0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

Limit to Benefits of Large Reductions in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels:  Use of Fractional Polynomials to Assess the Effect of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Level Reduction in Metaregression of Large Statin Randomized Trials FREE

[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, Shizuoka, Japan.


JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(11):1028-1029. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.659.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

A recent metaregression1 of 25 large statin randomized trials involving 155 613 participants and 23 791 major vascular events reported a significant reduction in the risk of major vascular events associated with a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level. The question that naturally follows is whether there is a threshold for the benefit of LDL level reduction that can be achieved with statins or whether greater reductions in LDL level would bring greater reductions in vascular events.

Conventional metaregressions such as the one by Delahoy et al,1 however, rely on “linear” modeling, which assumes that the association fits a line (a constantly increasing or decreasing risk as the exposure increases or decreases) and does not allow for alternative associations such as threshold effects. We performed a “flexible” (not “linear”) unrestricted maximum-likelihood metaregression (inverse variance-weighted regression) based on fractional polynomials2 of the reduction in LDL-C level on the logarithmic relative risk (RR) for major vascular events.

The mean absolute reduction in LDL-C level at 1 year and the RR for major vascular events were abstracted from each individual randomized trial included in the recent metaregression.1 First-order and second-order fractional polynomial models take the forms log RR = β1 + β2xp and β1 + β2xp + β3xq, respectively. By choosing p and q from the predefined set {–2, –1, –0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3}, a rich set of possible functions, including some so-called U-shaped and J-shaped relations, may be accommodated. The powers are expressed according to the Box-Tidwell transformation, in which xp denotes xp if p ≠ 0 and log x if p = 0.2 When p = q, the model becomes β1 + β2xp + β3(xp log x).

For each set of powers (p, q), we calculated β1, β2, and β3 that minimized the deviance (sum of inverse variance-weighted squared residuals) using Microsoft Excel Solver (Microsoft Corp). The best fit among the family of models thus generated is defined as that with the highest likelihood or, equivalently, that with the lowest deviance. The gain for a given model is defined as the deviance associated with the reference linear model (β1 = 0, p = 1; applied in the recent metaregression1) minus that for the model in question; accordingly, a larger gain indicates a better fit.2

The conventional quadratic model (p = 1, q = 2) better fitted the data than the linear model (black line, Figure), with a gain in deviance of 12.87. The best-fitting model (p = –2, q = –2; red curve,Figure) offered a gain in deviance of 13.30 with respect to the reference linear model, representing an almost horizontal line when the reduction in LDL-C level is more than approximately 40 mg/dL (to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259) (RR [log RR] of 0.80 [–0.23], 0.79 [–0.24], 0.78 [–0.25], and 0.77 [–0.26] at the LDL-C level reductions of 40, 50, 60, and 70 mg/dL, respectively).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Relation between logarithmic relative risk for major vascular events and mean absolute reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level. The area of each circle is proportional to the precision (inverse variance) of the relative risk. Black line, linear model; red curve, best-fitting fractional polynomials model. To convert LDL-C from milligrams per deciliter to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259.

Our fractional polynomials metaregression suggests almost no additional benefit in the use of statins beyond a 40 mg/dL decrease in LDL-C level in preventing major vascular events.

A traditional method of summarizing dose-response relations across studies is to estimate the change in the logarithm of the RR per unit of exposure within each study and to combine these estimates across studies. Such an approach could be misleading, however, because it assumes that the dose-response relation follows a specific model form, usually linear.3 Polynomial models, typically quadratic models, are used to represent nonlinearity.4 An alternative curve-fitting method, fractional polynomial regression,5 has been described. Fractional polynomials are a family of models to consider, as covariates, power transformations of a continuous exposure variable restricted to a small, predefined set of integer and noninteger exponents.2 Such approaches are underused in epidemiologic research and have seldom6 been compared in a meta-analysis of dose-response aggregate data. Fractional polynomials provide great flexibility for a meta-analysis of dose-response aggregate data and are especially valuable when important nonlinearity is anticipated.2 Furthermore, they are easier to communicate mathematically, require the estimation of fewer parameters, and are less influenced by arbitrariness in the choice of the model than traditional approaches.

On the basis of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis,7 Sniderman et al8 calculated that any potential gain from increasing the dose of atorvastatin calcium from 40 to 80 mg would be small, at best an additional 2% reduction in clinical events. The increase in dose, unfortunately, would likely be associated with increased adverse effects and decreased adherence. Accordingly, whether net benefit would be demonstrable cannot be assumed. It follows that definitive evidence supporting maximal lowering of LDL-C level or maximal dose of statins is still lacking and that guidelines, if they are to be evidence based, should acknowledge this uncertainty.8 Although we found, on the basis of flexible (not linear) metaregression, that using statins to reduce LDL-C level by more than approximately 40 mg/dL could produce almost no additional reduction in the risk of major vascular events, further analysis would be required to confirm our findings.

Correspondence: Dr Takagi, Departments of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, 762-1 Nagasawa, Shimizu-cho, Sunto-gun, Shizuoka 411-8611, Japan (kfgth973@ybb.ne.jp).

Published Online: April 29, 2013. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.659

Author Contributions: Dr Takagi had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Umemoto. Acquisition of data: Takagi. Analysis and interpretation of data: Both authors. Drafting of the manuscript: Takagi. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Umemoto. Statistical analysis: Takagi. Administrative, technical, and material support: Umemoto. Study supervision: Umemoto.

Group Information: The members of the ALICE Group are Hisato Takagi, MD, PhD; Yusuke Mizuno, MD; Hirotaka Yamamoto, MD; Masao Niwa, MD; Shin-nosuke Goto, MD; Masafumi Matsui, MD; and Takuya Umemoto, MD, PhD.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Delahoy PJ, Magliano DJ, Webb K, Grobler M, Liew D. The relationship between reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by statins and reduction in risk of cardiovascular outcomes: an updated meta-analysis.  Clin Ther. 2009;31(2):236-244
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bagnardi V, Zambon A, Quatto P, Corrao G. Flexible meta-regression functions for modeling aggregate dose-response data, with an application to alcohol and mortality.  Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(11):1077-1086
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Maclure M, Greenland S. Tests for trend and dose response: misinterpretations and alternatives.  Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(1):96-104
PubMed
Berlin JA, Longnecker MP, Greenland S. Meta-analysis of epidemiologic dose-response data.  Epidemiology. 1993;4(3):218-228
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Royston P. A strategy for modelling the effect of a continuous covariate in medicine and epidemiology.  Stat Med. 2000;19(14):1831-1847
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bellocco R, Pasquali E, Rota M,  et al.  Alcohol drinking and risk of renal cell carcinoma: results of a meta-analysis.  Ann Oncol. 2012;23(9):2235-2244
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.  Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670-1681
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sniderman A, Thanassoulis G, Couture P, Williams K, Alam A, Furberg CD. Is lower and lower better and better? a re-evaluation of the evidence from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis for low-density lipoprotein lowering.  J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(4):303-309
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Relation between logarithmic relative risk for major vascular events and mean absolute reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level. The area of each circle is proportional to the precision (inverse variance) of the relative risk. Black line, linear model; red curve, best-fitting fractional polynomials model. To convert LDL-C from milligrams per deciliter to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.0259.

Tables

References

Delahoy PJ, Magliano DJ, Webb K, Grobler M, Liew D. The relationship between reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by statins and reduction in risk of cardiovascular outcomes: an updated meta-analysis.  Clin Ther. 2009;31(2):236-244
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bagnardi V, Zambon A, Quatto P, Corrao G. Flexible meta-regression functions for modeling aggregate dose-response data, with an application to alcohol and mortality.  Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(11):1077-1086
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Maclure M, Greenland S. Tests for trend and dose response: misinterpretations and alternatives.  Am J Epidemiol. 1992;135(1):96-104
PubMed
Berlin JA, Longnecker MP, Greenland S. Meta-analysis of epidemiologic dose-response data.  Epidemiology. 1993;4(3):218-228
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Royston P. A strategy for modelling the effect of a continuous covariate in medicine and epidemiology.  Stat Med. 2000;19(14):1831-1847
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bellocco R, Pasquali E, Rota M,  et al.  Alcohol drinking and risk of renal cell carcinoma: results of a meta-analysis.  Ann Oncol. 2012;23(9):2235-2244
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaboration. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J,  et al.  Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials.  Lancet. 2010;376(9753):1670-1681
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sniderman A, Thanassoulis G, Couture P, Williams K, Alam A, Furberg CD. Is lower and lower better and better? a re-evaluation of the evidence from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis for low-density lipoprotein lowering.  J Clin Lipidol. 2012;6(4):303-309
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles