Long term statin treatment reduces lipoprotein(a) concentrations in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.

BACKGROUND: Raised plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. It is unknown whether increased Lp(a) is an additional risk factor for coronary artery disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) or whether statin treatment can reduce Lp(a) concentrations in the long term. OBJECTIVE: To investigate Lp(a) concentrations in relation to statin treatment and the progression of atherosclerosis in a large cohort of FH patients. DESIGN: A two year, randomised, double blind trial (the ASAP trial). PATIENTS: 325 heterozygous FH patients. INTERVENTION: Treatment with 80 mg atorvastatin or 40 mg simvastatin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Change in Lp(a) concentrations and intima-media thickness of carotid artery segments at one year and two years. RESULTS: At baseline, median Lp(a) concentrations were 327 mg/l and 531 mg/l in the atorvastatin and simvastatin arms, respectively (p = 0.03). In the atorvastatin arm, Lp(a) concentrations decreased to 243 mg/l after one year (p < 0.001) and to 263 mg/l after two years (p < 0.001). In the simvastatin arm, Lp(a) concentrations decreased to 437 mg/l after one year (p < 0.001) and to 417 mg/l after two years (p < 0.001). The difference in Lp(a) reduction between the two treatment arms was significant after one year (p = 0.004), but not after two years (p = 0.086). Lp(a) concentrations at baseline were not related to cardiovascular events at baseline. There was no correlation between baseline Lp(a) concentrations and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations or intima-media thickness at baseline. Change in Lp(a) concentrations was not correlated with change in intima-media thickness after one or two years. CONCLUSIONS: Long term statin treatment significantly lowers Lp(a) in FH patients. However, this reduction was unrelated to changes in intima-media thickness and casts doubt on the importance of Lp(a) in the progression of atherosclerotic disease in these patients.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a psoriasis care instruction programme with dithranol compared with UVB phototherapy and inpatient dithranol treatment.

BACKGROUND: This study was part of a large national cost-effectiveness analysis, and was funded by the National Fund for Investigational Medicine of the Health Care Insurance Board. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis by dithranol short contact therapy in a care instruction programme (short contact therapy) with ultraviolet B phototherapy (UVB) and inpatient dithranol treatment (inpatient treatment), and relate these costs to treatment effectiveness. METHODS: An open randomized controlled multicentre study was performed. The costs (both medical and non-medical) were calculated for the following periods: during treatment, per month during remission, after a relapse, and following an unsuccessful treatment. The effectiveness measures were the clinical response rate and the number of clearance days during follow-up. RESULTS: The data from 216 patients were analysed. The mean overall costs per patient during treatment were euro;1641, euro;1258 and euro;7706 for short contact treatment, UVB and inpatient treatment, respectively. During the clearance period the mean costs per month per patient were euro;19, euro;5 and euro;25, respectively. The clinical response rates were 57%, 57% and 85%, respectively. The mean number of clearance-days after short contact treatment was 160 [median 119; interquartile range (0-357)], which was not significantly different from the other two strategies: 211 clearance-days after inpatient treatment [241 (99-350)] and 136 clearance-days after UVB [81 (0-266)]. CONCLUSIONS: Short contact treatment is an attractive alternative for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis currently treated by inpatient treatment, as the costs of short contact treatment were significantly lower and the number of clearance days was comparable. Considering the higher costs, short contact treatment is not a first choice treatment when compared with UVB.