[HTML][HTML] A randomized trial of rosuvastatin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism

RJ Glynn, E Danielson, FAH Fonseca… - … England Journal of …, 2009 - Mass Medical Soc
RJ Glynn, E Danielson, FAH Fonseca, J Genest, AM Gotto Jr, JJP Kastelein, W Koenig…
New England Journal of Medicine, 2009Mass Medical Soc
Background Controversy persists regarding the extent of shared pathways between arterial
and venous thrombosis and whether treatments of known efficacy for one disease process
have consistent benefits for the other. Observational studies have yielded variable estimates
of the effect of statin therapy on the risk of venous thromboembolism, and evidence from
randomized trials is lacking. Methods We randomly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy
men and women with both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of less than 130 …
Background
Controversy persists regarding the extent of shared pathways between arterial and venous thrombosis and whether treatments of known efficacy for one disease process have consistent benefits for the other. Observational studies have yielded variable estimates of the effect of statin therapy on the risk of venous thromboembolism, and evidence from randomized trials is lacking.
Methods
We randomly assigned 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg per liter or higher to receive rosuvastatin, 20 mg per day, or placebo. We followed participants for the first occurrence of pulmonary embolism or deep-vein thrombosis and performed analyses of the data on an intention-to-treat basis.
Results
During a median follow-up period of 1.9 years (maximum, 5.0), symptomatic venous thromboembolism occurred in 94 participants: 34 in the rosuvastatin group and 60 in the placebo group. The rates of venous thromboembolism were 0.18 and 0.32 event per 100 person-years of follow-up in the rosuvastatin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio with rosuvastatin, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.86; P=0.007); the corresponding rates for unprovoked venous thromboembolism (i.e., occurring in the absence of a known malignant condition, trauma, hospitalization, or surgery) were 0.10 and 0.17 (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.09; P=0.09) and for provoked venous thromboembolism (i.e., occurring in patients with cancer or during or shortly after trauma, hospitalization, or surgery), 0.08 and 0.16 (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.96; P=0.03). The rates of pulmonary embolism were 0.09 in the rosuvastatin group and 0.12 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.45; P=0.42), whereas the rates of deep-vein thrombosis only were 0.09 and 0.20, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.79; P=0.004). Consistent effects were observed in all the subgroups examined. No significant differences were seen between treatment groups in the rates of bleeding episodes.
Conclusions
In this trial of apparently healthy persons, rosuvastatin significantly reduced the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00239681.)
The New England Journal Of Medicine