If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Requests for reprints should be addressed to David H. Smith, PhD, RPh, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Center for Health Research Northwest, 3800 N. Interstate Avenue, Portland, OR 97227-1098.
Whether there is a kidney function threshold to statin effectiveness in patients with acute myocardial infarction is poorly understood. Our study sought to help fill this gap in clinical knowledge.
Methods
We undertook a new-user cohort study of the effectiveness of statin therapy by level of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in adults who were hospitalized for myocardial infarction between 2000 and 2008. Data came from the Cardiovascular Research Network. The primary clinical outcomes were 1-year all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, with adverse outcomes of myopathy and development of diabetes mellitus. We calculated incidence rates, the number needed to treat, and used Cox proportional hazards regression with propensity score matching and adjustment to control for confounding, with testing for variation of effect by level of kidney function.
Results
Compared with statin non-initiators (n = 5583), statin initiators (n = 5597) had a lower propensity score-adjusted risk for death (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.88) and cardiovascular hospitalizations (hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00). We found little evidence of variation in effect by level of eGFR (P = .86 for death; P = .77 for cardiovascular hospitalization). Adverse outcomes were similar for statin initiators and statin non-initiators. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 additional death over 1 year of follow-up ranged from 15 (95% CI, 11-28) for eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 requiring statin treatment over 2 years to prevent 1 additional death, to 67 (95% CI, 49-118) for patients with eGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that there is potential for important public health gains by increasing the routine use of statin therapy for patients with lower levels of kidney function.
Patients with chronic kidney disease can enjoy similar benefits from statin treatment as patients without chronic kidney disease.
•
Because cardiovascular event rates increase with decreasing kidney function, the number needed to treat is smaller (more favorable) with decreasing level of kidney function.
•
Thus there is potential for public health gains from decreasing the existing disparity in statin treatment by level of chronic kidney disease.
Patients with chronic kidney disease are at high risk for developing cardiovascular disease.
Randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of statins in primary and secondary prevention for reducing cardiovascular disease risk in patients without chronic kidney disease.
Importantly, however, these analyses used data that were not sufficiently granular to assess statin effects by level of kidney function—particularly relevant given that more than 30% of patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome have stage 3 chronic kidney disease or worse.
Influence of concurrent renal dysfunction on outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and implications of the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
One potential explanation for the lack of statin effectiveness in chronic dialysis is physiological differences in the mechanism of development of cardiovascular disease with different levels of kidney function. Calcification of coronary arteries in the general population is often characterized by vascular intimal injury within the vessel, followed by development of a lipomatous plaque that can rupture, leading to platelet aggregation, vessel occlusion, and acute myocardial infarction (MI). Although statins may be most effective in reducing vascular disease with a strong lipomatous component, vascular disease among patients with chronic kidney disease seems to arise, at least in part, from changes in regulation of mineral metabolism in the setting of damaged kidneys, which ultimately causes medial calcification.
The vascular injury resulting from calcification among chronic kidney disease patients may not be as amenable to treatment with statin therapy. These issues clearly indicate that research is needed to guide evidence-based clinical decision making across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease severity.
To fill this need, we examined the use and impact of statins for secondary prevention by level of kidney function across a broad spectrum of patients who were recently hospitalized for acute MI. We hypothesized that the effectiveness of statins would be lower with worsening kidney function.
Methods
Setting
Patients were drawn from geographically and demographically diverse integrated healthcare delivery systems participating in the Cardiovascular Research Network, a consortium of investigators and health plans funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Intitute. Data for this analysis were from Cardiovascular Research Network sites with the necessary data and included 5 Kaiser Permanente regions—Northwest, Northern California, Southern California, Colorado, and Hawaii—and the Group Health Cooperative (Seattle, Wash). The institutional review boards at each site approved the study and a waiver of informed consent.
Participants
Patients were identified and followed using electronic data from healthcare encounters contained in each site's virtual data warehouse.
We defined the index event as hospitalization between January 2000 and December 2008 with a primary discharge diagnosis of MI (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes: 410.xx, excluding 410.x2 [follow-up care]). Previous work has shown that these codes have a positive predictive value of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91-98).
Positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes 410 and 411 in the identification of cases of acute coronary syndromes in the Saskatchewan Hospital automated database.
We excluded patients if, during the 365 days before hospital discharge from their index event, there was any inpatient or outpatient visit for MI (ICD-9-CM 410.xx), dispensing of a lipid-lowering agent (statins, bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, cholesterol absorption inhibitors, nicotinic acids), or evidence of renal dialysis. We excluded patients younger than 18 years, those with no outpatient serum creatinine measurement during the year before their index event, those who died during the 90 days following their index event, and patients without at least 12 months of continuous health system membership and pharmacy benefit before their index event.
We first analyzed the entire eligible cohort and then took advantage of the availability of important potential confounder data on baseline body mass index (BMI) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in a subgroup analysis. Other clinical data were not available. This subset of 2091 eligible subjects' index events occurred during the time period when their health plan used an electronic medical record system that provided access to BMI and SBP, so they were more likely to have recent events (>80% of the subcohort had an index date between 2006 and 2008).
Study Design: Statin Exposure Ascertainment and Follow-up
Figure 1 illustrates our new-user study design. Statin exposure was ascertained through pharmacy records. We divided patients into statin initiators and non-initiators according to whether they had a new statin dispensing during the 2 days before leaving the hospital (to capture discharge statin dispensing), or up to 90 days after their index hospitalization. Time zero for follow-up began at 90 days after discharge, and we followed patients for both 1-year and 2-year time frames, using an intent-to-treat design. We chose this window for identification of statin dispensing and start of follow-up so that all patients would be followed from a common point in their natural history, and because we wanted to compare our results with clinical trials of secondary prevention with statins. These trials typically enroll patients who are at least 3 months post-MI.
The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators.
Outcomes included cardiovascular disease-related hospitalization (primary discharge ICD-9-CM codes 390-459) and all-cause death. Deaths were identified from the each site's vital statistics files. Our primary outcome analysis was 1 year because of concern over statin initiation among the non-initiator group with time.
Adverse Outcomes
We included known statin-related adverse outcomes of diabetes mellitus
Construction of a multisite datalink using electronic health records for the identification, surveillance, prevention, and management of diabetes mellitus: The SUPREME-DM Project.
(1 inpatient stay or at least 2 outpatient visits coded with any of 250.x, 357.2, 366.41, 362.01-362.07). Myopathy was identified using ICD-9-CM codes that have a positive predictive value of 74%
(inpatient stay coded with 791.3, or inpatient stay with primary discharge code 728.89, or secondary discharge code of 728.89 along with a creatine kinase test performed within 7 days of the hospitalization, or code 584.xx along with secondary discharge code of 728.89).
Covariates
We measured all baseline characteristics during the year before the index date. We classified patients into groups according to their level of kidney function using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation
to estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in mL/min per 1.73 m2. We used the serum creatinine measurement from the ambulatory setting that was closest to, and before, a patient's index date. Consonant with staging recommendations,
we present within-group comparisons for patients with eGFR (in units of mL/min per 1.73 m2) in categories of ≥90, 60-89, 45-59, 30-44 and <30.
Propensity Scores and Adjustment for Confounding
To balance the groups of statin initiators and non-initiators on observed variables, thus reducing the impact of selection, we used logistic regression to estimate study site-specific propensity scores (PSs)
Rassen JA, Doherty M, Huang W, Schneeweiss S. Pharmacoepidemiology Toolbox. Version 2.4.11. Boston: 2013. Available at: http://www.hdpharmacoepi.org. Accessed July 30, 2015.
for the initiation of statin therapy (0.05 caliper). These PSs were also used as adjustment variables in our models. The PS we constructed for the primary analysis included the following potential confounders, selected on clinical grounds (ie, potentially associated with exposure and outcome): age, sex, race, income and education (from 2000 US Census data), selected laboratory tests and findings (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglyceride, blood glucose, hemoglobin, glycated hemoglobin, and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio), specific medications (β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics), diagnoses (hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, heart failure, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, atrial fibrillation/flutter, mitral and/or aortic valvular disease, peripheral arterial disease, dementia, chronic lung disease, and depression), and baseline prevalence of healthcare utilization (defined as counts of lipid-related laboratory tests; unique medications dispensed; unique cardiovascular diagnoses; total unique diagnoses; cardiovascular hospitalizations, all-cause hospitalizations, cardiology visits; emergency department visits; and ambulatory office visits). The PS constructed for the subcohort included the most recent pre-index date ambulatory BMI and SBP, as well as the variables included in the whole-cohort PS. As shown in Figure 1, PS variables were all evaluated during a 1-year baseline. We matched statin initiators to statin non-initiators using a 1:1 “greedy” matching algorithm to match statin initiators and non-initiators on the PS
Rassen JA, Doherty M, Huang W, Schneeweiss S. Pharmacoepidemiology Toolbox. Version 2.4.11. Boston: 2013. Available at: http://www.hdpharmacoepi.org. Accessed July 30, 2015.
; we also undertook a 10:1 match with nearly identical results. Balance was assessed using absolute standardized differences, and as suggested by other investigators,
The hd-PS included all the variables listed above, plus more than 400 variables constructed from cardiovascular medication dispensings, diagnosis codes, and procedure codes. The hd-PS algorithm first screens candidate confounders by estimating unconditional associations of individual potential confounders with the exposure and then separately with the outcome. Covariates were then ranked by their confounding potential; we included the top 500.
We had to omit lipid values measured after index hospital discharge because these values may have reflected intermediate, treated values that could bias estimates of comparative effectiveness.
During the “transition period” (Figure 1), we collected data on important co-interventions, including use of other medications (ie, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics) and coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting). Because these variables are likely not intermediates, we controlled for them in the analysis using stratification (by estimating a separate baseline hazard).
Statistical Analysis
We calculated incidence rates and 95% CIs for all outcomes by statin exposure status and level of eGFR. We also constructed Kaplan-Meier survival curves by level of kidney function and then estimated the relative hazard for each outcome using Cox proportional hazards regression models. These models included a term for statin initiation, propensity to receive statin, co-intervention adjustments, level of kidney function, and the interaction of kidney function with statin initiation, and were stratified by receipt of important co-interventions during the transition period. We used a “missing” category for variables with missing data.
We calculated the proportion of cross-overs—non-initiators who initiated statin therapy after the start of follow-up—and conducted a separate analysis for which cross-overs were censored when they crossed over. An additional analysis included an interaction term for statin initiation with proteinuria defined by a urine dipstick being positive for protein of 1+ or greater (yes/no). We also estimated the number needed to treat (NNT) with a statin to prevent 1 outcome, by level of kidney function.
We initially identified a total of 139,636 patients hospitalized for MI between January 2000 and December 2008, and 21,942 (14,985 statin initiators; 6957 non-initiators) were included in our analysis sample (Figure 2). The most common reasons for exclusion were previous MI (23%), no serum creatinine measurement before MI (20%), and pre-existing use of lipid-lowering medication (16%).
Figure 2Cohort assembly. AMI = acute myocardial infarction.
Before matching, statin initiators tended to be younger than non-initiators, have better baseline kidney function, less diabetes, and less prior inpatient health care utilization, but a higher mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (Table 1). Standardized differences indicated imbalance (ie, >0.1) before matching, but the PS matched sample of 5597 statin initiators and 5583 non-initiators was well-balanced.
Table 1Baseline Characteristics of Propensity Score–Matched Statin Initiators and Statin Non-initiators
Variable
Whole Cohort
1:1 Propensity Score–Matched Cohort
Statin Initiators (n = 14,985)
Statin Non-initiators (n = 6957)
Standardized Difference
Statin Initiators (n = 5597)
Statin Non-initiators (n = 5583)
Standardized Difference
Age (y)
Mean (SD)
67.62
(13.2)
73.16
(13.8)
−0.41
71.96
(12.5)
71.64
(14.1)
0.02
Age <45
582
(3.9)
241
(3.5)
0.02
101
(1.8)
228
(4.1)
−0.14
Age 45-54
2088
(13.9)
536
(7.7)
0.20
475
(8.5)
511
(9.2)
−0.02
Age 55-64
3558
(23.7)
996
(14.3)
0.24
974
(17.4)
911
(16.3)
0.03
Age 65-74
3683
(24.6)
1450
(20.8)
0.09
1409
(25.2)
1219
(21.8)
0.08
Age 75-84
3519
(23.5)
2226
(32.0)
−0.19
1733
(31.0)
1657
(29.7)
0.03
Age 85+
1555
(10.4)
1508
(21.7)
−0.31
905
(16.2)
1057
(18.9)
−0.07
Female
5813
(38.8)
3544
(50.9)
−0.25
2748
(49.1)
2699
(48.3)
0.02
Race
White
10543
(70.4)
4941
(71.0)
−0.01
4085
(73.0)
3927
(70.3)
0.06
Non-white
2826
(18.9)
1196
(17.2)
0.04
936
(16.7)
1016
(18.2)
−0.04
Missing
1616
(10.8)
820
(11.8)
−0.03
576
(10.3)
640
(11.2)
−0.03
Education level, % with <college degree, mean (SD)
We found that the rate of clinical outcomes increased with lower kidney function at both 1 and 2 years; within any given level of kidney function, the rate was always lower for statin initiators. For example, among patients with eGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m2, the 1-year death rate for statin initiators was 5.1 per 100 person-years, compared with 7.7 per 100 person-years for non-initiators. For patients with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, the death rate was 367.2 per 100 person-years for statin initiators, and 49.5 per 100 person-years for non-initiators. The differential with cardiovascular hospitalization was less stark: among patients with an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, the rate over 1 year for statin initiators was 33.9 per 100 person-years, compared with 35.6 per 100 person-years for statin non-initiators.
The hazard ratio (HR) for death at 1 year for statin initiation compared with non-initiation was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.71-0.88) and 0.9 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00) for cardiovascular hospitalization (Table 2). The P value for the interaction term between eGFR and statin initiation was not significant for death or for cardiovascular hospitalization. Because our main research question involves whether statin effects vary by level of renal function, we also report the estimated effect HR for statin initiation vs non-initiation by eGFR category. Those HRs show no clinically important variation across level of eGFR for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (Figure 3).
Figure 3Hazard ratio for death and cardiovascular hospitalization, by level of renal function. eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate.
We found few diagnosed myopathy events in the MI matched cohort (54 among statin initiators and 66 among statin non-initiators). Diabetes incidence was similar between initiators and non-initiators, within level of kidney function (Table 3).
Table 2Clinical Outcomes Over 1 Year: Analysis of Secondary Prevention After Myocardial Infarction for Statin Initiators Compared with Statin Non-initiators
Variable
Statin Initators (n = 5597)
Statin Non-Initiators (n = 5583)
PS Matched and Adjusted Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
Events
Events per 100 Person-Years
Events
Events per 100 Person-Years
Death
614
11.93
904
18.47
0.79 (0.71-0.88)
P value for interaction of statin initiation by level of kidney function
.86
CV hospitalization
805
16.84
850
18.74
0.90 (0.82-1.00)
P value for interaction of statin initiation by level of kidney function
.77
Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated from Cox proportional hazards regression.
The HR for myopathy at 1 year (0.82; 95% CI, 0.57-1.20) and diabetes development (0.97; 95% CI, 0.84-1.12) showed the risk for both outcomes was similar between statin initiators and non-initiators; the risk did not vary by level of kidney function.
Our results were robust with respect to variations in kidney function: patients without dipstick proteinuria (negative or trace) had an HR for death at 1 year of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.68-1.06) for statin initiators compared with non-initiators, and patients with positive dipstick proteinuria (1+ or greater) had an HR of 0.55 (95% CI, 0.20-1.56).
The use of the hd-PS adjustment yielded nearly identical findings (HR for death 0.81 [95% CI, 0.72-0.91], HR for cardiovascular hospitalization 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78, 0.98]), as did the analysis in the subcohort that additionally adjusted for BMI and blood pressure. Censoring at statin cross-over yielded results similar to the primary analysis, and our 2-year results also closely mirrored the 1-year findings for all analyses and outcomes.
Our NNT estimates (Table 4) suggest that 31 patients in our sample would need statin therapy to prevent 1 death and that 65 patients in our sample would prevent 1 cardiovascular hospitalization. However, because the rate of death and cardiovascular hospitalization was greater with worsening kidney function, the NNT was much more favorable at lower levels of eGFR.
Table 4Survival Probability, and Numbers Needed to Treat at 1 Year to Prevent 1 Outcome
Outcome
Survival Probability at 1 year (Non-Initiators)
Number Needed to Treat to Benefit (95% CI)
Death
Overall
0.83
31 (22-55)
eGFR >90
0.93
67 (49-118)
eGFR 60-89
0.87
40 (29-70)
eGFR 45-59
0.82
28 (20-50)
eGFR 30-44
0.74
21 (15-37)
eGFR <30
0.63
15 (11-28)
Cardiovascular hospitalization
Overall
0.83
65
eGFR >90
0.91
114
eGFR 60-89
0.85
71
eGFR 45-59
0.82
60
eGFR 30-44
0.78
50
eGFR <30
0.72
41
The risk difference for cardiovascular hospitalization was not statistically significant, therefore we cannot calculate a 95% confidence interval (CI) on number needed to treat to benefit for cardiovascular hospitalization.
Our findings suggest that patients with mild to moderate chronic kidney disease enjoy the same relative cardioprotective and mortality reduction benefits of statin use as do patients with preserved eGFR. These findings are consonant with recent reports from systematic reviews of clinical trial subgroups.
However, our study also confirms that the absolute rate of death and cardiovascular hospitalization varies by level of kidney function, so the constant relative risk reduction from statin therapy translates into a greater absolute risk reduction with worsening kidney function.
The variable benefit—on the absolute scale—of statin therapy by level of kidney function may be especially important because patients with kidney dysfunction are known to have a lower probability of being treated with cardioprotective therapy, including statins.
so we examined data from the last year of our study (2008) and found that 71% of our patients with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 initiated statin therapy within the 90 days following an MI, compared with 90% of patients with eGFR >90 mL/min/1.73 m2. Thus, although relative statin treatment effects may not differ by level of renal function, poor outcome rates and treatment rates do differ by level of renal function, suggesting that attention could be focused usefully on increasing treatment rates among patients with predialysis chronic kidney disease. Substantial public health gains might be made by eliminating this “treatment-risk paradox.”
of subgroups from clinical trials in patients with chronic kidney disease. For example, statins were estimated to reduce all-cause mortality (relative risk 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and cardiovascular events (relative risk 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80). Although informative, those studies had to combine all predialysis chronic kidney disease patients together, regardless of disease stage, leaving the residual question of whether there is a renal function threshold below which statins are not effective. This is an important limitation of those meta-analyses because the physiologic disruption of mineral metabolism thought to cause the medial calcification in chronic kidney disease may increase with worsening stage of kidney disease. Our study lends reassurance to treatment decisions because of findings of consistent relative effects across the spectrum of predialysis chronic kidney disease.
The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) was conducted among patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease or worse, and the investigators showed that compared with placebo, simvastatin plus ezetimibe was effective at reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.
and have reported benefits of preventing major atherosclerotic events (the combination of MI, coronary death, ischemic stroke, or revascularization), but the findings were not significant for mortality. Although important, SHARP did not include patients with known atherosclerotic disease, and it tested a combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin. Our study expands on SHARP by examining the use and impact of statins for secondary cardiovascular event prevention across a broad spectrum of chronic kidney disease patients, and by stratifying more finely by level of eGFR.
Several observational studies have reported on the effectiveness of secondary prevention with statin treatment in patients with chronic kidney disease, but these reports have important limitations, including small samples resulting in aggregation across stage of chronic kidney disease,
Renal function and effect of statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing coronary revascularization (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2).
We did not observe a significantly higher risk of potential statin-related adverse effects of myopathy and development of diabetes, although we had limited precision in our estimates at lower levels of eGFR, and follow-up was limited to 2 years. However, our findings are similar to recent meta-analyses regarding the safety of statins in clinical trial participants.
An inherent observational study limitation is potential for residual confounding and selection bias. Of particular note is the “healthy user bias” that has been observed in statin studies.
We attempted to mitigate this through use of PS methods, including using a “high-dimensional” PS. However, residual confounding may still exist, for example, because statin initiators had a lower comorbidity load than non-initiators. Our study may be particularly susceptible to this bias because we lacked an active control.
in: Velentgas P. Dreyer N.A. Nourjah P. Smith S. Torchia M. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
Rockville, Md2013: 59-70
Our study focused on secondary prevention patients and only included statin initiators who started therapy after their MI. These design decisions strengthened our study but lead to information most generalizable to the subset of patients with chronic kidney disease who were not taking statin therapy before being hospitalized for MI.
We found that initiation of statin therapy after MI was associated with similar relative reductions in death and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations in patients across the range of eGFR. However, given the higher absolute rates of these events with worse kidney function, and their lower propensity to be prescribed a statin, our study suggests potential for public health gains by decreasing the gap in statin treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease.
References
Go A.S.
Chertow G.M.
Fan D.
McCulloch C.E.
Hsu C.Y.
Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular events, and hospitalization.
Influence of concurrent renal dysfunction on outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes and implications of the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
Positive predictive value of ICD-9 codes 410 and 411 in the identification of cases of acute coronary syndromes in the Saskatchewan Hospital automated database.
The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators.
Construction of a multisite datalink using electronic health records for the identification, surveillance, prevention, and management of diabetes mellitus: The SUPREME-DM Project.
Rassen JA, Doherty M, Huang W, Schneeweiss S. Pharmacoepidemiology Toolbox. Version 2.4.11. Boston: 2013. Available at: http://www.hdpharmacoepi.org. Accessed July 30, 2015.
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.
Renal function and effect of statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing coronary revascularization (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2).
(AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC099)in: Velentgas P. Dreyer N.A. Nourjah P. Smith S. Torchia M. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,
Rockville, Md2013: 59-70
Funding: The National Institutes of Health (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) funded the study. The Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest worked through a subcontract to Kaiser Foundation Research Institute. American Reinvestment and Recovery Act Award No. 1RC2HL101666. The funding source had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in writing the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Conflict of Interest: None.
Authorship: All authors had access to the data and a role in writing the manuscript.
We read with interest an article written by Smith et al.1 The authors performed a comparative effectiveness analysis of statin therapy by different levels of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). They found relatively similar reduction in deaths and cardiovascular disease hospitalization across the range of eGFR, with higher rates in patients with lower eGFR. The authors suggested starting statin treatment in patients with lower levels of kidney function. However, the authors did not discuss potential effects of different doses and types of statins on outcome in chronic kidney disease patients.
00581-1&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
00581-1&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}
00581-1&id=gr3.jpg){kind=link}