Jane Armitage

Bio: Jane Armitage is an academic researcher from University of Oxford. The author has contributed to research in topics: Statin & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 56, co-authored 171 publications receiving 23492 citations. Previous affiliations of Jane Armitage include University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust & Clinical Trial Service Unit.

SLCO1B1 variants and statin-induced myopathy--a genomewide study

Abstract: Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statin therapy results in substantial reductions in cardiovascular events, and larger reductions in cholesterol may produce larger benefits. In rare cases, myopathy occurs in association with statin therapy, especially when the statins are administered at higher doses and with certain other medications. Methods We carried out a genomewide association study using approximately 300,000 markers (and additional fine-mapping) in 85 subjects with definite or incipient myopathy and 90 controls, all of whom were taking 80 mg of simvastatin daily as part of a trial involving 12,000 participants. Replication was tested in a trial of 40 mg of simvastatin daily involving 20,000 participants. Results The genomewide scan yielded a single strong association of myopathy with the rs4363657 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) located within SLCO1B1 on chromosome 12 (P=4x10(-9)). SLCO1B1 encodes the organic anion-transporting polypeptide OATP1B1, which has been shown to regulate the hepatic uptake of statins. The noncoding rs4363657 SNP was in nearly complete linkage disequilibrium with the nonsynonymous rs4149056 SNP (r(2)=0.97), which has been linked to statin metabolism. The prevalence of the rs4149056 C allele in the population was 15%. The odds ratio for myopathy was 4.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 7.7) per copy of the C allele, and 16.9 (95% CI, 4.7 to 61.1) in CC as compared with TT homozygotes. More than 60% of these myopathy cases could be attributed to the C variant. The association of rs4149056 with myopathy was replicated in the trial of 40 mg of simvastatin daily, which also showed an association between rs4149056 and the cholesterol-lowering effects of simvastatin. No SNPs in any other region were clearly associated with myopathy. Conclusions We have identified common variants in SLCO1B1 that are strongly associated with an increased risk of statin-induced myopathy. Genotyping these variants may help to achieve the benefits of statin therapy more safely and effectively. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN74348595.)

Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients.

Abstract: Background Patients with evidence of vascular disease are at increased risk for subsequent vascular events despite effective use of statins to lower the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level. Niacin lowers the LDL cholesterol level and raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, but its clinical efficacy and safety are uncertain. Methods After a prerandomization run-in phase to standardize the background statin-based LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy and to establish participants' ability to take extended-release niacin without clinically significant adverse effects, we randomly assigned 25,673 adults with vascular disease to receive 2 g of extended-release niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant or a matching placebo daily. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary causes, stroke, or arterial revascularization). Results During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, participants who were assigned to extended-release niacin–laropiprant had an LDL cholesterol level that was an average of 10 mg per deciliter (0.25 mmol per liter as measured in the central laboratory) lower and an HDL cholesterol level that was an average of 6 mg per deciliter (0.16 mmol per liter) higher than the levels in those assigned to placebo. Assignment to niacin–laropiprant, as compared with assignment to placebo, had no significant effect on the incidence of major vascular events (13.2% and 13.7% of participants with an event, respectively; rate ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.03; P=0.29). Niacin–laropiprant was associated with an increased incidence of disturbances in diabetes control that were considered to be serious (absolute excess as compared with placebo, 3.7 percentage points; Pandlt;0.001) and with an increased incidence of diabetes diagnoses (absolute excess, 1.3 percentage points; Pandlt;0.001), as well as increases in serious adverse events associated with the gastrointestinal system (absolute excess, 1.0 percentage point; Pandlt;0.001), musculoskeletal system (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; Pandlt;0.001), skin (absolute excess, 0.3 percentage points; P=0.003), and unexpectedly, infection (absolute excess, 1.4 percentage points; Pandlt;0.001) and bleeding (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; Pandlt;0.001). Conclusions Among participants with atherosclerotic vascular disease, the addition of extended-release niacin–laropiprant to statin-based LDL cholesterol–lowering therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events but did increase the risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by Merck and others; HPS2-THRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00461630.)

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

Diagnosis and Management of the Metabolic Syndrome An American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement

Abstract: The metabolic syndrome has received increased attention in the past few years. This statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) is intended to provide up-to-date guidance for professionals on the diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome in adults. The metabolic syndrome is a constellation of interrelated risk factors of metabolic origin— metabolic risk factors —that appear to directly promote the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).1 Patients with the metabolic syndrome also are at increased risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus. Another set of conditions, the underlying risk factors , give rise to the metabolic risk factors. In the past few years, several expert groups have attempted to set forth simple diagnostic criteria to be used in clinical practice to identify patients who manifest the multiple components of the metabolic syndrome. These criteria have varied somewhat in specific elements, but in general they include a combination of both underlying and metabolic risk factors. The most widely recognized of the metabolic risk factors are atherogenic dyslipidemia, elevated blood pressure, and elevated plasma glucose. Individuals with these characteristics commonly manifest a prothrombotic state and a pro-inflammatory state as well. Atherogenic dyslipidemia consists of an aggregation of lipoprotein abnormalities including elevated serum triglyceride and apolipoprotein B (apoB), increased small LDL particles, and a reduced level of HDL cholesterol (HDL-C). The metabolic syndrome is often referred to as if it were a discrete entity with a single cause. Available data suggest that it truly is a syndrome, ie, a grouping of ASCVD risk factors, but one that probably has more than one cause. Regardless of cause, the syndrome identifies individuals at an elevated risk for ASCVD. The magnitude of the increased risk can vary according to which components of the syndrome are …

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.