Please click on the Activation Link to activate your account.
If you don't receive our email, please check your spam folder.
| I agree to receive
the R3i newsletter
| I agree to receive
the R3i newsletter
The study rationale was based on two lines of thought:
The primary outcome was the occurrence of a first major cardiovascular event (nonfatal
The trial was terminated on the recommendation of the Independent Data Monitoring Board after a median follow-up of 1.9 years because of unequivocal evidence of clinical benefit with rosuvastatin, including a significant 44% reduction of major CVD events and a 20% reduction of the secondary endpoint (death from any cause).
The JUPITER trial explored new territories for primary cardiovascular prevention with statin therapy beyond its traditional targets of patients at risk of CVD events and/or with elevated LDL-C levels.
Results of the trial indicate that clinical benefits can be obtained in apparently healthy men and women with elevated hsCRP and lend support for the inflammatory hypothesis of atherothrombosis and for a modifiable component of it.
Relevance for assessing reduction in residual CHD risk
In terms of clinical implications, the issues raised by JUPITER are related to a possible extension of indications for statin treatment, to the usefulness of routine measurement of hsCRP, and to long-term safety of very low levels of LDL-C. Few lessons, if any can be drawn regarding reduction of residual CVD risk in patients receiving current standards of care.An editorial commenting on the original JUPITER publication stresses that absolute risk reduction is clinically more important than relative risk reduction. In JUPITER, 0.9% of subjects in the rosuvastatin group and 1.8% of those in the placebo group had a major CVD event, which corresponds to an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%. Whether such a reduction justifies the long-term cost of treatment should be considered.
The JUPITER investigators propose another method to interpret their results. Owing to Kaplan-Meier estimates (Figure 1), the number of patients needed to treat to prevent one event would be 95 for 2 years, 31 for 4 years, and 25 for 5 years. However, “Meta-regression is not a reliable technique,” writes the author of the editorial and early termination of JUPITER “probably exaggerated the results to some degree.”2
JUPITER did not compare two groups with elevated or normal hsCRP, which prevents any interpretation regarding the usefulness of routine measurement of hsCRP in clinical practice. Whether the clinical efficacy of high-dose rosuvastatin was due to its effect on LDL-C or on hsCRP or on both is unclear. Subgroup analyses noted no difference in efficacy between subjects people with the metabolic syndrome (a population known to have high hsCRP levels) and subjects without it.The median LDL-C level at 12 months was 55 mg/dL (1.4 mmol/L) in subjects treated with rosuvastatin. The long-term safety of such markedly-lowered LDL-C levels is unknown. During the study period, there were slightly but significantly higher glycated hemoglobin levels (5.9% in the rosuvastatin group and 5.8% in the placebo group; p=0.001) and reported incidence of diabetes (3.0 % vs. 2.4%, respectively; p=0.01).
JUPITER provides evidence of the efficacy of rosuvastatin in reducing CVD risk in people who would not normally be considered for statin therapy according to current indications. Whether achieving the very low level of LDL-C obtained in JUPITER would reduce residual CVD risk in populations classically targeted by statin therapy (patients with elevated LDL-C and/or other CVD risk factors) is beyond the scope of this study.
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier estimates (meta-regression) of the reduction in major CVD events
in patients treated with rosuvastatin20 mg/day. The study was actually terminated after 1.9 years.