more effective than dopamine agonists and therefore would be the therapy of choice. In select patients, dopamine agonists, particularly the long-acting agonist cabergoline, may be preferred initially if the patient is unwilling to take injections or if the GH elevations are relatively modest (< 10 ng/mL). Biochemical cure should be assessed by measurement of GH (which can be performed 2 hours after an octreotide injection) and IGF-1 concentrations. The goal of treatment include reduction of of GH below 2 ng/mL and reduction of IGF-1 into the normal range. In patients who do not reach these goals, the dose or frequency of injection of the somatostatin analogue or both should be increased. If such measures are unsuccessful, a dopamine agonist may be added to the medical regimen because some studies suggest that combination therapy may be more effective in select cases than octreotide therapy alone. If such measures are still unsuccessful, other options should be considered, including surgery, pituitary radiation, and medical treatment with investigational drugs

Growth hormone (GH) deficiency should he suspected in adults with either hypothalamic or pituitary disease, a history of pituitary or whole brain radiation, or a history of GH treatment during childhood. Clinical manifestations include abnormal body composition (increased fat, decreased lean mass, and lo iv bone density), reduced exercise ca pacity, and unfavorable lipid profile thigh total and LDL cholesterol, low HDL). Although some GH-deficient adults are asymptomatic, others have nonspecific complaints of fatigue, low energy level, and impairment of memory and concentration. The diagnosis of GH deficiency should be confirmed by at least one provocative test. We define GH deficiency as the failure of GH to rise above 3 ng/mL in response to an appropriate stimulus, such as insulin-induced hypoglycemia, L-dopa, or arginine. GH replacement should be reserved for patients with documented GI-I deficiency who show no evidence of active malignancy and do not have severe edema or a history of carpal tunnel syndrome. GI-I treatment of the GH-deficient adult has been shown to have positive effects on body composition, exercise tolerance, and lipids. In nine placebo controlled studies in 392 adults using GH doses ranging between 2.6 and 26 mu g per kg per day, mean body fat decreased 4.4% and mean lean body mass increased 3.4 kp. These changes were seen after 6 months. increase in hip and spine bone mineral density required longer periods of treatment. GH replacement also has been found to increase maximal oxygen consumption, exercise capacity, ventricular ejection fraction, and cardiac output. Improvement in muscle strength has not been demonstrated convincingly, Most studies have shown reduction in total and LDL cholesterol and either increased or unchanged I-IDL, GH's effects on psychological parameters have been difficult to evaluate and require further study Adverse effects, which are more frequent in patients treated with higher doses of GH, include edema of the hands and feet, arthralgias, myalgias, and paresthesias of the fingers. These problems diminish or resolve with dose reduction. In conclusion, GH deficiency in adulthood is recognized as a syndrome that may benefit from treatment. GH replacement should, therefore, be considered in individuals with hypothalamic-pituitary disease who have an abnormal GH response during at least one provocative test. Additional studies are needed to determine the consequences of long-standing GH deficiency and whether the beneficial effects observed during the first 18 months of GH replacement diminish, plateau, or continue to improve during chronic treatment