GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Kang, Woong Chol  (5)
  • Lee, Yong-Joon  (5)
  • 1
    In: eClinicalMedicine, Elsevier BV, Vol. 64 ( 2023-10), p. 102227-
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2589-5370
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2946413-4
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: JAMA, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 329, No. 13 ( 2023-04-04), p. 1078-
    Abstract: In patients with coronary artery disease, some guidelines recommend initial statin treatment with high-intensity statins to achieve at least a 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). An alternative approach is to begin with moderate-intensity statins and titrate to a specific LDL-C goal. These alternatives have not been compared head-to-head in a clinical trial involving patients with known coronary artery disease. Objective To assess whether a treat-to-target strategy is noninferior to a strategy of high-intensity statins for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants A randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial in patients with a coronary disease diagnosis treated at 12 centers in South Korea (enrollment: September 9, 2016, through November 27, 2019; final follow-up: October 26, 2022). Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the LDL-C target strategy, with an LDL-C level between 50 and 70 mg/dL as the target, or high-intensity statin treatment, which consisted of rosuvastatin, 20 mg, or atorvastatin, 40 mg. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary end point was a 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization with a noninferiority margin of 3.0 percentage points. Results Among 4400 patients, 4341 patients (98.7%) completed the trial (mean [SD] age, 65.1 [9.9] years; 1228 females [27.9%]). In the treat-to-target group (n = 2200), which had 6449 person-years of follow-up, moderate-intensity and high-intensity dosing were used in 43% and 54%, respectively. The mean (SD) LDL-C level for 3 years was 69.1 (17.8) mg/dL in the treat-to-target group and 68.4 (20.1) mg/dL in the high-intensity statin group (n = 2200) ( P  = .21, compared with the treat-to-target group). The primary end point occurred in 177 patients (8.1%) in the treat-to-target group and 190 patients (8.7%) in the high-intensity statin group (absolute difference, –0.6 percentage points [upper boundary of the 1-sided 97.5% CI, 1.1 percentage points]; P   & amp;lt; .001 for noninferiority). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with coronary artery disease, a treat-to-target LDL-C strategy of 50 to 70 mg/dL as the goal was noninferior to a high-intensity statin therapy for the 3-year composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization. These findings provide additional evidence supporting the suitability of a treat-to-target strategy that may allow a tailored approach with consideration for individual variability in drug response to statin therapy. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02579499
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0098-7484
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2958-0
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2018410-4
    SSG: 5,21
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: JAMA Cardiology, American Medical Association (AMA), Vol. 8, No. 9 ( 2023-09-01), p. 853-
    Abstract: High-intensity statin is strongly recommended in patients at very high risk (VHR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, concerns about statin-associated adverse effects result in underuse of this strategy in practice. Objective To evaluate the outcomes of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination in VHR and non-VHR patients with ASCVD. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid Lowering With Statin Monotherapy vs Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-Risk Cardiovascular Disease (RACING) open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted from February 2017 to December 2018 at 26 centers in Korea. Study participants included patients with documented ASCVD. Data were analyzed from April to June 2022. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin, 10 mg, with ezetimibe, 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin, 20 mg). Patients at VHR for ASCVD were defined according to the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was the 3-year outcome of cardiovascular death, coronary or peripheral revascularization, hospitalization of cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. Results A total of 3780 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 2826 male [75%]) in the RACING trial, 1511 (40.0%) were categorized as VHR, which was associated with a greater occurrence of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR] , 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15-1.75). There was no significant difference in the primary end point between those who received combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with VHR disease (11.2% vs 11.7%; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30) and non-VHR disease (7.7% vs 8.7%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). The median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was significantly lower in the combination therapy group than in the high-intensity statin group (VHR, 1 year: 57 [47-71] mg/dL vs 65 [53-78] mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: 58 mg/dL vs 68 mg/dL; P   & amp;lt; .001). Furthermore, in both the VHR and non-VHR groups, combination therapy was associated with a significantly greater mean change in LDL-C level (VHR, 1 year: −19.1 mg/dL vs −10.1 mg/dL; 2 years: −22.3 mg/dL vs −13.0 mg/dL; 3 years: −18.8 mg/dL vs −9.7 mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: −23.7 mg/dL vs −12.5 mg/dL; 2 years: −25.2 mg/dL vs −15.1 mg/dL; 3 years: −23.5 mg/dL vs −12.6 mg/dL; all P   & amp;lt; .001) and proportion of patients with LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL (VHR, 1 year: 73% vs 58%; non-VHR, 1 year: 72% vs 53%; P   & amp;lt; .001). Discontinuation or dose reduction of the lipid-lowering drug due to intolerance occurred less frequently in the combination therapy group (VHR, 4.6% vs 7.7%; P  = .02; non-VHR, 5.0% vs 8.7%; P  = .001). Conclusions and Relevance Results suggest that the outcomes of ezetimibe combination observed in the RACING trial were consistent among patients at VHR of ASCVD. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03044665
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2380-6583
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
    Publication Date: 2023
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: European Heart Journal, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 44, No. 11 ( 2023-03-14), p. 972-983
    Abstract: This study evaluated the effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods and results This was a pre-specified, stratified subgroup analysis of the DM cohort in the RACING trial. The primary outcome was a 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke. Among total patients, 1398 (37.0%) had DM at baseline. The incidence of the primary outcome was 10.0% and 11.3% among patients with DM randomized to ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.64–1.22; P = 0.460). Intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction of the study drug was observed in 5.2% and 8.7% of patients in each group, respectively (P = 0.014). LDL cholesterol levels & lt;70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were observed in 81.0%, 83.1%, and 79.9% of patients in the ezetimibe combination therapy group, and 64.1%, 70.2%, and 66.8% of patients in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all P & lt; 0.001). In the total population, no significant interactions were found between DM status and therapy regarding primary outcome, intolerance-related discontinuation or dose reduction, and the proportion of patients with LDL cholesterol levels & lt;70 mg/dL. Conclusion Ezetimibe combination therapy effects observed in the RACING trial population are preserved among patients with DM. This study supports moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy as a suitable alternative to high-intensity statins if the latter cannot be tolerated, or further reduction in LDL cholesterol is required among patients with DM and ASCVD. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier:NCT03044665.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0195-668X , 1522-9645
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2001908-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Age and Ageing, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 53, No. 7 ( 2024-07-02)
    Abstract: The optimal statin treatment strategy that is balanced for both efficacy and safety has not been clearly determined in older adults with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods In the post hoc analysis of the LODESTAR (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-targeting statin therapy versus intensity-based statin therapy in patients with coronary artery disease) trial, the impact between a treat-to-target strategy versus a high-intensity statin therapy strategy was compared in older adults (aged 75 years or older). The goal of treat-to-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was 50–70 mg/dl. The primary endpoint comprised the three-year composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary revascularisation. Results Among 4,400 patients with CAD enrolled in the LODESTAR trial, 822 (18.7%) were aged 75 years or older. Poor clinical outcomes and risk factors for atherosclerosis were more frequently observed in older adults than in younger population ( & lt;75 years old). Among these older adults with CAD, the prescription rate of high-intensity statin was significantly lower in the treat-to-target strategy group throughout the study period (P & lt; 0.001). The mean LDL-C level for three years was 65 ± 16 mg/dl in the treat-to-target strategy group and 64 ± 18 mg/dl in the high-intensity statin group (P = 0.34). The incidence of primary endpoint occurrence was 10.9% in the treat-to-target strategy group and 12.0% in the high-intensity statin group (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.61–1.38, P = 0.69). Conclusions High-intensity statin therapy is theoretically more necessary in older adults because of worse clinical outcomes and greater number of risk factors for atherosclerosis. However, the primary endpoint occurrence with a treat-to-target strategy with an LDL-C goal of 50–70 mg/dl was comparable to that of high-intensity statin therapy and reduced utilisation of a high-intensity statin. Taking efficacy as well as safety into account, adopting a tailored approach may be considered for this high-risk population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02579499.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0002-0729 , 1468-2834
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2024
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2065766-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...