Understanding Statin Discontinuation

Source : Brigham and Women's Hospital

Brigham and Women's Hospital study examines the role adverse reactions play in statin discontinuation

Boston, MA-- Despite their well-documented benefits, statins, drugs used to lower cholesterol, are commonly discontinued in routine care. Statin discontinuation has been linked to increased risk for cardiovascular events and death in patients with coronary artery disease; nevertheless, the reasons for discontinuation are only starting to be explored. In a new study from Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), researchers examined the role adverse reactions play in statin discontinuation and found that more than 90 percent of the patients who stopped taking a statin due to an adverse reaction, were able to tolerate it when they tried again. This study is published in the April 2, 2013 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

"We were particularly interested in the role adverse reactions play in statin discontinuation," explained Alexander Turchin, MD, MS, a physician and researcher in the Division of Endocrinology at BWH and the senior author of the paper. "In my own clinical experience, I have found that many patients report adverse reactions to statins, such as muscle pain, and then stop taking them. At the same time, we often find that patients who had previously stopped taking a statin because of these adverse reactions, are ultimately able to tolerate them again the second time around."

The researchers examined clinical data from over 107,835 patients between 2000-2008, who were prescribed a statin. They used validated computational text analysis software in an electronic medical record (EMR) system to analyze statin discontinuation and identified patients who had statin-related events (possible side effects to statins), whether people stopped taking their statins after these events, whether they later restarted a statin, and what happened if they did.

The researchers found that approximately one fifth of people had a symptom or other event that may have been related to the drug, and more than half of these people stopped taking their statin, at least temporarily. More than half of the people who stopped because of an event started taking a statin again (although not necessarily the same one), and more than 90 percent of them continued taking the statin after restarting.

"We interpret these results as a glass half-full, meaning that there are potentially millions of patients who could take statins again, and ultimately reduce their risk of heart disease," explained Turchin. This study provides important take home messages for both patients and physicians. For patients, it's important to understand that just because you may have had an adverse reaction to a statin, that does not necessarily mean you should stop taking them altogether. For physicians, it's important to suggest to the patient that many times these drugs can be tolerated, and it may be time to try another statin or perhaps a lower dose

Researchers suggest that it is also important to conduct a clinical trial to determine whether rechallenging patients after statin-related events improves outcomes.

###

This research was supported by the National Library of Medicine, Diabetes Action Research and Education Foundation, and Chinese National Key Program of Clinical Science.

Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) is a 793-bed nonprofit teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School and a founding member of Partners HealthCare. BWH has more than 3.5 million annual patient visits, is the largest birthing center in New England and employs more than 15,000 people. The Brigham's medical preeminence dates back to 1832, and today that rich history in clinical care is coupled with its national leadership in patient care, quality improvement and patient safety initiatives, and its dedication to research, innovation, community engagement and educating and training the next generation of health care professionals. Through investigation and discovery conducted at its Biomedical Research Institute (BRI), BWH is an international leader in basic, clinical and translational research on human diseases, involving nearly 1,000 physician-investigators and renowned biomedical scientists and faculty supported by nearly $625 million in funding. BWH continually pushes the boundaries of medicine, including building on its legacy in organ transplantation by performing the first face transplants in the U.S. in 2011. BWH is also home to major landmark epidemiologic population studies, including the Nurses' and Physicians' Health Studies, OurGenes and the Women's Health Initiative. For more information and resources, please visit BWH's online newsroom.

  • <<
  • >>

Articles List

  • More than One Way to Change a Base

    More than One Way to Change a Base

    It’s easier than ever these days to clone and sequence DNA. Thanks to CRISPR/Cas and related technologies, it’s even straightforward to rewrite genomic sequences in living cells and organisms. But as powerful as it is, CRISPR, et al., cannot induce genetic rewrites in a test tube—genome editing requires cellular machinery to repair the DNA breaks the methods produce. Instead, researchers interested in mutating cloned genes on plasmids must revert to a tried-and-true method, site-directed mutagenesis. First described in the 1970s—and earning its inventor a share of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993—site-directed mutagenesis uses short oligonucleotides to introduce single base changes, as well as insertions and deletions, to DNA plasmids. Researchers can use the method to swap amino acids in expressed proteins, test clinically relevant mutations and tweak promoters. But there’s more than one way to change a base, and molecular-tools vendors have commercialized multiple strategies. Here, we review some of the more popular approaches to site-directed mutagenesis.
  • What Doesn’t Kill You … Testing for Chemical Toxicity

    What Doesn’t Kill You … Testing for Chemical Toxicity

    Understanding the effects of small molecules, compounds and chemicals on cells is the very core of drug discovery, one in which the pharmaceutical industry continues to invest billions of dollars. Yet alongside the question of whether such entities have a desired effect looms that of whether they have a toxic effect on those cells—and ultimately the tissues and organisms the cells compose. This question has equal importance to those who protect our environment and assure that our food is safe to eat. Testing chemical toxicity can take many forms, from looking for simple surrogates of death, such as the inability to exclude trypan blue, to sophisticated measures of changes in a specific cell type’s physiology. Various assays look at pathways leading to cell death, membrane integrity, depletion of energy, ability to proliferate and changes in differentiation. They are accomplished using instruments ranging from a hemocytometer and light microscope; to a Coulter counter, microplate reader or flow cytometer; to a high-content analysis solution found principally in screening cores at biotech and larger pharmaceutical companies. Screens for loss of viability are often the first line of inquiry, and only after an entity is shown to cause a decrease in survival is it then subjected to more nuanced assays [1]. Here we look at the principal means by which entities are tested for their effects on viability.

Disqus Comments