Good Cholesterol Seems Less Important Once Statins Have Lowered Bad Cholesterol
Featured ArticleMain Category: Statins
Also Included In: Cholesterol; Cardiovascular / Cardiology; Heart Disease
Article Date: 23 Jul 2010 - 2:00 PST
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
3.33 (3 votes) |
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
3.5 (4 votes) |
| Article Opinions: | 1 posts |
Results of an international trial suggest that once statins have lowered LDL or "bad" cholesterol, the level of HDL or "good" cholesterol is less important in terms of predicting cardiovascular risk than it is during pre-treatment assessment.
You can read about the research behind these particular findings from the JUPITER trial in a report published in the early online issue of The Lancet on 22 July. The study was led by Dr Paul Ridker, Eugene Braunwald Professor of Medicine at the Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, both in Boston, Massachusetts.
The JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) trial, which ran from February 2003 to August 2008, showed that compared to placebo, long term use of AstraZeneca's statin Crestor (rosuvastatin) may lower risk of heart attacks and strokes in people with normal levels of cholesterol.
The participants were 17,802 men over 50 and women over 60 years of age, in over 850 locations worldwide, with no previous cardiovascular disease, and without diabetes, with low to normal levels of LDL (the "bad" cholesterol) and high levels of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP, a blood marker of inflammation, used as a rough indicator of heart disease risk).
A computer randomly assigned the participants to receive either Crestor (rosuvastatin) 20 mg per day, or a placebo (8,901 in each group); neither the administrators nor the participants knew whether the treatment contained the active drug or the placebo (double blind).
For this particular study, Ridker and colleagues divided the participants into four groups, according to their levels of "good" cholesterol (HDL), from low to high, and looked for links between HDL levels and significant cardiovascular events such as first non-fatal heart attacks or strokes, hospital attendances for unstable angina, arterial revascularisations, and of course, death due to cardiovascular causes.
Their results showed that:
- There were 44 per cent fewer cardiovascular events in the statin group compared to the placebo group (p<0·0001).
- In the placebo group, HDL levels were inversely linked to cardiovascular risk, both at the start of the study (baseline), and on treatment (top vs bottom quartile hazard ratios HR were 0·54 and 0.55, with 95 per cent confidence interval CI, ranging from 0· 35 to 0·83, and 0.35 to 0.87, p=0·0039 and p=0·0047, in each case).
- In comparison, the statin group showed no significant relationship between quartiles of HDL levels and cardiovascular risk, either at the baseline or on treatment (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·62-2·03, p=0·82 and HR 1·03, 95% 0·57-1·87, p=0·97, in each case).
- A parallel analysis of apolipoprotein A1 (a major protein in HDL), showed an equivalent strong relationship with cardiovascular events in the placebo group but little association in the statin group.
Although measurement of HDL-cholesterol concentration is useful as part of initial cardiovascular risk assessment, HDL-cholesterol concentrations are not predictive of residual vascular risk among patients treated with potent statin therapy who attain very low concentrations of LDL cholesterol."
Several companies are developing drugs that raise HDL, with the idea of combining them with statins to offer greater protection against heart attacks and strokes.
But these findings appear to question the need for drugs to raise HDL to prevent heart attacks, Ridker said in a telephone interview reported by Reuters.
"Once we get LDL into these very low ranges with very potent statins, HDL no longer predicts future risk of heart disease," he said.
The study was funded by AstraZeneca, who make Crestor, the statin used in the trial.
"HDL cholesterol and residual risk of first cardiovascular events after treatment with potent statin therapy: an analysis from the JUPITER trial."
Paul M Ridker, Jacques Genest, Matthijs Boekholdt, Peter Libby, Antonio M Gotto, Børge G Nordestgaard, Samia Mora, Jean G MacFadyen, Robert J Glynn, John JP Kastelein, for the JUPITER Trial Study Group.
The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 22 July 2010
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60713-1
Additional source: BWH, Reuters.
Written by: Catharine Paddock, PhD
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
MLA
15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/195673.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/195673.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
|
Rate this article: (Hover over the stars then click to rate) |
Patient / Public: |
or |
Health Professional: |
Visitor Opinions In Chronological Order (1)
Statins Not the Only Answer to Heart Disease
posted by Gretchen on 4 Aug 2010 at 6:57 amI am constantly amazed at the amount of time, energy, and money that is spent trying to develope drugs for this, that, and the other when we all know by now that the majority of the diseases of our time - heart disease, diabetes, numerous cancers among others - are diet and lifestyle diseases, unheard of when we ate "close to the earth" with vegetables (first and foremost), grains, and plant-based diets. The BEST way to significantly lower LDL is to stop eating fat and cholesterol. Period. This has been shown over and over and over again. In my opinion, all articles of this nature should begin with the statement/information that the most cost effective and healthiest way to achieve low cholesterol, low LDL is to eat a whole food plant-based diet with meat-eating only upon occasion if at all. Imagine eating delicious meals - all you can eat - until you are satiated (no dieting!)and to not EVER have to take a lifetime of pharmaceutical drugs with lifelong side effects - not to mention the VERY CONSIDERABLE cost. . .particulary if you are someone without "health" insurance as so many are these days. (And I put "health" in quotes because we do NOT have a health care industry in this country - we have a disease-care industry.).
Add Your Opinion
Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




