The results of the SHARP trial. SHARP: Rationale Risk of vascular events is high among patients with chronic kidney disease Lack of clear association.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
US cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in 20,536 people at different levels of vascular disease risk: randomised placebo-controlled trial UK Medical Research.
Advertisements

Funding to Oxford University for MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Medical Research Council$14M British Heart Foundation$2M Merck $8M Roche Vitamins$8M Designed,
Pexelizumab for the Reduction of Infarction and Mortality in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft ll (PRIMO-CABG II) Trial Presented at The American College of.
Atorvastatin in Type 2 diabetics on dialysis: 4D Study 1255 T2DM patients on dialysis for 8.3 mo; 29% with prior MI or revascularization or CHD; 35% CHF;
The results of the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP)
Statins in Renal Failure Andrea Fox Sunnybrook Health Science Center May 2010.
SHARP trial Study of Heart and Renal Protection : a randomised placebo-controlled trial The e ff ects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus.
Protecting the heart and the kidney: Implications from the SHARP trial Dr. Christina Reith University of Oxford United Kingdom.
LDL and cardiovascular disease: Latest insights
Newly diagnosed hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 1544) Randomisation Avoid ACE inhibitors/ beta-blockers (n = 390) Tight BP control (n =
The results of the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) Colin Baigent, Martin Landray on behalf of the SHARP Investigators Disclosure: SHARP was.
K Fox, W Remme, C Daly, M Bertrand, R Ferrari, M Simoons On behalf of the EUROPA investigators. The diabetic sub study of.
The efFects of Pharmacological management of lipids in patients with CKD Andrew Monson FY1 18/9/14.
Economic evaluation of MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group University of Oxford UK.
Lancet : doi: /S (08)60104-X Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from.
Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials Ungroup once.
Diabetes Trials Unit University of Oxford WebSite: Lipids in Diabetes Study.
Results of Monotherapy in ALLHAT: On-treatment Analyses ALLHAT Outcomes for participants who received no step-up drugs.
The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial ALLHAT study overview Double-blind, randomized trial to determine whether.
Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease Presented at Late Breaking Clinical Trials AHA 2002 PROSPER.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
Philip A Kalra Lead Nephrologist for ASTRAL, Hope Hospital, Salford, UK, On behalf of the ASTRAL TMC and collaborators UK MULTI-CENTRE TRIAL IN ATHEROSCLEROTIC.
Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes FIELDFIELD Presented at The American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, November 2005 Presented.
Management of Elevated Cholesterol in the Primary Prevention Group of Adult Japanese (MEGA) Trial MEGA Trial Presented at The American Heart Association.
Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) The Lancet, Vol 344, November 19, 1994.
ELIGIBILITY: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Increased risk of CHD death due to prior disease: Myocardial infarction or other coronary heart disease; Occlusive.
HPS: Heart Protection Study Purpose To determine whether simvastatin reduces mortality and vascular events in patients with and without coronary disease,
Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through COMbination Therapy in Patients LIving with Systolic Hypertension The First Outcomes Trial of Initial Therapy With.
C. Baigent, et al. on behalf of the SHARP Investigators Lancet 2011;Epub 9 June.
Copyleft Clinical Trial Results. You Must Redistribute Slides HYVET Trial The Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET)
Aim To determine the effects of a Coversyl- based blood pressure lowering regimen on the risk of recurrent stroke among patients with a history of stroke.
Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CARDS Dr Sachin Kadoo.
Baseline characteristics. Patient flow Completed Completed Perindopril Placebo Randomised Not randomised Registered.
4S: Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents FDA-Mandated CV Safety Trials 1.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration Slide deck
ELIGIBILITY: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Increased risk of CHD death due to prior disease: Myocardial infarction or other coronary heart disease; Occlusive.
Number of participants with diabetes by trial Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators Lancet 2008;371:
Baseline characteristics and eligibility criteria of participating trials Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators Lancet 2005;366:
Statins The AURORA Trial Reference Fellstrom BC. Rosuvastatin and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing hemodialysis. N Engl J Med. 2009;360. A.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
The SPRINT Research Group
US cost-effectiveness of simvastatin in 20,536 people at different levels of vascular disease risk: randomised placebo-controlled trial UK Medical Research.
Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials Ungroup once.
Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies  The Emerging.
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised.
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration Slide deck
REVEAL: Randomized placebo-controlled trial of anacetrapib in 30,449 patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease Louise Bowman on behalf of the HPS.
Pravastatin in Elderly Individuals at Risk of Vascular Disease
The IDEAL Study Reference
Copyright © 2007 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
The Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial
ELIGIBILITY: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study
AIM HIGH Niacin plus Statin to prevent vascular events
CANTOS: The Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study
First time a CETP inhibitor shows reduction of serious CV events
Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S)
FATS- Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study
Jane Armitage on behalf of the HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group
Baseline characteristics of HPS participants by prior diabetes
The Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET)
The results of the SHARP trial
Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies  The Emerging.
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised.
ELIGIBILITY: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study
Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): Results in the Subgroup of Patients with Diabetes Peter S. Sever, Bjorn Dahlöf, Neil Poulter, Hans Wedel, for the.
Diabetes mellitus, fasting blood glucose concentration, and risk of vascular disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of 102 prospective studies  The Emerging.
Baseline Characteristics of the Subjects*
The results of the SHARP trial
PROSPER: trial design                                                                                                                                                                 
Presentation transcript:

The results of the SHARP trial

SHARP: Rationale Risk of vascular events is high among patients with chronic kidney disease Lack of clear association between cholesterol level and vascular disease risk Pattern of vascular disease is atypical, with a large proportion being non-atherosclerotic Previous trials of LDL-lowering therapy in chronic kidney disease are inconclusive

SHARP: Eligibility History of chronic kidney disease – not on dialysis: elevated creatinine on 2 occasions Men: ≥1.7 mg/dL (150 µmol/L) Women:≥1.5 mg/dL (130 µmol/L) – on dialysis: haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis Age ≥40 years No history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation Uncertainty: LDL-lowering treatment not definitely indicated or contraindicated

SHARP: Main outcomes Key outcome Major atherosclerotic events (coronary death, MI, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any revascularisation) Subsidiary outcomes Major vascular events (cardiac death, MI, any stroke, or any revascularisation) Components of major atherosclerotic events Main renal outcome End stage renal disease (dialysis or transplant)

Randomised (9438) Randomised (886) Not re-randomised (168) Placebo (4191) Simvastatin (1054) Simva/Eze (4193) Simv/Eze (4650) Placebo (4620) SHARP: Randomisation structure Median follow-up 4.9 years Lost to mortality follow-up 1.5%

SHARP: Baseline characteristics CharacteristicMean (SD) or % Age62 (12) Men63% Systolic BP (mm Hg)139 (22) Diastolic BP (mm Hg)79 (13) Body mass index 27 (6) Current smoker13% Vascular disease15% Diabetes mellitus23% Non-dialysis patients only(n=6247) eGFR (mL/min/1.73m 2 )27 (13) Albuminuria80%

Renal Status at randomisation to Simv/Eze vs Placebo NumberPercentage eGFR (mL/min/1.73m 2 ) ≥60881% % % < % Mean 27 (SD 13) Dialysis Haemodialysis % Peritoneal dialysis 4965% Subtotal %

Lipid Profile at initial randomisation Lipid fractionsNot on dialysisOn dialysisAll patients Number analysed6149 (96%)2895 (95%)9044 (96%) Total cholesterol (mmol/L) LDL cholesterol (mmol/L) HDL cholesterol (mmol/L)1.1 Triglycerides (mmol/L)2.3 Apolipoprotein B (mg/dL) Apolipoprotein A I (mg/dL) Am Heart J 2010; 160: e10 doi: /j.ahj

Simv/Eze produces additional reductions in LDL (mmol/L) and apo B (mg/dL) at 1 year Biochemical parameterSimv vs Placebo Simv/Eze vs Simv Simv/Eze vs Placebo Total cholesterol LDL cholesterol HDL cholesterol Non-HDL cholesterol Triglycerides Apolipoprotein B Apolipoprotein A

Effect of Simv/Eze on lipids (mmol/L) and apolipoproteins (mg/dL) at 2.5 years Biochemical parameterSimv/EzePlaceboAbsolute difference Percentage difference p Total cholesterol %< LDL cholesterol %< HDL cholesterol %0.03 Non-HDL cholesterol %< Triglycerides %< Apolipoprotein B %< Apolipoprotein A %0.003

SHARP: Compliance and LDL reduction at study midpoint Simv/EzePlacebo Compliant66%64% Non-study statin6%9% Any lipid-lowering71%9% ~2/3 compliance LDL reduction of 0.85 mmol/L with 2/3 compliance, equivalent to 1.3 mmol/L with full compliance

Years of follow-up Proportion suffering event (%) Risk ratio 0.83 ( ) Logrank 2P= Placebo Simv/Eze SHARP: Major Atherosclerotic Events

Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Major coronary event213(4.6%)230(5.0%) Non-haemorrhagic stroke131(2.8%)174(3.8%) Any revascularisation procedure284(6.1%)352(7.6%) Major Atherosclerotic Event526(11.3%)619(13.4%)16.6% SE 5.4 reduction (p=0.0021) SHARP: Major Atherosclerotic Events

Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze better Placebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Major coronary event213(4.6%)230(5.0%) Non-haemorrhagic stroke131(2.8%)174(3.8%) Any revascularisation procedure284(6.1%)352(7.6%) Major Atherosclerotic Event526(11.3%)619(13.4%) 16.6% SE 5.4 reduction (p=0.0021) Other cardiac death162(3.5%)182(3.9%) Haemorrhagic stroke45(1.0%)37(0.8%) Other Major Vascular Events207(4.5%)218(4.7%)5.5% SE 9.4 reduction (p=0.56) Major Vascular Event701(15.1%)814(17.6%)15.4% SE 4.7 reduction (p=0.0012) SHARP: Major Vascular Events

Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Coronary death91(2.0%)90(1.9%) Non-fatal myocardial infarction134(2.9%)159(3.4%) Major Coronary Event213(4.6%)230(5.0%)8.1% SE 9.1 reduction (p=0.37) SHARP: Major Coronary Events

SHARP: Total stroke 19.2% SE 9.2 Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Ischaemic stroke114(2.5%)157(3.4%) Haemorrhagic stroke45(1.0%)37(0.8%) Unknown stroke18(0.4%)19(0.4%) Stroke (any type)171(3.7%)210(4.5%) reduction (p=0.04)

Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboEze/simv Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Coronary artery bypass graft50(1.1%)66(1.4%) Percutaneous coronary intervention106(2.3%)148(3.2%) Coronary revascularisation149(3.2%)203(4.4%) 27.4% SE 9.1 reduction (p=0.0027) Non-coronary intervention/surgery109(2.3%)130(2.8%) Amputation75(1.6%)76(1.6%) Non-coronary revascularisation154(3.3%)169(3.7%) 9.8% SE 10.6 reduction (p=0.36) Any revascularisation284(6.1%)352(7.6%)20.6% SE 7.1 reduction (p=0.0036) SHARP: Revascularisation

Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboSimv/Eze better Placebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Coronary91(2.0%)90(1.9%) Other cardiac162(3.5%)182(3.9%) Subtotal: Any cardiac253(5.4%)272(5.9%) 7.3% SE 8.4 reduction (p=0.38) Stroke68(1.5%)78(1.7%) Other vascular40(0.9%)38(0.8%) Subtotal: any vascular361(7.8%)388(8.4%) 7.3% SE 7.0 reduction (p=0.30) Cancer150(3.2%)128(2.8%) Renal164(3.5%)173(3.7%) Other non-vascular354(7.6%)311(6.7%) Subtotal: any non-vascular668(14.4%)612(13.2%) 8.8% SE 5.8 increase (p=0.13) Unknown113(2.4%)115(2.5%) Total: Any death1142(24.6%)1115(24.1%) 2.1% SE 4.2 increase (p=0.63) SHARP: Cause-specific mortality

Risk ratio & 95% CI PlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Sex Male376(12.9%)445(15.4%) Female150(8.6%)174(10.0%) Age at randomisation (years) (5.8%)50(5.5%) (7.3%)119(10.4%) (13.3%)171(13.7%) (17.1%)279(21.2%) Major Atherosclerotic Event526(11.3%)619(13.4%)16.6% SE 5.4 reduction (p=0.0021) SHARP: Major Atherosclerotic Events by age and sex

Risk ratio & 95% CIPlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=4620)(n=4650) Non-dialysis (n=6247)296(9.5%)373(11.9%) Dialysis (n=3023)230(15.0%)246(16.5%) Major Atherosclerotic Event526(11.3%)619(13.4%) 16.6% SE 5.4 reduction (p=0.0021) SHARP: Major Atherosclerotic Events by renal status No significant heterogeneity between non-dialysis and dialysis patients (p=0.25)

Trial Events (% pa) Allocated LDL-C reduction Allocated control Risk ratio (RR) per mmol/L LDL-C reduction p LDL-C reduction better Control better 99% or95% CI Comparison of SHARP with other trials: Non-Fatal Myocardial Infarction 4D 33 (1.91)35 (2.02) AURORA 91 (1.97)107 (2.33) ALERT54 (1.03)65 (1.24) SHARP 134 (0.71)159 (0.85)  3 2 =0.3 (p = 0.96) Subtotal: 4 renal trials 312 (1.02)366 (1.21)0.83 ( ) other trials3307 (0.97)4386 (1.29)0.73 ( ) < All trials 3619 (0.97)4752 (1.29)0.74 ( ) < Difference between renal and non-renal trials:  1 2 = 2.2 (p = 0.14)

Trial Events (% pa) Allocated LDL-C reduction Allocated control Risk ratio (RR) per mmol/L LDL-C reduction p LDL-C reduction better Control better 99% or95% CI Comparison of SHARP with other trials: Non-Fatal Non-Haemorrhagic Stroke 4D 31 (1.80)29 (1.67) AURORA 46 (0.99)39 (0.84) ALERT 51 (0.97)40 (0.76) SHARP 97 (0.51)128 (0.68)  3 2 =6.4 (p = 0.09) Subtotal: 4 renal trials 225 (0.73)236 (0.77)0.95 ( ) other trials1624 (0.48)2052 (0.61)0.78 ( ) < All trials 1849 (0.50)2288 (0.62)0.79 ( ) < Difference between renal and non-renal trials:  1 2 = 3.4 (p = 0.07)

Trial Events (% pa) Allocated LDL-C reduction Allocated control Risk ratio (RR) per mmol/L LDL-C reduction p LDL-C reduction better Control better 99% or95% CI Comparison of SHARP with other trials: Coronary Revascularisation 4D 55 (3.31)72 (4.29) AURORA 55 (1.20)70 (1.53) ALERT 52 (1.00)60 (1.15) SHARP149 (0.79)203 (1.09)  3 2 =0.8 (p = 0.85) Subtotal: 4 renal trials 311 (1.02)405 (1.34)0.74 ( ) other trials 5191 (1.54)6605 (1.99)0.75 ( ) < All trials 5502 (1.50)7010 (1.94)0.75 ( ) < Difference between renal and non-renal trials:  1 2 =0.0 (p = 0.90)

Trial Events (% pa) Allocated LDL-C reduction Allocated control Risk ratio (RR) per mmol/L LDL-C reduction p LDL-C reduction better Control better 99% or95% CI Comparison of SHARP with other trials: Vascular Death 4D151 (8.52)167 (9.36) AURORA 324 (6.87)324 (6.86) ALERT 66 (1.23)73 (1.36) SHARP 361 (1.82)388 (1.97)  3 2 =0.9 (p = 0.82) Subtotal: 4 renal trials902 (2.85)952 (3.01)0.94 ( ) other trials 3679 (1.05)4230 (1.21)0.85 ( ) < All trials 4581 (1.20)5182 (1.36)0.86 ( ) < Difference between renal and non-renal trials:  1 2 =3.8 (p = 0.05)

Risk ratio & 95% CIEventPlaceboSimv/Eze Simv/Eze betterPlacebo better (n=3130)(n=3117) Main renal outcome End-stage renal disease1057(33.9%)1084(34.6%)0.97 ( ) Tertiary renal outcomes ESRD or death1477(47.4%)1513(48.3%)0.97 ( ) ESRD or 2 x creatinine1190(38.2%)1257(40.2%)0.93 ( ) SHARP: Renal outcomes

Years of follow-up Proportion suffering event (%) Risk ratio 0.99 ( ) Logrank 2P=0.89 Placebo Simv/Eze SHARP: Cancer incidence

SHARP: Safety Simv/Eze (n=4650) Placebo (n=4620) Myopathy CK >10 x but ≤40 x ULN17 (0.4%)16 (0.3%) CK >40 x ULN4 (0.1%)5 (0.1%) Hepatitis21 (0.5%)18 (0.4%) Persistently elevated ALT/AST >3x ULN30 (0.6%)26 (0.6%) Complications of gallstones85 (1.8%)76 (1.6%) Other hospitalization for gallstones21 (0.5%)30 (0.6%) Pancreatitis without gallstones12 (0.3%)27 (0.6%)

SHARP: Major Atherosclerotic Events 5-year benefit per 1000 patients

SHARP: Conclusions No increase in risk of myopathy, liver and biliary disorders, cancer, or nonvascular mortality No substantial effect on kidney disease progression Two-thirds compliance with Simv/Eze reduced the risk of major atherosclerotic events by 17% (consistent with meta-analysis of previous statin trials) Similar proportional reductions in all subgroups (including among dialysis and non-dialysis patients) Full compliance would reduce the risk of major atherosclerotic events by one quarter, avoiding 30–40 events per 1000 treated for 5 years