Editorial
Expanding the Orbit of Primary Prevention — Moving beyond JUPITER
N Engl J Med 2008; 359:2280-2282November 20, 2008
- Article
The aphorism “prevention is better than cure” makes perfect sense when applied to healthy habits such as following a sensible diet, maintaining an ideal body weight, exercising regularly, and not smoking. But increasingly, prevention of cardiovascular disease includes drug therapy, particularly statins to lower cholesterol levels. Statins were first tested in subjects at high risk for coronary events, and the limits of treatment have subsequently been expanded to include persons at progressively lower risk.1 The results of the Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00239681), reported by Ridker et al. in this issue of the Journal, 2 might push the orbit of statin therapy outward to include even more of the general population. Before pharmacologic treatment for primary prevention is expanded further, however, the evidence should be examined critically.
The JUPITER trial enrolled healthy subjects who did not have high cholesterol levels, according to conventional benchmarks.3 The entry criterion of a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of less than 130 mg per deciliter (3.4 mmol per liter) is below the currently recommended threshold for initiating pharmacologic treatment for primary prevention, although treatment at this level is indicated in patients who have clinical coronary disease or diabetes.3 In JUPITER, a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of 2.0 mg per liter or higher was an additional entry criterion to identify higher-risk subjects. The trial of nearly 18,000 patients was stopped, with only 1.9 of its proposed 4 years of follow-up concluded, when the data and safety monitoring board noted a significant reduction in the primary end point among participants assigned to receive rosuvastatin (142 primary events, vs. 251 in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.69). There was a similar reduction in a combination of the more important hard outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (83 events in the rosuvastatin group vs. 157 in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.69).
The results of JUPITER raise two important questions about the primary prevention of coronary disease. Should indications for statin treatment be expanded? And how should measurements of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein be used?
The relative risk reductions achieved with the use of statin therapy in JUPITER were clearly significant. However, absolute differences in risk are more clinically important than relative reductions in risk in deciding whether to recommend drug therapy, since the absolute benefits of treatment must be large enough to justify the associated risks and costs. The proportion of participants with hard cardiac events in JUPITER was reduced from 1.8% (157 of 8901 subjects) in the placebo group to 0.9% (83 of the 8901 subjects) in the rosuvastatin group; thus, 120 participants were treated for 1.9 years to prevent one event.
On the other side of the balance, of concern are the significantly higher glycated hemoglobin levels and incidence of diabetes in the rosuvastatin group in JUPITER (3.0%, vs. 2.4% in the placebo group; P=0.01). There are also no data on the long-term safety of lowering LDL cholesterol to the level of 55 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter), as was attained with rosuvastatin in JUPITER, which is lower than in previously reported trials. Long-term safety is clearly important in considering committing low-risk subjects without clinical disease to 20 years or more of drug treatment. Finally, the cost of rosuvastatin (roughly $3.45 per day) is much higher than that of generic statins.
The measurement of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein has been shown to improve the estimation of the risk of coronary events.4 An elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level was an entry criterion for JUPITER, but coronary disease is affected by multiple factors, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein was just one of several indicators of participants' cardiovascular risk. It is unlikely that high-sensitivity C-reactive protein testing is the only way to identify subjects who will benefit from treatment, since statins have reduced the relative risk to a similar extent for every other indicator of cardiovascular risk.1 Ridker et al. suggest, from their meta-regression analysis, that the risk reduction observed in JUPITER was greater than that expected on the basis of previous trials. Meta-regression is not a reliable technique, however, and the early termination of JUPITER owing to the efficacy data probably exaggerated the results to some degree.5
The design of JUPITER means that the study provides only limited and indirect information about the role of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein testing in clinical management, since the trial did not compare subjects with and those without high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurements, nor did it compare the use of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein with the use of other markers of cardiovascular risk. It also did not ascertain whether subjects with a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of less than 2.0 mg per liter would benefit from treatment.
In evaluating how to use high-sensitivity C-reactive protein testing in practice, it is important to understand how the participants in JUPITER were selected. The 89,890 subjects who attended a clinic visit appear to have been prescreened to exclude those who had previous lipid-lowering therapy, diabetes, elevated serum creatinine levels, or poorly controlled hypertension. At the screening visit, approximately 80% of the remaining subjects were excluded, most because of LDL cholesterol or high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. To understand who might benefit from high-sensitivity C-reactive protein testing, there should be a detailed analysis of how the estimated (and actual) cardiovascular risk of the screened subjects changed on the basis of their high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels, particularly in relation to generally accepted risk thresholds and in key subgroups such as women.
At this point, the current guideline for measurement of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein4 remains reasonable: a measurement may be obtained in asymptomatic individuals who have an intermediate level of risk, as estimated on the basis of standard clinical risk markers, if the decision to initiate drug treatment might change depending on the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level. In my view, the evidence still favors this selective strategy for measuring high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, not routine measurement.
There is increasing recognition that laboratory and screening tests need to be evaluated according to their effects on clinical management and outcomes, not just risk levels. Randomized trials have shown that performing mammography,6 screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm,7 and performing coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction8 improve outcomes. However, JUPITER was a trial of statin therapy, not high-sensitivity C-reactive protein testing. A true randomized trial of evaluation and treatment guided by the high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level would provide a direct assessment of the clinical value of such testing.
JUPITER provides yet more evidence about the effectiveness of statin therapy in reducing cardiovascular risk, even among persons who would not currently be considered for pharmacotherapy.3 Guidelines for primary prevention will surely be reassessed on the basis of the JUPITER results, but the appropriate size of the orbit of statin therapy depends on the balance between the benefits of treatment and its long-term safety and cost.
Dr. Hlatky reports receiving grant support from the American Heart Association Pharmaceutical Roundtable for the Stanford–Kaiser Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Center. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
This article (10.1056/NEJMe0808320) was published at www.nejm.org on November 9, 2008.
Source Information
From the Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
- References
References
1
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Ridker PM ,Danielson E ,Fonseca FAH , et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195-2207
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline3
Executive summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on the Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 2001;285:2486-2497
CrossRef | Web of Science4
Pearson TA ,Mensah GA ,Alexander RW , et al. Markers of inflammation and cardiovascular disease: application to clinical and public health practice: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2003;107:499-511
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Bassler D ,Montori VM ,Briel M ,Glasziou P ,Guyatt G . Early stopping of randomized trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:241-246
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Moss SM ,Cuckle H ,Evans A ,Johns L ,Waller M ,Bobrow L . Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;368:2053-2060
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Kim LG ,Scott RA ,Ashton HA ,Thompson SG . A sustained mortality benefit from screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:699-706[Erratum, Ann Intern Med 2007;147:216.]
Web of Science | Medline8
Mehta SR ,Cannon CP ,Fox KA , et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2005;293:2908-2917
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (22)
Citing Articles
1
William J. Kostis, Jerry Q. Cheng, Jeanne M. Dobrzynski, Javier Cabrera, John B. Kostis. (2012) Meta-Analysis of Statin Effects in Women Versus Men. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 59:6, 572-582
CrossRef2
Milan Gupta, Narendra Singh, Michelle Tsigoulis, Mahesh Kajil, Sheriar Hirjikaka, Adrian Quan, Hwee Teoh, Subodh Verma. (2012) Perceptions of Canadian Primary Care Physicians Towards Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Lipid Management. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 28:1, 14-19
CrossRef3
Juan-Carlos Kaski, Antonio Arrebola-Moreno, Jason Dungu. (2011) Treatment strategies for chronic stable angina. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 12:18, 2833-2844
CrossRef4
Vincent E. Friedewald, Christie M. Ballantyne, Michael H. Davidson, Antonio M. Gotto, Paul M. Ridker, William C. Roberts. (2011) The Editor's Roundtable: JUPITER Follow-Up. The American Journal of Cardiology 107:10, 1549-1557
CrossRef5
Elisabetta Poluzzi, Carlo Piccinni, Paolo Carta, Aurora Puccini, Monica Lanzoni, Domenico Motola, Alberto Vaccheri, Fabrizio Ponti, Nicola Montanaro. (2011) Cardiovascular events in statin recipients: impact of adherence to treatment in a 3-year record linkage study. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 67:4, 407-414
CrossRef6
David Nanchen, Mark J. Pletcher, Jacques Cornuz, Pedro-Manuel Marques-Vidal, Fred Paccaud, Gérard Waeber, Peter Vollenweider, Nicolas Rodondi. (2011) Public health impact of statin prescribing strategies based on JUPITER. Preventive Medicine 52:2, 159-163
CrossRef7
Niteesh K. Choudhry, Amanda R. Patrick, Robert J. Glynn, Jerry Avorn. (2011) The Cost-Effectiveness of C-Reactive Protein Testing and Rosuvastatin Treatment for Patients With Normal Cholesterol Levels. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 57:7, 784-791
CrossRef8
Fiona Taylor, Kirsten Ward, Theresa HM Moore, Margaret Burke, George Davey Smith, Juan-Pablo Casas, Shah Ebrahim, Fiona Taylor. 2011. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. .
CrossRef9
Philip Greenland, Joseph S. Alpert, George A. Beller, Emelia J. Benjamin, Matthew J. Budoff, Zahi A. Fayad, Elyse Foster, Mark A. Hlatky, John McB. Hodgson, Frederick G. Kushner, Michael S. Lauer, Leslee J. Shaw, Sidney C. Smith, Allen J. Taylor, William S. Weintraub, Nanette K. Wenger. (2010) 2010 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk in Asymptomatic Adults. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 56:25, e50-e103
CrossRef10
J Woodcock. (2010) Assessing the Clinical Utility of Diagnostics Used in Drug Therapy. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 88:6, 765-773
CrossRef11
Duane A. Burnett, Harry R. Davis. 2010. Atherosclerosis I: LDL Cholesterol Lowering. .
CrossRef12
Stanley S. Levinson. (2010) Weak associations between prognostic biomarkers and disease in preliminary studies illustrates the breach between statistical significance and diagnostic discrimination. Clinica Chimica Acta 411:7-8, 467-473
CrossRef13
Petra Schnell-Inderst, Ruth Schwarzer, Alexander Göhler, Norma Grandi, Kristin Grabein, Björn Stollenwerk, Jennifer Manne, Volker Klauss, Uwe Siebert, Jürgen Wasem. (2010) Prognostic value, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein as a marker for major cardiac events in asymptomatic individuals: A health technology assessment report. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 26:01, 30
CrossRef14
Eric Y. Yang, Vijay Nambi, Zhengzheng Tang, Salim S. Virani, Eric Boerwinkle, Ron C. Hoogeveen, Brad C. Astor, Thomas H. Mosley, Josef Coresh, Lloyd Chambless, Christie M. Ballantyne. (2009) Clinical Implications of JUPITER (Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) in a U.S. Population. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 54:25, 2388-2395
CrossRef15
Gianna Fabbri, Aldo Pietro Maggioni. (2009) Cardiovascular risk reduction: What do recent trials with rosuvastatin tell us?. Advances in Therapy 26:5, 469-487
CrossRef16
Kritek, Patricia, Campion, Edward W., . (2009) JUPITER Clinical Directions — Polling Results. New England Journal of Medicine 360:10,
Full Text17
G. Jackson, L. Citrome. (2009) JUPITER: wake up and smell the coffee - The absolute and relative merits of statin use. International Journal of Clinical Practice 63:3, 347-348
CrossRef18
M. Rizzo, K. Berneis, G. A. Spinas, G. B. Rini, N. K. Kapur. (2009) Quantitative and qualitative effects of rosuvastatin on LDL-cholesterol: what is the clinical significance?. International Journal of Clinical Practice 63:3, 478-485
CrossRef19
Philip R. Liebson. (2009) JUPITER and ACCOMPLISH. Preventive Cardiology 12:2, 114-119
CrossRef20
Steven E. Nissen. (2009) The Jupiter trial: Key findings, controversies, and implications. Current Cardiology Reports 11:2, 81-82
CrossRef21
Larry B Goldstein. (2009) JUPITER and the world of stroke medicine. The Lancet Neurology 8:2, 129-131
CrossRef22
R. S Vasan. (2008) Commentary: C-reactive protein and risk prediction--moving beyond associations to assessing predictive utility and clinical usefulness. International Journal of Epidemiology 38:1, 231-234
CrossRef
