PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15571475

Simvastatin: a review.

Abstract

Simvastatin is a long-established hydroxy-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, first introduced in 1988. At the maximal recommended dose of 80 mg/day, it produces an average reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 47%, accompanied by reductions in very LDL-C, triglycerides and apolipoprotein B, and a modest increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The only important, although rare, adverse effect of simvastatin is myopathy, an effect shared by all members of the class; when severe, this can take the form of rhabdomyolysis, which may lead to acute renal failure. The mechanism of the myopathy is not understood. The risk is increased by certain concomitant drugs, including gemfibrozil and potent inhibitors of cytochrome P450 3A4. Simvastatin has been studied in two large outcome trials, the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S), and the Heart Protection Study (HPS), both of which demonstrated strikingly beneficial effects on a variety of cardiovascular outcomes, with minimal adverse effects. 4S was the first study with a cholesterol-lowering agent to demonstrate an unequivocal reduction in all-cause mortality (30%; p = 0.0003). HPS showed that the beneficial effects of simvastatin were obtainable in a broad array of patients with, or at high risk of, coronary heart disease (CHD) in categories previously little studied, including women, the elderly, patients with diabetes without known CHD, and, perhaps most importantly, patients with LDL-C well below the UK population average. Simvastatin has recently become available in many countries as a combination product with the cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe. Because of its long record of safety and demonstrated ability to reduce cardiovascular risk, simvastatin has recently become available without a prescription in the UK at the 10 mg dosage level.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Terje R Pedersen, Jonathan A Tobert. 2004. Simvastatin: a review.. https://doi.org/10.1517/14656566.5.12.2583

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

On the exact interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under the ROC curves.

An important measure for comparison of accuracy between two diagnostic procedures is the difference in paired areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Non-parametric and maximum likelihood methods have been proposed for interval estimation for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. However, these two methods are asymptotic procedures and their performance in finite sample sizes has not been thoroughly investigated. We propose to use the concept of generalized pivotal quantities (GPQs) to construct an exact confidence interval for the difference in paired areas under ROC curves. A simulation study is conducted to empirically investigate the probability coverage and expected length of the three methods for various combinations of sample sizes, values of the area under the ROC curve and correlations. Simulation results demonstrate that the exact confidence interval based on the concept of GPQs provides not only sufficient probability coverage but also reasonable expected length. Numerical examples using published data sets illustrate the proposed method.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

An efficient test for the analysis of dichotomized variables when the reliability is known.

A difference in an outcome variable between the treatment groups in a trial does not necessarily mean that there is a difference in the number of patients who experience relevant improvement on that variable. When the relevant improvement corresponds with an outcome or change in outcome that exceeds a certain threshold, the outcome variable can be dichotomized. A responder is a patient whose outcome exceeds the threshold. Comparisons can be made between the number of responders in the two treatment groups using logistic regression, or some other method to evaluate binary outcomes. An important disadvantage of this approach is the loss of power. In general, it is more efficient to test the difference between the mean values. We developed a statistical test that compares response rates for a dichotomized variable. It requires that an estimate of the reliability of the outcome variable is available. Simulations showed that the test was valid and robust over a wide range of distributions and sample sizes. The power was greater than the power of a chi(2) test, which would enable substantial reduction in the sample size.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Sample size determination for logistic regression revisited.

There is no consensus on the approach to compute the power and sample size with logistic regression. Some authors use the likelihood ratio test; some use the test on proportions; some suggest various approximations to handle the multivariate case. We advocate the use of the Wald test since the Z-score is routinely used for statistical significance testing of regression coefficients. The null-variance formula became popular from early studies, which contradicts modern software, which utilizes the method of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), when the variance of the MLE is estimated at the MLE, not at the null. We derive general Wald-based power and sample size formulas for logistic regression and then apply them to binary exposure and confounder to obtain a closed-form expression. These formulas are applied to minimize the total sample size in a case-control study to achieve a given power by optimizing the ratio of controls to cases. Approximately, the optimal number of controls to cases is equal to the square root of the alternative odds ratio. Our sample size and power calculations can be carried out online at www.dartmouth.edu/ approximately eugened.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗