<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_422"
                     title="Nurses Often Silent About Workplace Violence (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HospitalBasedMedicine/WorkForce/tb/18335?impressionId=1265739467356"
                     
      The physical and verbal abuse nurses face on the job often goes unreported, according to an Australian survey.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Over the prior year, 52% of nurses in one community hospital said they had been physically assaulted and 69% reported being threatened with violence, according to Rose Chapman, PhD, of the University of Western Australia in Perth, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Verbal abuse was almost universal, being reported by 92% of respondents, the researchers wrote in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Nursing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, only half mentioned the incidents to senior staff or co-workers, and just 16% filed an official report.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;The reasons for not reporting are many and may include lack of time and management support and the belief that being attacked is &apos;just part of the job,&apos;&quot; they wrote.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The same is true in the U.S., where assaults and under-reporting appear just as common as suggested in the Australian survey, commented Kathleen M. McPhaul, PhD, RN, MPH, of the University of Maryland School of Nursing in Baltimore, who has been involved in such research in the U.S.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;A culture change would likely be needed to make a real difference for nurses, Chapman&apos;s group suggested.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hospitals would have to ensure that nurses have necessary support, education, encouragement, and time to complete official reports. Nurses who report abuse should get positive feedback from all levels of nursing, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If administrators and governments are serious in their intention to reduce workplace violence and provide staff with safe work environments, they should be seen to act on all reported [incidents],&quot; which is rare today, Chapman&apos;s group wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, currently there&apos;s no strong lever or incentive to address this kind of workplace abuse since hospitals focus mainly on patient safety as part of accreditation, and national and state workplace safety organizations have little mechanism for monitoring such incidents, McPhaul noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers&apos; survey was intended to reach all 332 nurses working at one nontertiary hospital across all departments  --  emergency, medical, surgical, maternity, pediatric, and mental health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 113 nurses who responded were mainly women in their early 40s who worked part time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among them, about three-quarters reported at least one incident of workplace violence over the preceding 12 months  --  25% said it occurred weekly, 27% said monthly, and for 25% it was rarer, at once every six months. &lt;ul&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fully 30% of the nurses said they had been involved in an episode involving a weapon  --  often hospital equipment and more rarely a knife or gun.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of total incidents was lowest among nurse midwives, with a mean of 1.67 per year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not surprisingly, the rate was highest among emergency department and mental health staff, who reported an average of 46.43 and 40.39 episodes over 12 months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One reason behind the high risk in these two departments may be the &quot;shift to a community-based approach to mental health care and a reduction in mental health beds&quot; such that the same psychiatric patients that assault mental health department nurses are mainstreamed to the emergency department as their point of entry to the hospital, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, more years of experience or higher educational qualification didn&apos;t appear to protect nurses. Senior nurse unit managers and clinical nurse specialists actually reported more physical assaults than less senior nurses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Age and gender didn&apos;t predict occurrence or type of incident either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When nurses did report workplace violence or verbal abuse, it was most often to their immediate manager (29%), other senior nursing staff (14.5%), or to their friends and colleagues (6%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, 30% of nurses who responded to the survey gave as their reason for not reporting that workplace violence happens all the time and is simply part of the job.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even among those who did make a report of some sort, half said they thought hospital management failed to act on it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, when the researchers audited hospital records, they found that 42 official incident reports had been filed by nurses over the prior one year period, nearly always involving injuries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 95% of the cases, the only action taken by the hospital was making staff in the area aware of the incident. No other actions had been documented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that the voluntary nature and limited scope of the study may have limited generalizability, although the occurrence of violence against nurses is likely similar across developed countries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers provided no information on conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;McPhaul reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_452"
                     title="Study Backs Late Cardiotoxicity of Childhood Cancer Treatment (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/OtherCancers/tb/18384?impressionId=1265739467356"
                     
      A childhood cancer survivor&apos;s risk of dying from cardiovascular causes rises with the dose of radiation his heart received during treatment, researchers in France and the United Kingdom affirmed.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Those whose hearts were exposed had a 60% higher risk of cardiovascular death than the general population, even at a dose of 1 Gy (95% CI 20% to 250%), according to Florent de Vathaire, PhD, of L&apos;Institut National de la Sant&amp;#233; et de la Recherche M&amp;#233;dicale in Paris, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The risk jumped to 12.5-fold for a cumulative radiation dose to the heart of 5 to 14.9 Gy, and to 14.9-fold for a dose of more than 15 Gy (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.01 for trend), the researchers reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Oncology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The notion that exposing the heart to radiation increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and death is not surprising, according to an accompanying editorial.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, this study examined cardiovascular mortality effects of both the dose of radiation and the dose of anthracyclines given to childhood cancer victims in the same cohort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&apos;s something previous studies haven&apos;t done, according to editorialists Steven E. Lipshultz, MD, of the University of Miami and Holtz Children&apos;s Hospital in Miami, and M. Jacob Adams, MD, MPH, of the University of Rochester, N.Y.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;These are pretty profound findings,&quot; Lipshultz told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;. &quot;These are the exact concerns we&apos;ve had based on careful subclinical assessments of how the heart in these survivors has been working.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;His group was one of the first to report that survivors of childhood cancer faced not only acute cardiotoxicity from treatment, but also late cardiac effects.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As more effective treatment for childhood cancers came into play, the dramatic jump in survival rates  --  from less than 50% in the mid-1970s to 80% today  --  yielded a large enough population of survivors to make chronic issues from treatment apparent, Lipshultz noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;It appears that for some of these survivors we have substituted one fatal disease of childhood  --  cancer  --  for another fatal disease of early adult life,&quot; he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;de Vathaire&apos;s group studied a cohort of 4,122 French and British children diagnosed with childhood solid cancer between 1942 and 1986 and who survived at least five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Over an average of 27 years of follow-up, they were at 8.3-fold higher risk of dying from any cause compared with the general populations in France and the United Kingdom (95% CI 7.6 to 9.0).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The majority of these excess deaths occurred early after diagnosis, five to nine years afterward in this analysis  --  in which all patients survived to five years.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Based on just 32 deaths from cardiovascular diseases in the cohort, the childhood cancer survivors experienced five times the cardiovascular mortality (95% CI 3.3 to 6.7) expected from the general population (1.7% cumulative at 35 years versus 0.3%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This elevation in risk was similar to that seen in large studies from the United States and Nordic countries, suggesting generalizability of the results, Lipshultz said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Radiation therapy also conferred a 5.0-fold elevation in risk of cardiovascular disease-related death (95% CI 1.2 to 21.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like radiation, a higher cumulative dose of anthracycline chemotherapy also increased risk of dying from cardiac diseases, compared with the general population (RR 4.4 for a dose over 360 mg/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 95% CI 1.3 to 15.3).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, radiotherapy and chemotherapy did not appear to interact for cardiovascular mortality (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.4).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notably, the vinca alkaloids were also significantly linked to cardiovascular disease-related death risk among childhood cancer survivors, even after adjustment for sex, treatment period, age at diagnosis, follow-up, and all other treatment modalities (RR 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 12.9).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Currently, guidelines support regular long-term cardiovascular screening for childhood cancer survivors who received anthracycline-based chemotherapy but provide little to no direction for those treated with non-anthracycline chemotherapy or radiation, Lipshultz noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;These results suggested all three groups should be getting cardiac follow-up, he told &lt;em&gt;MedPage Today&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, because other research has suggested that these individual treatments affect the heart in different ways, such as diastolic rather than systolic dysfunction with radiotherapy, screening modalities may need to account for this as well, he said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that cardiovascular disease was probably under-reported as a cause of death in the cohort.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Indeed, 15 of the deaths classified as results of cancer as the principal cause had cardiovascular diseases as the immediate cause,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique; the Agence Fran&amp;#231;aise de S&amp;#233;curit&amp;#233; Sanitaire et Produit de Sant&amp;#233;; Electricit&amp;#233; de France; the Wyeth Foundation for childhood and adolescent health; and a grant from the Foundation of France.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The editorialists reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_451"
                     title="Sentinel Nodes Predict Spread in Oral Cancer (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/OtherCancers/tb/18367?impressionId=1265739467356"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;In early oral squamous cell carcinoma, a sentinel node biopsy correctly predicted an absence of lymphatic metastasis in all but 4% of patients, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For T1 and T2 lesions that were clinically node-negative, the procedure  --  combined with additional sectioning and immunohistochemistry  --  yielded a negative predictive value of 96%, according to Francisco Civantos Jr., MD, of the University of Miami, and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For T1 lesions, the value was 100%, while for T2 cancers it was 94%, the researchers reported online in the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Oncology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The finding may position the procedure as an intermediate option between watchful waiting and selective neck dissection, the researchers said, asserting that it&apos;s now &quot;reasonable&quot; to conduct a head-to-head trial of sentinel node biopsy and neck dissection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The procedure has significantly increased the sensitivity for detecting lymphatic metastasis in melanoma and breast cancer patients, Civantos and colleagues noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But in oral cancer, many surgeons prefer a completion neck dissection, they added, despite the &quot;measurable morbidity&quot; that&apos;s associated with the procedure. On the other hand, because of that morbidity, other specialists prefer watchful waiting and elective neck irradiation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To investigate the issue, Civantos and colleagues conducted a multicenter trial in which patients with early invasive oral cancers were treated with both procedures  --  a sentinel node biopsy, followed by completion selective neck dissection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The primary goal was to see if a negative hematoxylin and eosin finding on the sentinel node biopsy accurately predicted the negativity of the other cervical lymph nodes removed in the neck dissection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;All told, 140 patients qualified and had the dual procedures, the researchers reported.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The sentinel nodes were identified using a radioactive gamma probe. The primary tumor was removed transorally, followed by the sentinel node biopsy through a small incision within the area of the planned incision for the neck dissection.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Staining of the sentinel nodes at the various trial sites resulted in 106 that were negative. Of those, 100 were also negative by hematoxylin and eosin staining of the neck dissection specimens.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That yielded a negative predictive value of 94%, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Additional step sectioning and immunohistochemistry at a central pathology lab increased the negative predictive value to 96%, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Both findings were significant, they reported, with a one-sided &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;-value of &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.0001.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One limitation of the study, the researchers noted, is that the dual procedures may have interfered with each other, in that sentinel lymph biopsy might have changed the way the neck dissection was performed or the other way around.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But that &quot;may actually lead to underestimation of the accuracy of this technique,&quot; they said, since the neck dissections were guided by information gleaned from nuclear imaging and the gamma probe used in the sentinel node procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study was also limited, the researchers said, because many surgeons involved were only moderately experienced and none was experienced &quot;at levels currently considered appropriate for surgeons caring for breast cancer or melanoma.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Nonetheless, they said, the negative predictive value found in the study was &quot;higher than anticipated for a multi-institutional setting with relatively inexperienced surgeons.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They added that only a clinical trial in which outcomes after a negative sentinel node biopsy are simply observed for several years would yield a true negative predictive value for the procedure.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Civantos reported no conflicts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_450"
                     title="SSRI and Tamoxifen Increase Mortality Risk (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/tb/18376?impressionId=1265739467356"
                     
      Overlapping use of tamoxifen and the antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) significantly increases the risk of breast cancer mortality, data from a large cohort of breast cancer patients showed.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The excess breast-cancer mortality risk ranged as high as 91%, depending on the duration of simultaneous use, researchers reported online in &lt;em&gt;BMJ.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Women taking other antidepressants with tamoxifen, including other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), did not have an increased risk of breast cancer death.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;We estimate that use of paroxetine for 41% of tamoxifen treatment (the median overlap in our sample) would result in one additional breast cancer death within five years of cessation of tamoxifen for every 19.7 patients so treated; the risk with more extensive overlap would be greater,&quot; David Juurlink, MD, PhD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center in Toronto, and colleagues concluded.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings add to an accumulation of evidence suggesting that inhibition of the cytochrome P450 2D6 isozyme (CYP2D6) may adversely affect outcomes in breast cancer patients taking tamoxifen. CYP2D6 is the principle catalyst for converting tamoxifen into endoxifen, a metabolite with 100-fold greater affinity for the estrogen receptor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Multiple studies have shown that women who have a poor-metabolizer phenotype have lower levels of endoxifen, as do women treated with drugs that inhibit CYP2D6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Indeed, in patients who receive tamoxifen in addition to a CYP2D6 inhibitor, endoxifen concentrations vary inversely with the degree of CYP2D6 inhibition,&quot; the authors wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Paroxetine is used to treat depression and vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Paroxetine is not the only SSRI antidepressant used by breast cancer patients, but it is the only SSRI that irreversibly inhibits CYP2D6.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Whether the metabolic effects of CYP2D6 inhibition translated into adverse breast cancer outcomes had not been determined.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To examine the issue, Juurlink and colleagues compared prescribing data with clinical records of 24,430 breast cancer patients, ages 66 and older, who initiated tamoxifen therapy from 1993 to 2005. Of those, 7,500 also received an antidepressant.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Ultimately, the investigators narrowed the study population to 2,430 women who took a single SSRI during tamoxifen therapy. The most commonly prescribed SSRI was paroxetine (25.9%), followed by sertraline (22.3%), citalopram (19.2%), venlafaxine (15%), fluoxetine (10.4%), and fluvoxamine (7.2%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;During a mean follow-up of 2.38 years, 1,074 patients died, including 374 breast cancer deaths.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The analysis showed an increased risk of breast cancer death only among women taking paroxetine.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The breast cancer mortality risk increased with the duration of concomitant use of paroxetine and tamoxifen. As the duration of therapeutic overlap increased from 25%, to 50%, to 75% of time on tamoxifen, the excess risk of breast cancer death increased from 24%, to 54%, to 91%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Investigators repeated the analysis, using death from any cause. Overlapping treatment with tamoxifen and paroxetine led to an increased mortality risk of 13%, 28%, and 46% as the duration of overlap increased from 25% to 75%.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The results suggest clear implications for use of SSRIs in breast cancer patients on tamoxifen, Frank Andersohn, MD, and Stefan Willich, MD, of Charite University in Berlin, wrote in an accompanying editorial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;The straightforward answer is to avoid prescribing strong CYP2D6-inhibiting SSRIs (such as paroxetine or fluoxetine) for women with breast cancer who are prescribed tamoxifen, and to consider instead drugs with low potential to inhibit CYP2D6 (such as citalopram or venlafaxine),&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For women who are already taking a potent inhibitor of CYP2D6, doctors should consider switching to a drug that does not inhibit the enzyme, they added. However, any switch should be accomplished gradually, as abrupt discontinuation of an antidepressant confers risk, as well, they noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Co-author Kathleen Pritchard disclosed relationships with sanofi-aventis, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Ortho-Biotech, YM Biosciences, Novartis, Abraxis, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_449"
                     title="FDA Okays Statin for Primary Prevention"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/tb/18380?impressionId=1265739467356"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;WASHINGTON  --  The FDA has approved rosuvastatin (Crestor) for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, making it the first statin to receive this indication.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new labeling, recommended by an FDA advisory panel late last year, also marks the first time that a drug label will include an indication based on the biomarker highly-sensitive C-reactive protein, an inflammatory marker.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new indication would be for men 50 or older and women 60 or older who have fasting LDL of less than 130 mg/dL, a highly-sensitive CRP of 2.0 mg/L or greater, triglycerides of less than 500 mg/dL, and no prior history of heart attack or stroke, or coronary heart disease risk.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The basis for the new labeling was the JUPITER trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 17,802 men and women with a mean age of 66 and no history of atherosclerosis. All participants had LDL of less than 130 mg/dL and a highly-sensitive C-reactive protein concentration of 2 mg/L or higher.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Patients were randomized to 20 mg of rosuvastatin for 1.9 years, which reduced median LDL cholesterol to 55 mg/dL, down from a median of 108 mg/dL at baseline. The corresponding relative reduction in the rate of MI, stroke, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death was 44% (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.00001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number needed to treat to avoid one cardiovascular event was 25.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Those results, according to Melvyn Rubenfire, MD, of the University of Michigan, were a &quot;home run for JUPITER,&quot; but it is not clear whether the results would be the same with another statin.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And there were some risks associated with rosuvastatin, including 13 deaths due to gastrointestinal disorders in the rosuvastatin arm, and 18 patients reported experiencing a &quot;confused state&quot; while taking the drug.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most troubling adverse event, however, was an uptick in investigator-reported, new onset diabetes mellitus in the treatment arm, 2.8% versus 2.5%, for a hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.53, &lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;=0.015).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Rosuvastatin in marketed by AstraZeneca, which also sponsored the JUPITER trial.&lt;/p&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>