Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome benefits in those originally assigned atorvastatin in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-8 years after closure of the lipid-lowering arm (LLA) of the trial (ASCOT-LLA) among the U.K. population. METHODS AND RESULTS: ASCOT-LLA was a factorially designed double-blind placebo-controlled trial of atorvastatin in 10 305 hypertensive patients enrolled into the ASCOT-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (BPLA) of the trial and with total cholesterol concentrations, at baseline, of <6.5 mmol/L. ASCOT-LLA was stopped prematurely after a median 3.3-year follow-up because of a 36% relative risk reduction (RRR) in non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) (the primary outcome) in favour of atorvastatin and a non-significant reduction in CV deaths (16%) and all-cause mortality (13%). After a further 2.2 years at the end of ASCOT-BPLA, despite extensive crossovers from and to statin usage, the RRR in all endpoints remained essentially unchanged. A median 11 years after initial randomization and ∼8 years after closure of LLA, all-cause mortality (n=520 and 460 in placebo and atorvastatin, respectively) remained significantly lower in those originally assigned atorvastatin (HR 0.86, CI 0.76-0.98, P=0.02). CV deaths were fewer, but not significant (HR 0.89, CI 0.72-1.11, P=0.32) and non-CV deaths were significantly lower (HR 0.85, CI 0.73-0.99, P=0.03) in those formerly assigned atorvastatin attributed to a reduction in deaths due to infection and respiratory illness. CONCLUSION: Legacy effects of those originally assigned atorvastatin may contribute to long-term benefits on all-cause mortality. An explanation for long-term benefits on non-CV deaths has not been established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sever et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: