TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women
T2 - Meta-analysis of individual data from 174 000 participants in 27 randomised trials
AU - Fulcher, Jordan
AU - O'Connell, Rachel
AU - Voysey, Merryn
AU - Emberson, Jonathan
AU - Blackwell, Lisa
AU - Mihaylova, B.
AU - Simes, J.
AU - Collins, R.
AU - Kirby, Adrienne
AU - Colhoun, Helen
AU - Braunwald, Eugene
AU - La Rosa, John
AU - Pedersen, T. R.
AU - Tonkin, Andrew
AU - Davis, Barry
AU - Sleight, Peter
AU - Franzosi, Maria Grazia
AU - Baigent, Colin
AU - Keech, Anthony
AU - De Lemos, J.
AU - Blazing, M.
AU - Murphy, S.
AU - Downs, J. R.
AU - Gotto, A.
AU - Clearfield, M.
AU - Holdaas, H.
AU - Gordon, D.
AU - Koren, M.
AU - Dahlöf, B.
AU - Poulter, N.
AU - Sever, P.
AU - Knopp, R. H.
AU - Fellström, B.
AU - Jardine, A.
AU - Schmieder, R.
AU - Zannad, F.
AU - Goldbourt, U.
AU - Kaplinsky, E.
AU - Betteridge, D. J.
AU - Durrington, P. N.
AU - Hitman, G. A.
AU - Fuller, J.
AU - Neil, A.
AU - Wanner, C.
AU - Krane, V.
AU - Sacks, F.
AU - Moyé, L.
AU - Pfeffer, M.
AU - Hawkins, C. M.
AU - Kjekshus, J.
AU - Wedel, H.
AU - Wikstrand, J.
AU - Barter, P.
AU - Tavazzi, L.
AU - Maggioni, A.
AU - Marchioli, R.
AU - Tognoni, G.
AU - Bloomfield, H.
AU - Robins, S.
AU - Armitage, J.
AU - Parish, S.
AU - Peto, R.
AU - Ridker, P. M.
AU - Holman, R.
AU - Meade, T.
AU - MacMahon, S.
AU - Marschner, I. C.
AU - Shaw, J.
AU - Serruys, P. W.
AU - Nakamura, H.
AU - Knatterud, G.
AU - Furberg, C.
AU - Byington, R.
AU - Macfarlane, P.
AU - Cobbe, S.
AU - Ford, I.
AU - Murphy, M.
AU - Blauw, G. J.
AU - Packard, C.
AU - Shepherd, J.
AU - Wilhelmsen, L.
AU - Cannon, C.
AU - Bowman, L.
AU - Landray, M.
AU - Rossouw, J.
AU - Probstfield, J.
AU - Cobbe, S.
AU - Flather, M.
AU - Kastelein, J.
AU - Newman, C.
AU - Shear, C.
AU - Tobert, J.
AU - Varigos, J.
AU - White, H.
AU - Yusuf, S.
AU - Barnes, E. H.
AU - Herrington, W. G.
AU - Holland, L. E.
AU - Reith, C.
AU - Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration
N1 - Funding Information:
The CTT Collaboration is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and not by the pharmaceutical industry. Most of the trials in this report were supported (at least in part) by research grants from the pharmaceutical industry. Representatives of the pharmaceutical companies funding trials included in the CTT are invited to attend meetings and to comment on draft papers, but the final content of publications is determined by members of the writing committee. JF reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Pfizer outside the submitted work. RS reports grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer during the conduct of the study and grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. HC reports personal fees from Pfizer and Eli Lilly; grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca; institutional consultancy fees from and shares held in Roche Pharmaceuticals; and institutional consultancy fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Aventis, and Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. EB reports grants to institutions, uncompensated consultancies and lecture fees from Merck Sharpe & Dohme during the conduct of the study; grants to institutions from AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, SanofiAventis, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Beckman Coulter, Roche Diagnostics, Pfizer, and Duke University outside the submitted work; and personal fees from Genzyme, Amorcyte, Medicines Co, CardioRentis, Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Menarini International, Medscape, and Bayer outside the submitted work. JLR reports personal fees and honoraria from Pfizer during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer and Amgen outside the submitted work. TP reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, and Amgen and personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study. CB reports grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme during the conduct of the study and grants from Novartis and Pfizer outside the submitted work. AK reports personal fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer and honararia for lectures or advisory committees from Abbott and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the submitted work.
Funding Information:
The National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre (CTC) in Australia and the Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU) in the UK coordinate this collaboration jointly. The CTC is supported by a programme grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council ( no 1037786 ) and the CTSU by the UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, and Cancer Research UK.
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - Background: Whether statin therapy is as effective in women as in men is debated, especially for primary prevention. We undertook a meta-analysis of statin trials in the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration database to compare the effects of statin therapy between women and men. Methods: We performed meta-analyses on data from 22 trials of statin therapy versus control (n=134 537) and five trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy (n=39 612). Effects on major vascular events, major coronary events, stroke, coronary revascularisation and mortality were weighted per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol and effects in men and women compared with a Cox model that adjusted for non-sex differences. For subgroup analyses, we used 99% CIs to make allowance for the multiplicity of comparisons. Findings 46 675 (27%) of 174 149 randomly assigned participants were women. Allocation to a statin had similar absolute effects on 1 year lipid concentrations in both men and women (LDL cholesterol reduced by about 1·1 mmol/L in statin vs control trials and roughly 0·5 mmol/L for more-intensive vs less-intensive therapy). Women were generally at lower cardiovascular risk than were men in these trials. The proportional reductions per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in major vascular events were similar overall for women (rate ratio [RR] 0·84, 99% CI 0·78-0·91) and men (RR 0·78, 99% CI 0·75-0·81, adjusted p value for heterogeneity by sex=0·33) and also for those women and men at less than 10% predicted 5 year absolute cardiovascular risk (adjusted heterogeneity p=0·11). Likewise, the proportional reductions in major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke did not differ significantly by sex. No adverse effect on rates of cancer incidence or non-cardiovascular mortality was noted for either sex. These net benefits translated into all-cause mortality reductions with statin therapy for both women (RR 0·91, 99% CI 0·84-0·99) and men (RR 0·90, 99% CI 0·86-0·95; adjusted heterogeneity p=0·43). Interpretation In men and women at an equivalent risk of cardiovascular disease, statin therapy is of similar effectiveness for the prevention of major vascular events.
AB - Background: Whether statin therapy is as effective in women as in men is debated, especially for primary prevention. We undertook a meta-analysis of statin trials in the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration database to compare the effects of statin therapy between women and men. Methods: We performed meta-analyses on data from 22 trials of statin therapy versus control (n=134 537) and five trials of more-intensive versus less-intensive statin therapy (n=39 612). Effects on major vascular events, major coronary events, stroke, coronary revascularisation and mortality were weighted per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol and effects in men and women compared with a Cox model that adjusted for non-sex differences. For subgroup analyses, we used 99% CIs to make allowance for the multiplicity of comparisons. Findings 46 675 (27%) of 174 149 randomly assigned participants were women. Allocation to a statin had similar absolute effects on 1 year lipid concentrations in both men and women (LDL cholesterol reduced by about 1·1 mmol/L in statin vs control trials and roughly 0·5 mmol/L for more-intensive vs less-intensive therapy). Women were generally at lower cardiovascular risk than were men in these trials. The proportional reductions per 1·0 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol in major vascular events were similar overall for women (rate ratio [RR] 0·84, 99% CI 0·78-0·91) and men (RR 0·78, 99% CI 0·75-0·81, adjusted p value for heterogeneity by sex=0·33) and also for those women and men at less than 10% predicted 5 year absolute cardiovascular risk (adjusted heterogeneity p=0·11). Likewise, the proportional reductions in major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke did not differ significantly by sex. No adverse effect on rates of cancer incidence or non-cardiovascular mortality was noted for either sex. These net benefits translated into all-cause mortality reductions with statin therapy for both women (RR 0·91, 99% CI 0·84-0·99) and men (RR 0·90, 99% CI 0·86-0·95; adjusted heterogeneity p=0·43). Interpretation In men and women at an equivalent risk of cardiovascular disease, statin therapy is of similar effectiveness for the prevention of major vascular events.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84933673677
U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61368-4
DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61368-4
M3 - Article
C2 - 25579834
AN - SCOPUS:84933673677
SN - 0140-6736
VL - 385
SP - 1397
EP - 1405
JO - The Lancet
JF - The Lancet
IS - 9976
ER -