Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The JUPITER Trial: Myth or Reality?

  • Published:
Current Atherosclerosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 20 August 2011

Abstract

The JUPITER trial is widely hailed as a landmark trial that has the potential to dramatically change the landscape of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Like most trials, however, it is not without its limitations. We address some of the common myths and misunderstandings that are underscored by the JUPITER trial. First, by its intentional and ill-advised exclusion of patients with low levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), it is not possible to assess whether baseline hsCRP modifies treatment response to statins or whether it identifies patients most likely to benefit from statin therapy. Second, by stopping the trial early, one cannot rule out the possibility that the treatment benefit was overestimated and risk was underestimated, thereby precluding a reliable estimate of benefit/risk. Finally, as a consequence of early stopping, it is not possible to reliably assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention with rosuvastatin. Given these limitations, the attendant societal health policy implications remain largely unknown.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. World Health Organization. World Health Statistics. Available at: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/EN_WHS08_Full.pdf. Accessed March 2011.

  2. Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, Butler J, Dracup K, Ezekowitz MD, et al. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:933–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Buck G, Pollicino C, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366:1267–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, Genest J, Gotto Jr AM, Kastelein JJ, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2195–207.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Food and Drug Administration. Highlights of prescribing information: Crestor (rosuvastatin calcium) tablets. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/021366s016lbl.pdf. Accessed March 2011.

  6. Michos ED, Blumenthal RS. Prevalence of low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein in the U.S.: implications of the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:931–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Spatz ES, Canavan ME, Desai MM. From here to JUPITER: identifying new patients for statin therapy using data from the 1999–2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:41–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Downs JR, Clearfield M, Weis S, Whitney E, Shapiro DR, Beere PA, et al. Primary prevention of acute coronary events with lovastatin in men and women with average cholesterol levels: results of AFCAPS/TexCAPS. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study. JAMA. 1998;279:1615–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McMurray JJ, Kjekshus J, Gullestad L, Dunselman P, Hjalmarson A, Wedel H, et al. Effects of statin therapy according to plasma high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentration in the Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA): a retrospective analysis. Circulation. 2009;120:2188–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. • Sever P. The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT): testing C-reactive protein at baseline and on-treatment as an independent predictor of cardiovascular outcomes. Presented at the American Heart Association 2010 Scientific Sessions. Chicago, USA; November 17, 2010. Baseline hsCRP added to Framingham risk models minimally improved prediction of cardiovascular events. Neither baseline nor on-treatment hsCRP measurement correlated with cardiovascular events, whereas LDL cholesterol did correlate, despite signficant reductions in both hsCRP and LDL cholesterol.

  11. • Heart Protection Study Collaborative G. C-reactive protein concentration and the vascular benefits of statin therapy: an analysis of 20 536 patients in the Heart Protection Study. Lancet. 2011;377:469–76. The Heart Protection Study is the largest randomized controlled trial of a statin. In this study, response to simvastatin did not vary across six hsCRP groups, inluding < 1.25 mg/L and ≥ 8 mg/L. In contrast to assumptions drawn from AFCAPS/TexCAPS, there was a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with both low LDL cholesterol and low hsCRP.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaul S, Morrissey RP, Diamond GA. By Jove! What is a clinician to make of JUPITER? Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1073–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ridker PM, MacFadyen J, Libby P, Glynn RJ. Relation of baseline high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level to cardiovascular outcomes with rosuvastatin in the Justification for Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER). Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:204–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Food and Drug Administration. CRESTOR (rosuvastatin calcium): briefing material-updated version. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/EndocrinologicandMetabolicDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM193831.pdf. Accessed March 2011.

  15. Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, Genest J, Gotto Jr AM, Kastelein JJ, et al. Reduction in C-reactive protein and LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular event rates after initiation of rosuvastatin: a prospective study of the JUPITER trial. Lancet. 2009;373:1175–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Rader DJ, Rouleau JL, Belder R, et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1495–504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Greenland P, Alpert JS, Beller GA, Benjamin EJ, Budoff MJ, Matthew JF, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:2182–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DeMaria AN, DeLemos JA, Diamond GA, Greenland P, Gudnason V, Hachamovitch R, et al. Comparative efficacy of strategies for risk screening and prevention for cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:A220.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ridker PM. The JUPITER trial: results, controversies, and implications for prevention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:279–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, Heels-Ansdell D, Walter SD, Guyatt GH, Flynn DN, et al. Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA 2010;303:1180–7. Randomized, controlled trials funded by industry are more likely to be stopped early for benefit. Of trials with similar interventions, truncated randomized controlled trials are associated with greater effect sizes than non-truncated ones, independent of statistical stopping rules.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, Thomson IR, van de Ven LL, Blankensteijn JD, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1789–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, Guyatt G, Leslie K, Villar JC, et al. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1839–47.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bangalore S, Wetterslev J, Pranesh S, Sawhney S, Gluud C, Messerli FH. Perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2008;372:1962–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, Dodin S, Hamazaki T, Kostucki W, et al. Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy: a critical reappraisal. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1032–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yusuf S, Lonn E, Bosch J. Lipid lowering for primary prevention. Lancet. 2009;373:1152–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ridker PM, Glynn RJ. The JUPITER Trial: responding to the critics. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:1351–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. • Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, Holland LE, Reith C, Bhala N, Peto R, Barnes EH, Keech A, Simes 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;376:1670–81. This meta-analysis of primary and seconadary prevention statin trials shows that statins reduce cardiovascular events by 20% per 1-mmol/L (40 mg/dL) reduction in LDL cholesterol. According to this correlation, subjects in JUITER would have had to had an 80- to 100-mg/dL reduction in LDL to achieve a relative risk reduction of 44%.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. • Brugts JJ, Yetgin T, Hoeks SE, Gotto AM, Shepherd J, Westendorp RG, de Craen AJ, Knopp RH, Nakamura H, Ridker P, et al. The benefits of statins in people without established cardiovascular disease but with cardiovascular risk factors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2009;338:b2376. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of statins versus placebo or active control with ≥80% of subjects without cardiovascular disease found significant recutions in both total mortality and cardiovascular disease events.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mills EJ, Rachlis B, Wu P, Devereaux PJ, Arora P, Perri D. Primary prevention of cardiovascular mortality and events with statin treatments: a network meta-analysis involving more than 65,000 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52:1769–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Brookhart MA, Choudhry NK. Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:2307–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. • Taylor F, Ward K, Moore TH, Burke M, Davey Smith G, Casas JP, Ebrahim S. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:CD004816. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of statins versus placebo or active control that limited inclusion to trials having ≤10% history of CHD found a nonsignificant reduction in fatal and nonfatal CHD events, although it did find a significant reduction in total mortality.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bassler D, Montori VM, Briel M, Glasziou P, Guyatt G. Early stopping of randomized clinical trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:241–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Goodman SN. Stopping at nothing? Some dilemmas of data monitoring in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:882–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Morrissey RP, Diamond GA, Kaul S. Bayesian approach to moderate implausible treatment effects observed in trials stopped early: lessons learnt from JUPITER trial. Circulation. 2010;122:A21109.

    Google Scholar 

  35. • Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Erqou S, Sever P, Jukema JW, Ford I, Sattar N. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1024–31. This is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of statins versus placebo or active control that excluded all subjects with baseline cardivascular disease and found no significant difference in all-cause mortality.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wagstaff LR, Mitton MW, Arvik BM, Doraiswamy PM. Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of the literature. Pharmacotherapy. 2003;23:871–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, Brewer Jr HB, Clark LT, Hunninghake DB, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:227–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ridker PM, MacFadyen JG, Fonseca FA, Genest J, Gotto AM, Kastelein JJ, et al. Number needed to treat with rosuvastatin to prevent first cardiovascular events and death among men and women with low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein: justification for the use of statins in prevention: an intervention trial evaluating rosuvastatin (JUPITER). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:616–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kumana CR, Cheung BM, Lauder IJ. Gauging the impact of statins using number needed to treat. JAMA. 1999;282:1899–901.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Pearce KA, Furberg CD, Psaty BM, Kirk J. Cost-minimization and the number needed to treat in uncomplicated hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11:618–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, Erdmann E, Massi-Benedetti M, Moules IK, et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1279–89.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Choudhry NK, Patrick AR, Glynn RJ, Avorn J. The cost-effectiveness of C-reactive protein testing and rosuvastatin treatment for patients with normal cholesterol levels. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:784–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hlatky M. The cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy JUPITER (Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:792–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Ryan P. Morrissey

  2. Division of Cardiology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    George A. Diamond & Sanjay Kaul

Authors
  1. Ryan P. Morrissey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George A. Diamond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanjay Kaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanjay Kaul.

Additional information

Protagonist:

Jupiter, son of Saturn, ruler of the gods.

Antagonist:

Apollo, son of Jupiter, god of healing and god of truth, who cannot speak a lie.

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11883-011-0204-1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morrissey, R.P., Diamond, G.A. & Kaul, S. The JUPITER Trial: Myth or Reality?. Curr Atheroscler Rep 13, 413–421 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-011-0197-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-011-0197-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation