Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized double-blind trial demonstrates greater LDL-C reduction with rosuvastatin than pravastatin or simvastatin in hypercholesterolaemia, indicating higher treatment goal achievement.
BACKGROUND: Rosuvastatin (Crestor), a new, highly efficacious statin, has demonstrated dose-dependent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reductions of up to 65% in a dose-ranging programme with doses of 1 to 80 mg. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind multicentre trial compared rosuvastatin with commonly used starting doses of pravastatin and simvastatin to determine relative efficacy in LDL-C reduction and impact on other lipid parameters in primary hypercholesterolaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 502 patients (greater-than-or-equal 18 years; LDL-C greater-than-or-equal 4.14 mmol/l [160 mg/dl] and < 6.50 mmol/l [250 mg/dl] and triglycerides less-than-or-equal 4.52 mmol/l [400 mg/dl]) were randomized to 12 weeks of rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 120) or 10 mg (n = 115), pravastatin 20 mg (n=]137) or simvastatin 20 mg (n = 130). Rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg reduced LDL-C by 42 and 49%, respectively, compared with 28% for pravastatin (P < 0.001 versus both rosuvastatin doses) and 37% for simvastatin (P < 0.01 versus rosuvastatin 5 mg; P < 0.001 versus 10[?]mg). National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II (NCEP ATP II) goals were achieved by 87% of rosuvastatin 10[?]mg patients, 71% of rosuvastatin 5[?]mg patients, 53% of pravastatin patients, and 64% of simvastatin patients; similar proportions of patients achieved NCEP ATP III goals. European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) goals were achieved by 83, 63, 20 and 50% of patients, respectively. All study treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Both doses of rosuvastatin were more effective than pravastatin and simvastatin in meeting NCEP ATP II and EAS LDL-C targets. Rosuvastatin 10 mg was more effective than pravastatin and simvastatin in meeting NCEP ATP III targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paoletti et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: