Blood-pressure and cholesterol lowering in persons without cardiovascular disease

Elevated blood pressure and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lowering both should reduce the risk of cardiovascular events substantially. In a trial with 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) or placebo and to candesartan (16 mg per day) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) or placebo. In the analyses reported here, we compared the 3180 participants assigned to combined therapy (with rosuvastatin and the two antihypertensive agents) with the 3168 participants assigned to dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, or revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years

The role of statin drugs in combating cardiovascular diseases –A review

Statins clearly confer substantial benefit in people with established cardiovascular (CV) disease. Increased cholesterol levels have been associated with cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and statins are therefore used in the prevention of these diseases. Studies have found that the ability of a particular statin to lower or reduce LDL is proportional to the amount it can increase HDL levels. This review article will focus on the effective role of statin in cardiovascular disease and comparison was made between various classes of statin drugs

Homocysteine levels and treatment effect in the prospective study of pravastatin in the elderly at risk

Objectives: To assess the effect of preventive pravastatin treatment on coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality in older persons at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), stratified according to plasma levels of homocysteine.<p></p> Design: A post hoc subanalysis in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER), started in 1997, which is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a mean follow-up of 3.2 years.<p></p> Setting: Primary care setting in two of the three PROSPER study sites (Netherlands and Scotland).<p></p> Participants: Individuals (n = 3,522, aged 70–82, 1,765 male) with a history of or risk factors for CVD were ranked in three groups depending on baseline homocysteine level, sex, and study site.<p></p> Intervention: Pravastatin (40 mg) versus placebo.<p></p> Measurements: Fatal and nonfatal CHD and mortality.<p></p> Results: In the placebo group, participants with a high homocysteine level (n = 588) had a 1.8 higher risk (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2–2.5, P = .001) of fatal and nonfatal CHD than those with a low homocysteine level (n = 597). The absolute risk reduction in fatal and nonfatal CHD with pravastatin treatment was 1.6% (95% CI = −1.6 to 4.7%) in the low homocysteine group and 6.7% (95% CI = 2.7–10.7%) in the high homocysteine group (difference 5.2%, 95% CI = 0.11–10.3, P = .046). Therefore, the number needed to treat (NNT) with pravastatin for 3.2 years for benefit related to fatal and nonfatal CHD events was 14.8 (95% CI = 9.3–36.6) for high homocysteine and 64.5 (95% CI = 21.4–∞) for low homocysteine.<p></p> Conclusion: In older persons at risk of CVD, those with high homocysteine are at highest risk for fatal and nonfatal CHD. With pravastatin treatment, this group has the highest absolute risk reduction and the lowest NNT to prevent fatal and nonfatal CHD.<p></p&gt

A systematic review of the association between circulating concentrations of C reactive protein and cancer.

The objective of this study was to review and summarise the published evidence for an association between circulating concentrations of C reactive protein (CRP) and cancer through a systematic review. 90 discrete studies were identified. 81 (90%) were prevalent case-control or cross-sectional studies, and only 9 studies had a prospective design. In most prevalent studies, CRP concentrations were found to be higher in patients with cancer than in healthy controls or controls with benign conditions. Of the nine large prospective studies identified in this review, four reported no relationship between circulating CRP levels and breast, prostate or colorectal cancers, and five studies found that CRP was associated with colorectal or lung cancers. Most of the studies evaluating CRP as a diagnostic marker of cancer did not present relevant statistical analyses. Furthermore, any association reported in the prevalent studies might reflect reverse causation, survival bias or confounding. The prospective studies provided no strong evidence for a causal role of CRP in cancer. Instead of further prevalent studies, more large prospective studies and CRP gene-cancer association studies would be valuable in investigating the role of CRP in cancer