Published online before print March 27, 2008, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.501700
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2008;39:1779.)
© 2008 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Effect of Pretreatment With Statins on Ischemic Stroke Outcomes
From the Department of Epidemiology (M.J.R., J.W.G., Z.L., A.J.M.) and the Department of Neurology & Ophthalmology (A.M.), Michigan State University, East Lansing; and the Division of Neurology, Department of Internal Medicine (B.S.J.), Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Dayton, Ohio.
Correspondence to Mathew Reeves, PhD, Department of Epidemiology, Michigan State University, B601 West Fee Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. E-mail reevesm{at}msu.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose— Statins reduce the risk of stroke in at-risk populations and may improve outcomes in patients taking statins before an ischemic stroke (IS). Our objectives were to examine the effects of pretreatment with statins on poor outcome in IS patients.
Methods— Over a 6-month period all acute IS admissions were prospectively identified in 15 hospitals participating in a statewide acute stroke registry. Poor stroke outcome was defined as modified Rankin score 
4 at discharge (ie, moderate-severe disability or death). Multivariable logistic regression models and matched propensity score analyses were used to quantify the effect of statin pretreatment on poor outcome.
Results— Of 1360 IS patients, 23% were using statins before their stroke event and 42% had a poor stroke outcome. After multivariable adjustment, pretreatment with statins was associated with lower odds of poor outcome (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.52, 1.02). A significant interaction (P<0.01) was found between statin use and race. In whites, statins were associated with statistically significantly lower odds of poor outcome (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.42, 0.86), but in blacks statins were associated with a nonstatistically significant increase in poor outcome (OR=1.82, 95% CI 0.98, 3.39). Matched propensity score analyses were consistent with the multivariable model results.
Conclusions— Pretreatment with statins was associated with better stroke outcomes in whites, but we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of statins in blacks. These findings indicate the need for further studies, including randomized trials, to examine differential effects of statins on ischemic stroke outcomes among whites and blacks.
Key Words: ischemic stroke • statins • outcome
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Stroke is the third leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of disability in the United States (US),1 and minority populations, especially blacks, have greater stroke incidence and mortality when compared to whites.2,3 Both observational studies and clinical trials have demonstrated that lowering plasma total cholesterol (TC) decreases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).4,5 In contrast, the evidence for an effect of lowering plasma TC levels on the incidence of stroke has been less definitive. Results from some epidemiological studies have shown no clear association between TC levels and stroke,6,7 whereas meta-analyses of clinical trials have shown relative risk reductions for ischemic stroke (IS) of up to about 20% with the use of statins.5,8 The Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) study, a randomized clinical trial of atorvastatin in patients who had recent stroke or transient ischemic attack, reported that statins resulted in a 16% reduction in stroke risk.9
Observational studies have also examined the effect of taking statins before an IS event on stroke-related outcomes. The data show that among IS patients, pretreatment with statins is associated with better functional outcomes, and lower in-hospital mortality.10–13 Moreover, the SPARCL study also reports that among the subjects who suffered a stroke event during the trial, 90-day functional outcomes were better among those on statins.14 It has been hypothesized that the positive benefits of statins on reducing stroke risk and improving stroke outcomes may involve pleiotropic mechanisms separate from their direct cholesterol-reducing effects.15 These mechanisms may include antiinflammatory, neuroprotective, antithrombotic, direct vascular, and plaque stabilizing effects.16–18 Our hypothesis was that patients who were on statins before an IS would have better outcomes at discharge than those not on statins. We chose to examine this relationship in a statewide hospital-based acute stroke registry.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Registry Design and Case Ascertainment
The Michigan Acute Stroke Care Overview & Treatment Surveillance System (MASCOTS) was a statewide, hospital-based, acute stroke registry that was a prototype for the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry (PCNASR).19 Details of the design of the MASCOTS registry have been published previously.20 A single-stage cluster design that used a modified stratified sampling regime was implemented to obtain a representative statewide sample of 15 hospitals. Between May and November 2002, trained study nurses prospectively ascertained all acute stroke admissions. To be included in the registry each subject had to meet 1 of the 7 acute stroke case definitions.19
Exposure and Outcome Measures
The MASCOTS data abstraction tool included information on demographics, past medical history (PMH), ambulatory status prestroke, emergency evaluation, in-hospital evaluations, treatments and complications, and discharge treatments.19 The MASCOTS registry also collected information on medications the patient was using before admission. Prestroke statin use was ascertained by identifying patients on any of the following statin drugs at admission: atorvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin. We included only white or black subjects because the number of other racial groups was small (ie, n=19 other races, n=94 race not documented). Functional status was determined by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) recorded at discharge; moderate-severe disability was defined as mRS of 4 or 5. The 76 subjects who died in-hospital (mRS=6) were included in the combined measure of poor stroke outcome (ie, mRS 4). After excluding subjects who were missing information on mRS (n=31), there were 1360 subjects available for analysis.
Data Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SAS software, Version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc). Descriptive frequency tables and 
2 analyses were used to identify characteristics associated with prestroke statin use and poor stroke outcome. The effect of statin pretreatment on poor stroke outcome (ie, mRS 4) was assessed using 2 strategies: traditional multivariable risk-adjusted logistic regression and a propensity score-matched analysis.21–23 For the multivariable risk adjustment model, age, gender, and race were regarded as a priori variables of interest and were retained in all models regardless of statistical significance. All other variables with a bivariate probability value of <0.30 were regarded as potential confounders and included in a larger model. Backwards elimination procedures (with P<0.05 to stay) were then used to identify the final main effects models. Two-way interaction terms involving statin use and the other main effect variables were then tested. To assess model fit, the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit 2 statistic was generated (the results indicated an excellent fit ie, P=0.89).21 Finally, the multivariable logistic model was then regenerated using a generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach that accounted for the potential clustering of data within hospitals. All results presented are from this final GEE-based logistic model.
For the propensity score analysis, a multivariable logistic regression model that predicted statin use among all subjects with IS was generated. A structured, iterative approach was used to develop this propensity score model, where the primary objective was to maximize the balance in the distribution in possible confounders between statin users and nonusers.22,23 A broad range of clinical and demographic variables including health insurance status, PMH, concurrent use of other cardiovascular-related medications, enrollment site, and presence of terminal illness were included. The model was modified with the addition of squared terms or interaction terms if imbalances in important covariates were identified between statin users and nonusers. The predicted probability of statin use (ie, the propensity score) was then calculated for each subject using the final model.
A greedy matching algorithm was then used to match statin users with nonusers within 0.2*SD of the logit of the propensity score.24 Because a statistically significant interaction between race and statin use was identified in the multivariable risk adjustment model, statin users and nonusers were also matched on race. To increase statistical power, up to 3 nonstatin users were matched to each statin user. To determine whether the propensity score approach achieved balance in potential confounders, we compared the proportions of each covariate considered in the multivariable risk adjustment model between statin users and nonusers. Evidence of imbalance in potential confounders was identified by examining the reduction in absolute standardized differences (ASD)—adequate balance was defined as ASD of <10%.24
Using the final matched dataset, odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for prestroke statin use and poor stroke outcome were generated using a GEE-based logistic regression model that accounted for the matched-pairs design.24 Overall and race-specific estimates were generated for all subjects and for whites and blacks separately. Because a central motivation of the propensity score method is to replicate the design of a randomized trial,25 we also estimated the treatment effect of prestroke statins by generating relative risk (RR) estimates of statin use and poor outcome. To confirm the robustness of our findings and to assess the statistical significance of effect modification by race, bootstrap methods with 1000 iterations were used.26 Race-specific RR estimates of pretreatment with statins on poor stroke outcome were calculated for each bootstrap iteration. The statistical significance of the statin by race interaction was determined by computing a 95% bootstrap CI for the difference in race-specific RRs (black-white).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Descriptive and Unadjusted Results
Of the 1360 black and white IS patients, 309 or 22.7% were taking statins before admission. Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of statin users at admission. Subjects 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 years of age were more likely to be on statins at admission, as were subjects with a PMH of stroke, heart disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, while nursing home residents were less likely to be on statins at admission.
|
Five hundred seventy-seven subjects or 42.4% had a poor stroke outcome (defined as a mRS 4). Table 2 shows that poor stroke outcome was more common among older subjects, females, those with a PMH of stroke, heart disease, AF, hypertension, or nursing home residence. Poor outcome was less common in blacks, current smokers, and subjects who were ambulatory prestroke. Poor stroke outcome was also less common in subjects taking statins before admission: 111 (35.9%) of 309 subjects on statins had a mRS 4, compared to 466 (44.3%) of 1051 subjects not on statins before their IS event. Seventy six or 5.6% of the IS cases died in-hospital. In-hospital mortality was also lower among the statin users: 2.3% (n=7) of the 309 subjects on statins before admission died in-hospital, compared to 6.6% (n=69) of the 1051 subjects not on statins.
|
Multivariable Risk Adjusted Results
Results from the multivariable model examining the association between prestroke statin use and poor stroke outcome are shown in Table 3. The unadjusted OR for the effect of prestroke statin use on poor outcome was 0.70. Nursing home residence and ambulatory status prestroke were the only variables found to be significant predictors of poor outcome and were included in the final model along with age, race, and gender. However, multivariable adjustment did not appreciably alter the effect of prestroke statin use on poor outcome: statin use was associated with a 26% reduction in the odds of a poor outcome (OR=0.74), although the 95% CI (0.53, 1.02) indicated that the estimate was no longer statistically significant. A statistically significant interaction (P<0.01) was found between statin use and race. Among blacks, prestroke statin use was associated with a nonstatistically significant increased odds of a poor outcome (OR=1.82), compared to black nonstatin users (Table 3), whereas among whites, prestroke statin use was associated with a statistically significant 39% decrease in the odds of a poor outcome (OR=0.61), compared to white nonstatin users.
|
Propensity Modeling
The final logistic regression model for calculating the propensity score had a c-statistic of 0.78 indicating good discriminant ability.21 The matching algorithm included 884 matched subjects or 65% of the 1360 total subjects. Eighty-eight percent (n=225) of the 256 white statin users were matched to at least 1 white nonstatin user, and 89% of the 53 black statin users (n=47) were matched to at least 1 black nonstatin user.
After matching, examination of ASD for the combined 884 matched subjects showed that matching had resulted in a dramatically improved balance in the potential confounding variables (Figure), although ASD of >10% were still evident for 3 variables: CHD, diabetes, and poor prognosis. When the ASD where examined within whites and blacks separately, there were 3 variables among whites that had an ASD of >10% (sex, CHD, and poor prognosis), whereas among blacks there were 4 variables that showed imbalance (sex, older age, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes).
|
The matched propensity score analyses were concordant with the results of the multivariable risk adjusted models. The OR for prestroke statin use and poor outcome among all 884 matched subjects was 0.83 (95% CI 0.61, 1.12; Table 3). Separate analyses performed among whites and blacks showed the ORs for pretreatment with statins to be 0.71 and 1.75, respectively (Table 3), with the estimate for whites being statistically significant at P<0.05.
The bootstrap analysis confirmed the presence of a statistically significant statin by race interaction (P<0.05) in the matched sample. Among whites, statin use was associated with a statistically significant 19% reduction in the risk of poor outcome (RR=0.81, 95% CI 0.65, 0.98, P<0.05), whereas among blacks, statin use was associated with a nonstatistically significant 41% increase in the risk of poor outcome (RR=1.41, 95% CI 0.91, 1.95, P=0.10).
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In this prospective cohort of IS cases obtained from a representative state-wide sample of hospitals, use of statins before an IS was associated with better outcomes in whites but not blacks. Based on the multivariable analysis, pretreatment with statins was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in the odds of poor outcome among whites. However, we found evidence of a potential harmful effect of pretreatment with statins among blacks: statins were associated with an approximately 80% increase in the odds of poor stroke outcome. Other observational studies have shown that prestroke statin use was significantly associated with improved functional outcome at discharge in IS patients,10–12 as well as decreased in-hospital mortality.13 Complementing the positive findings of these observational studies is the recent SPARCL trial, which not only showed that statins reduced the risk of stroke but also improved functional outcomes among those subjects who suffered a stroke during the trial.14 However, none of these studies included information on whether they considered differential effects of statins in different race or ethnic groups.
The central concern regarding observational studies of statin use is that the observed effects are confounded by treatment-selection bias where statins are preferentially prescribed to patients with inherently better prognosis. The presence of strong confounding effects is to be expected because the prescription and adherence patterns for statins are strongly influenced by the presence of comorbidities and poor patient prognosis in the elderly.27 Countering this concern is the fact that there is a wide range of basic and clinical research that provides strong rationale for how and why statins could improve stroke outcomes through its antiinflammatory, neuroprotective, antithrombotic, and vascular stabilizing effects.15–18
Propensity score methods are being widely used in observational studies to account for treatment selection bias and thus identify the true causal treatment effects.24 In our study, compared to the multivariable risk adjusted results, the matched propensity score results were consistent although attenuated somewhat in whites (the OR estimate changed from 0.61 to 0.71). Among blacks the propensity matched OR estimate also decreased slightly from 1.82 to 1.75. Attenuation of the magnitude and statistical significance of observed treatment effects is typical of propensity score methods.24,28 One common interpretation of these more conservative results is that the propensity score method does a better job of controlling confounding. However, recent work has also shown that propensity score analysis may result in the biased attenuation of ORs toward the null, compared to conventional regression adjustment.29 Another reason for the difference between traditional risk adjustment and propensity methods is that statin users and nonusers that could not be matched on the basis of their propensity score are discarded from the matched analysis (in this study, 12% of users and 42% of nonusers were eliminated). Thus propensity score results are based on a subset of the total study population.
Overall, the propensity score analyses presented in this study should be viewed as confirmatory in that they provide similar effect estimates as the multivariable model results. Our data clearly show evidence that the effects of pretreatment with statins on stroke outcomes differ by race—we found a robust, statistically significant association between pretreatment statin use and better outcomes in whites, but evidence of a possible association between pretreatment statin use and poorer outcomes in blacks. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for the well recognized racial disparities in stroke, including racial and ethnic variations in lifestyle, access to healthcare, quality of healthcare, differences in health beliefs, and adherence to prescribed therapy.30 However, there are several reasons why the results generated among blacks in this study should be regarded with some caution at this time. First, the number of black subjects is relatively small (n=265) and so the study has limited power to examine statin effects among this group (note that none of the estimates for statin use in blacks reach statistical significance ie, P<0.05). Second, the results could be attributable to residual confounding. After propensity score matching relatively large imbalances remained among 3 variables: compared to black nonusers, black subjects on statins were more likely to be female (68% versus 47%), to have diabetes (57% versus 40%), and to be 70 to 79 years of age (34% versus 22%). To explore whether these factors explained the poorer outcomes in blacks, we added these variables to the multivariable risk adjustment model but found no meaningful change in the OR for prestroke statins (data not shown). Finally, it is also possible that the interaction stems from unmeasured variables that play a larger role in determining stroke outcomes in blacks than whites—for example, these results could be a reflection of the complex interplay between prescription and adherence patterns for statins. Long term adherence to statin therapy in the elderly has been shown to be especially poor in blacks and other nonwhite groups,31 thus it could be hypothesized that blacks who remain on statins may represent a highly selected high-risk group.
Of course, it is possible that this interaction represents a true biological difference in the effect of statins on stroke outcomes between whites and blacks. Given the broad pleiotropic effects of statins, which include antiinflammatory, neuroprotective, antithrombotic, and vascular effects, the potential mechanisms by which statins could differentially influence stroke outcomes are numerous and complex. Previous studies have illustrated the potential for polymorphisms to directly impact the effect of statins on lipoprotein levels32 and on antiinflammatory mechanisms.33 Some studies have shown that statins have a similar clinical efficacy and safety in terms of reducing cholesterol levels in blacks,34 whereas others have found that statins are less effective in blacks.35 Because of the fact that relatively few minority patients have been included in statin therapy trials to date, available clinical data concerning the effects of statins among nonwhite racial groups is very limited. However, it is interesting to note that in the only statin trial that included a large number of minority patients, ALLHAT-LLT,36 there was evidence of significant statin by race interactions. Pravastatin increased the risk of stroke in blacks (RR=1.12) but reduced the risk in nonblacks (RR=0.74), whereas for cardiac events, pravastatin was shown to decrease the risk in blacks (RR=0.73) but had no effect in nonblacks (RR=1.02).
The strengths of this study include the fact that it is based on a representative sample of statewide hospitals that used prospective case ascertainment and data collection methods.19,20 However, because the primary purpose of the registry was to monitor and improve quality of care, we did not collect all the variables that are associated with poor stroke outcome, such as a comorbidity index and stroke severity. In addition, we did not collect information on the duration or dose of statin therapy. Although we do not know how information on race was recorded by the hospitals, we believe that misclassification of black race is unlikely because an independent interrater reliability study found that information on black race was documented with higher reliability (Kappa 0.97) than that of white race (Kappa 0.55). Finally, all outcomes were collected at the time of hospital discharge and the effects of statins are likely to extend beyond this short time horizon.
In summary, this study found that pretreatment with statins was associated with positive benefits with respect to stroke outcomes in whites; however, these data raise the concern that statins are associated with worse outcomes in blacks. These findings suggest the need for further studies, including randomized trials, to explore the possibility of differential effects of statins among whites and blacks with ischemic stroke.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank the following participating institutions and providers: Borgess Medical Center–Kalamazoo (Rashmi Kothari, MD; Karen McShane, RN, BSN; Brianna Stokes, RN); Bronson Methodist Hospital–Kalamazoo (Rashmi Kothari, MD; Jennifer Brown, RN, BSN; Denise Robinson, RN, MSN); Detroit Receiving Hospital (Julie Klinker, RN, BSN); Harper University Hospital–Detroit (Julie Klinker, RN, BSN); Ingham Regional Medical Center–Lansing (Sid Shah, MD; Christine Bossenbery, RN); Spectrum Health Systems–Grand Rapids (Herman Sullivan, MD; Wendy Arntz, RN; Carmen Noorman, RN); Sparrow Health Systems–Lansing (Gretchen Birbeck, MD; Mary Lou Mitchell, RN, MSN); St. Mary’s Hospital–Saginaw (Faith Abbott, DO; Richard Herm, BSN; Kristin Leedom, MSN); University of Michigan Hospital–Ann Arbor (Susan Hickenbottom, MD; Kate Maddox, MS, RNC). The authors also thank Dr. Peter Austin, PhD, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto, for his input regarding the propensity based analyses.
Sources of Funding
This study was supported by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cooperative Agreement No. (U50/CCU520272-01).
Disclosures
None.
Received August 24, 2007; revision received November 9, 2007; accepted November 14, 2007.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Goldstein LB, Adams R, Becker K, Furberg CD, Gorelick PB, Hademenos G, Hill M, Howard G, Howard VJ, Jacobs B, Levine SR, Mosca L, Sacco RL, Sherman DG, Wolf PA, del Zoppo GJ. Primary prevention of ischemic stroke: A statement for healthcare professionals from the stroke council of the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2001; 32: 280–299.
2. Sacco RL, Boden-Albala B, Gan R, Chen X, Kargman DE, Shea S, Paik MC, Hauser WA. Stroke incidence among white, black, and hispanic residents of an urban community: The Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1998; 147: 259–268.
3. Ayala CN, Croft JB, Greenlund KJ, Keenan NL, Donehoo RS, Malarcher AM, Mensah GA. Sex differences in us mortality rates for stroke and stroke subtypes by race/ethnicity and age, 1995–1998. Stroke. 2002; 33: 1197–1201.
4. Wilt TJ, Bloomfield HE, MacDonald R, Nelson D, Rutks I, Ho M, Larsen G, McCall A, Pineros S, Sales A. Effectiveness of statin therapy in adults with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164: 1427–1436.
5. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Buck G, Pollicino C, Kirby A, Sourjina T, Peto R, Collins R, Simes J. 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: 1267–1278.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Bowman TS, Sesso HD, Ma J, Kurth T, Kase CS, Stampfer MJ, Gaziano JM. Cholesterol and the risk of ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2003; 34: 2930–2934.
7. Shahar E, Chambless LE, Rosamond WD, Boland LL, Ballantyne CM, McGovern PG, Sharrett AR. Plasma lipid profile and incident ischemic stroke-the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Stroke. 2003; 34: 623–631.
8. Amarenco P, Labreuche J, Lavallee P, Touboul PJ. Statins in stroke prevention and carotid atherosclerosis-systematic review and up-to-date meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004; 35: 2902–2909.
9. SPARCL Investigators. High dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2006: 549–559.
10. Greisenegger S, Mullner M, Tentschert S, Lang W, Lalouschek W. Effect of pretreatment with statins on the severity of acute ischemic cerebrovascular events. J Neurol Sci. 2004; 221: 5–10.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Yoon SS, Dambrosia J, Chalela J, Ezzeddine M, Warach S, Haymore J, Davis L, Baird AE. Rising statin use and effect on ischemic stroke outcome. BMC Med. 2004; 2: 4.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Marti-Fabregas J, Gomis M, Arboix A, Aleu A, Pagonabarraga J, Belvis R, Cocho D, Roquer J, Rodriguez A, Garcia MD, Molina-Porcel L, Diaz-Manera J, Mart-Vilalta JL. Favorable outcome of ischemic stroke in patients pretreated with statins. Stroke. 2004; 35: 1117–1121.
13. Elkind MSV, Flint AC, Sciacca RR, Sacco RL. Lipid-lowering agent use at ischemic stroke onset is associated with decreased mortality. Neurology. 2005; 65: 253–258.
14. Welch KMA. Statin therapy after stroke or transient ischemic attack-reply. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 2370.
15. Becker K, Chopp M. Role of statins in the treatment and prevention of stroke introduction. Stroke. 2004; 35: 2706–2707.
16. Rosenson RS, Tangney CC. Antiatherothrombotic properties of statins-implications for cardiovascular event reduction. JAMA. 1998; 279: 1643–1650.
17. Vaughan CJ. Prevention of stroke and dementia with statins: Effects beyond lipid lowering. Am J Cardiol. 2003; 91: 23B–29B.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Sheehy N, Vaughan CJ, Delanty N. Statins and neuroprotection. Exp Opin Invest Drugs. 2001; 10: 1847–1853.[CrossRef]
19. Reeves MJ, Arora S, Broderick JP, Frankel M, Heinrich JP, Hickenbottom S, Karp H, LaBresh KA, Malarcher A, Moomaw CJ, Schwamm L, Weiss P. Acute stroke care in the us: Results from 4 pilot prototypes of the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry. Stroke. 2005; 36: 1232–1240.
20. Mullard AJ, Reeves MJ, Jacobs BS, Kothari RU, Birbeck GL, Maddox K, Stoeckle-Roberts S, Wehner S. Lipid testing and lipid-lowering therapy in hospitalized ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients-results from a statewide stroke registry. Stroke. 2006; 37: 44–49.
21. Kleinbaum D, Klein M. Logistic Regression-A Self Learning Text, II Edition. New York; 2002.
22. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies of causal effects. Biometrika. 1983; 70: 41–55.
23. Rubin DB. Matched Sampling for Casual Effects, I Edition. 2006.
24. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: A case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med. 2006; 25: 2084–2106.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
25. Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004; 13: 855–857.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Efron B. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993.
27. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Levin R, Avorn J. Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 819–828.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Shah BR, Laupacis A, Hux JE, Austin PC. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 550–559.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
29. Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Normand SL, Anderson GM. Conditioning on the propensity score can result in biased estimation of common measures of treatment effect: A Monte Carlo study. Stat Med. 2007; 26: 754–768.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
30. Stansbury JP, Jia H, Williams LS, Vogel WB, Duncan PW. Ethnic disparities in stroke: Epidemiology, acute care, and postacute outcomes. Stroke. 2005; 36: 374–386.
31. Benner JS, Glynn RJ, Mogun H, Neumann PJ, Weinstein MC, Avorn J. Long-term persistence in use of statin therapy in elderly patients. JAMA. 2002; 288: 455–461.
32. Fiegenbaum M, Silveira FR, Van der Sand CR, Van der Sand LC, Ferreira ME, Pires RC, Hutz MH. Determinants of variable response to simvastatin treatment: The role of common variants of scap, srebf-1a and srebf-2 genes. Pharmacogenomics J. 2005; 5: 359–364.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Souza-Costa DC, Sandrim VC, Lopes LF, Gerlach RF, Rego EM, Tanus-Santos JE. Anti-inflammatory effects of atorvastatin: Modulation by the t-786c polymorphism in the endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene. Atherosclerosis. 2007; 193: 438–444.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
34. Jacobson TA, Chin MM, Curry CL, Miller V, Papademetriou V, Schlant RC, Larosa JC. Efficacy and safety of pravastatin in African-Americans with primary hypercholesterolemia. Arch Intern Med. 1995; 155: 1900–1906.
35. Simon JA, Lin F, Hulley SB, Blanche PJ, Waters D, Shiboski S, Rotter JI, Nickerson DA, Yang H, Saad M, Krauss RM. Phenotypic predictors of response to simvastatin therapy among African-Americans and Caucasians: The Cholesterol and Pharmacogenetics (CAP) study. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 97: 843–850.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Furberg CD, Wright JT, Davis BR, Cutler JA, Alderman M, Black H, Cushman W, Grimm R, Haywood LJ, Leenen F, Oparil S, Probstfield J, Whelton P, Nwachuku C, Gordon D, Proschan M, Einhorn P, Ford CE, Piller LB, Dunn JK, Goff D, Pressel S, Bettencourt J, deLeon B, Simpson LM, Blanton J, Geraci T, Walsh SM, Nelson C, Rahman M, Juratovac A, Pospisil R, Carroll L, Sullivan S, Russo J, Barone G, Christian R, Feldman S, Lucente T, Calhoun D, Jenkins K, McDowell P, Johnson J, Kingry C, Alzate J, Margolis KL, Holland-Klemme LA, Jaeger B, Williamson J, Louis G, Ragusa P, Williard A, Ferguson RLS, Tanner J, Eckfeldt J, Crow R, Pelosi J. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care-the Antihypertensive and Lipid-lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA. 2002; 288: 2998–3007.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  L. B. Goldstein, P. Amarenco, J. Zivin, M. Messig, I. Altafullah, A. Callahan, M. Hennerici, M. J. MacLeod, H. Sillesen, R. Zweifler, et al. Statin Treatment and Stroke Outcome in the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol Levels (SPARCL) Trial Stroke, November 1, 2009; 40(11): 3526 - 3531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. Rabinstein Statins Prevent Stroke Recurrences... But Can They Improve Stroke Outcome? Stroke, November 1, 2009; 40(11): 3413 - 3414. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Meier, K. Nedeltchev, C. Brekenfeld, A. Galimanis, U. Fischer, O. Findling, L. Remonda, G. Schroth, H. P. Mattle, and M. Arnold Prior Statin Use, Intracranial Hemorrhage, and Outcome After Intra-Arterial Thrombolysis for Acute Ischemic Stroke Stroke, May 1, 2009; 40(5): 1729 - 1737. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Tsuda Stains and Nitric Oxide Production Against Ischemic Stroke Stroke, November 1, 2008; 39(11): e170 - e170. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Reeves, J. W. Gargano, A. Majid, B. S. Jacobs, and for the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Regis Response to Letter by Tsuda Stroke, November 1, 2008; 39(11): e171 - e171. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||