Pharmacotherapy for Chroniccardiovascular Disease in Women
by Verena Stangl, MD • Nicoline Jochmann, MD • Karl Stangl, MD
Time-saver
Cardiovascular drugs affect women differently than they do men because of differences in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and physiology. Results of recent studies on the use of cardiovascular agents in women are presented, with an emphasis on the need to include an appropriate proportion of women in future studies, to adapt the dosage to the weight of the patient, and to incorporate hormonal aspects into the analysis.
Although there is currently a widespread call for the use of evidence-based pharmacotherapy, the lack of solid data from studies often restricts its use in women. Women are still underrepresented in studies on coronary artery disease, heart failure, and rhythm disorders. Because of differences in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and physiology, women frequently respond differently to cardiovascular drugs than men. Sex-specific differences include lower body mass index and smaller organ size in women, with larger distribution volumes in men. Women have a higher proportion of body fat, which may increase the distribution volume for lipophilic drugs.1 Heart size is smaller in women,2 and resting heart rate is 3 to 5 beats faster than for men.3,4 Length of the cardiac cycle in men is longer, whereas women have a longer corrected QT (QTc) interval and a shorter sinus node recovery time.5,6
With regard to pharmacokinetics, there is some evidence of sex-specific differences in the activity of some drug-metabolizing enzymes. Men seem to have higher activities of CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP2E1, whereas women appear to have a higher clearance rate for CYP3A4 substrates.1,7-10 CYP3A4 contributes to first-pass metabolism of more than 50% of cardiovascular drugs. For CYP2C19 and CYP2D6, data are conflicting.7,11,12 These differences become clinically relevant for substances with a narrow therapeutic margin, as is the case for most antiarrhythmic drugs.
Women have a 50% to 70% greater risk of having adverse drug reactions. Although the underlying reasons have yet to be elucidated, hormonal and immunological factors, in addition to differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, have been proposed.9
Beta-blocking agents Major clinical outcome studies of beta-blocking agent therapy for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction (MI) have not included numbers of women sufficient to enable statistically significant findings.13,14 A meta-analysis of 5 randomized studies with metoprolol (Lopressor, Toprol XL) that included a total of 5474 patients, however, showed a reduction in cardiovascular death that was similar in women and men.15 In heart failure, studies support the assumption that the use of beta-blocking agents tends to be associated with a more favorable prognosis for men than for women.
In the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF)16 and the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) study,17 the mortality reduction for women was not significant. It was only in the post hoc analysis of the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS II)18 that the prognostic advantage for women was significant. Overall, the data for women seem to be less favorable than for men. Once the findings of these 3 major studies on the use of beta-blocking agents for heart failure were pooled in a meta-analysis (with a total of more than 8900 female patients), results also showed a significant reduction in mortality for women.19
Antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are part of evidence-based therapy for heart failure. Two meta-analyses have shown a trend toward fewer benefits of ACE inhibitor therapy for women with chronic heart failure than for men.20,21 The combined analysis of 30 studies on ACE inhibitor therapy for heart failure showed a reduction of 37% in mortality or hospitalization for men, but only 22% for women.20 Another meta-analysis of the use of ACE inhibitors early after MI showed comparable favorable effects for both sexes with respect to prognosis and hospitalization rate.22 Women with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction appeared not to benefit from ACE inhibitor therapy.21
In the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, European Trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease (EUROPA), and Pre-vention of Events with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) study, ACE inhibitors were evaluated for the treatment of patients without the presence of left ventricular dysfunction.23-25 In the HOPE study, ACE inhibitor treatment of high-risk women was associated with a 38% reduction in mortality resulting from coronary events, results similar to those for men.23 The EUROPA study confirmed the results from the HOPE study for men, but the findings for women were not significant.24 The results of the PEACE study showed no significant differences between ACE inhibitor therapy and placebo for both sexes.25 Taken together, data for women are less favorable than for men. Moreover, the most frequent adverse reaction to ACE inhibitor therapy, coughing, arises more frequently in women and is 1.5-fold to 2-fold greater in women than in men.26,27
The effects of treatment with angiotensin I receptor antagonists on hypertension,28 on heart failure,29-31 and after MI32,33 have been evaluated in major recent studies. There were no sex-specific differences shown in these studies. With the exception of the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) study (in which 54% of the sample was women), however, these studies included appreciably fewer women.34
With regard to aldosterone antagonists, neither the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES), which evaluated the nonselective blocker spironolactone (Aldactone), nor the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study (EPHESUS) showed sex-specific differences in subgroup analyses. The RALES study sample consisted of 27% women, and the EPHESUS study sample consisted of 28% women.35,36
Calcium channel blocking agents The major hypertension trials with calcium channel blocking agents have included comparable numbers of women and men. These studies have shown no evidence of sex-specific differences in outcomes.37-41 The Amlodipine Cardiovascular Community Trial (ACCT) showed that therapy with amlodipine (Norvasc) resulted in more pronounced blood pressure reduction in women. This effect depended on whether women were using hormone replacement therapy.42
Digitalis A post hoc analysis of the Digitalis Investigation Group (DIG) trial in patients with heart failure showed clear sex-specific differences. In contrast to men, women taking digoxin (Lanoxin) experienced a higher mortality rate (33.1%) compared with those taking placebo (28.9%).43 The cause was attributed to a relatively excessive dosage in women. An additional crucial aspect is the use of hormone replacement therapy. In the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS), women receiving hormone replacement therapy and digitalis experienced an increased incidence of coronary events in the first year of the study.44
Antiarrhythmic drugs Sex-specific differences in myocardial repolarization (longer QTc) have long been known.5 Women have shown a longer QTc interval than have men. The incidence of the acquired long QT syndrome, induced not only by antiarrhythmic drugs but also by a large number of other medications, is appreciably higher in women.45-48 Class I and III antiarrhythmics, potentially associated with prolongation of the QT inter-val, more often lead to torsades de pointes tachycardia in women.45-47 This has been shown for procainamide (Procanbid, Pronestyl), quinidine (Quinidex), ibutilide (Corvert), and sotalol (Betapace, Sorine).46,48-50 Even while taking amiodarone (Cordarone), women apparently develop torsades de pointes tachycardia twice as frequently as do men.47 Although available data favor the conclusion that women more frequently develop antiarrhythmic-induced proarrhythmias than men, the effect of this finding on prognosis is unclear.
Inhibitors of platelet aggregation The benefits of aspirin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease are well documented for women and men. Aspirin reduces the incidence of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 25% for both sexes.51 Similarly, the benefits of aspirin for acute MI are well established for women and men.52 In contrast, the significance of aspirin for the primary prevention of MI in women is less clear. In the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study, aspirin reduced fatal and nonfatal MI by 36% for the entire group, but not for women.53 In the Primary Prevention Project (PPP) study, aspirin reduced cardiovascular events by 23% in the total group.54 A recent analysis of the Women’s Health Study showed that although aspirin reduced the risk of stroke by 24%, it did not influence the risk of MI or mortality. It was only in the subgroup of older women (> 65 years) that aspirin was effective.55
For clopidogrel (Plavix), no significant differences have been observed in plasma levels of the main circulating metabolite between women and men. With the exception of the Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) trial, in which subgroup analyses showed that the beneficial effects of a “loading dose” of clopidogrel were comparable for women and men, neither the Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial, which showed a prognostic advantage of clopidogrel over aspirin, nor the Clopidogrel Aspirin Stent International Cooperative Study (CLASSICS) provided evidence of sex-specific differences.56,57
HMG-CoA inhibitors HMG-CoA inhibitors (statins) only show slight sex-specific differences in pharmacokinetics. In general, the plasma concentrations of statins are higher for women, and the risk of adverse drug reactions appears greater in women.58-63 Cerivastatin, which is no longer on the market, was associated with an unacceptably high rate of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis, especially for older, thin women.64 Major primary and secondary prevention studies have shown that statins reduce the risks of cardiovascular events equally for women and men.65 A meta-analysis, which covered 10 outcome studies with a total of 79 494 subjects, showed a relative risk of severe coronary events of 0.73 for men and 0.77 for women.66 Despite the beneficial effects, statins are used less frequently in women for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.67
Conclusions A general problem of sex-specific analyses is that women are often underrepresented in end point studies, and statements are mostly reached via subgroup, post hoc, or meta-analyses. Despite these limitations, relevant sex-specific aspects of long-term cardiovascular therapy can be summarized as follows: • Beta-blocking agent therapy after MI and for heart failure exhibits similar benefits for women and men. For women, however, the plasma levels are higher, the reduction in blood pressure is more pronounced, and the increase in exercise heart rate is lower. • The use of ACE inhibitors for the treatment of heart failure tends to be less effective for women in terms of mortality and morbidity reduction. Adverse drug reactions in the form of cough also occur twice as frequently in women. • Outcome studies have shown no relevant sex-specific differences with regard to mortality and morbidity with the use of calcium channel blocking agents. Reduction in blood pressure, however, is more pronounced in women. • There is evidence of higher mortality in women taking digitalis for chronic heart failure. The cause is assumed to be excessive dosage. • With antiarrhythmic therapy, proarrhythmias in the form of torsades de pointes tachycardia occur more frequently for women than for men. • The benefits of aspirin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases are equally well documented for women and men. Aspirin’s benefit for primary prevention in women is less clear. • For statins, primary and secondary prevention studies have shown comparable beneficial effects for women and men.
To improve data quality for women, future studies should be large enough to ensure an appropriate inclusion rate for women, dosage should be adapted to weight, and hormonal aspects, such as concomitant hormone therapy, should be systematically incorporated into the analysis.
References 1. Meibohm B, Beierle I, Derendorf H. How important are gender differences in pharmacokinetics? Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41(5):329-342.
2. Legato M. Gender and the heart: sex-specific differences in normal anatomy and physiology. J Gend Specif Med. 2000;3(7):15-18.
3. Burke JH, Goldberger JJ, Ehlert FA, et al. Gender differences in heart rate before and after autonomic blockade: evidence against an intrinsic gender effect. Am J Med. 1996;100(5):537-543.
4. Liu K, Ballew C, Jacobs DR Jr, et al. Ethnic differences in blood pressure, pulse rate, and related characteristics in young adults. The CARDIA study. Hypertension. 1989;14(2):218-226.
5. Bazett HC. An analysis of the time-relations of electrocardiograms. Heart. 1920;7:353-370.
6. Villareal RP, Woodruff AL, Massumi A. Gender and cardiac arrhythmias. Tex Heart Inst J. 2001;28(4):265-275.
7. Schwartz JB. The influence of sex on pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42(2):107-121. Erratum in: Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43(11):732.
8. Cotreau MM, von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ. The influence of age and sex on the clearance of cytochrome P450 3A substrates. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2005;44(1): 33-60.
9. Rademaker M. Do women have more adverse drug reactions? Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2(6):349-351.
10. Wolbold R, Klein K, Burk O, et al. Sex is a major determinant of CYP3A4 expression in human liver. Hepatology. 2003;38(4): 978-988.
11. Walle T, Walle UK, Cowart TD, et al. Pathway-selective sex differences in the metabolic clearance of propranolol in human subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1989;46(3):257-263.
12. Labbè L, Sirois C, Pilote S, et al. Effect of gender, sex hormones, time variables and physiological urinary pH on apparent CYP2D6 activity as assessed by metabolic ratios of marker substrates. Pharmacogenetics. 2000;10(5): 425-438.
13. Walle T, Byington RP, Furberg CD, et al. Biologic determinants of propranolol disposition: results from 1308 patients in the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1985;38(5):509-518.
14. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. I. Mortality results. JAMA. 1982;247(12):1707-1714.
15. Olsson G, Wikstrand J, Warnold I, et al. Metoprolol-induced reduction in postinfarction mortality: pooled results from 5 double-blind randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 1992;13(1):28-32.
16. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353(9169):2001-2007.
17. Packer M, Fowler MB, Roecker EB, et al for the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study Group. Effect of carvedilol on the morbidity of patients with severe chronic heart failure: results of the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) study. Circulation. 2002;106(17): 2194-2199.
18. Simon T, Mary-Krause M, Funck-Brentano C. Sex differences in the prognosis of congestive heart failure: results from the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS II). Circulation. 2001;103(3): 375-380.
19. Ghali JK, Pina IL, Gottlieb SS, et al. Metoprolol CR/XL in female patients with heart failure: analysis of the experience in Metoprolol Extended-Release Randomized Intervention Trial in Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Circulation. 2002;105(13):1585-1591.
20. Garg R, Yusuf S. Overview of randomized trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. Collaborative Group on ACE Inhibitor Trials. JAMA. 1995;273(18):1450-1456. Erratum in: JAMA. 1999;274(6):462.
21. Shekelle PG, Rich MW, Morton SC, et al. Efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers in the management of left ventricular systolic dysfunction according to race, gender, and diabetic status: a meta-analysis of major clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41(9):1529-1538.
22. Flather MD, Yusuf S, Kober L, et al. Long-term ACE inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure or left-ventricular dysfunction: a systematic overview of data from individual patients. ACE-inhibitor myocardial infarction collaborative group. Lancet. 2000;355(9215):1575-1581.
23. Lonn E, Roccaforte R, Yi Q, et al for the HOPE Investigators. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation. Effect of long-term therapy with ramipril in high-risk women. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(4): 693-702.
24. Fox KM; EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet. 2003;362(9386):782-788.
25. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. The PEACE Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(20):2058-2068.
26. Mackay FJ, Pearce GL, Mann RD. Cough and angiotensin II receptor antagonists: cause or confounding? Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;47(1): 111-114.
27. Strocchi E, Malini PL, Valtancoli G, et al. Cough during treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Analysis of predisposing factors. Drug Invest. 1992;4:69-72.
28. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al for the VALUE trial group. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363(9426): 2022-2031.
29. Pitt B, Poole-Wilson PA, Segal R, et al. Effect of losartan compared with captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: randomised trial—the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study ELITE II. Lancet. 2000;355(9215):1582-1587.
30. Cohn JN, Tognoni G, for the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(23): 1667-1675.
31. Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, et al for the CHARM investigators and committees. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-overall programme. Lancet. 2003;362(9386): 759-766.
32. Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Velazquez EJ, et al for the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial Investigators. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(20): 1893-1906. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2004;350(2):203.
33. Dickstein K, Kjekshus J for the OPTIMAAL Steering Committee of the OPTIMAAL Study Group. Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Lancet. 2002;360(9335):752-760.
34. Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al for the LIFE Study Group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002 Mar 23;359(9311):995-1003.
35. Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, et al. The effect of spironolactone in morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(10):709-717.
36. Pitt B, Remme W, Zannad F, et al for the Eplerenone Post-Acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study Investigators. Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(14): 1309-1321. Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2003;348(22):2271.
37. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288(23):2981-2997. Erratum in: JAMA. 2003;289(2): 178. JAMA. 2004;291(18):2196.
38. Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet. 2000;356(9227):366-372. Erratum in: Lancet. 2000;356(9228):514.
39. Fagard RH, Staessen JA, Thijs L, et al. Response to antihypertensive therapy in older patients with sustained and nonsustained systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Circulation. 2000;102(10):1139-1144.
40. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekborn T, et al. Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet. 1999;354(9192):1751-1756.
41. Kjeldsen SE, Hedner T, Syvertsen JO, et al for the NORDIL Study Group. Influence of age, sex and blood pressure on the principal endpoints of the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) Study. J Hypertens. 2002;20(6):1231-1237.
42. Kloner RA, Sowers JR, DiBona GF, et al. Sex- and age-related antihypertensive effects of amlodipine. The Amlodipine Cardiovascular Community Trial Study Group. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77(9):713-722.
43. Rathore SS, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. Sex-based differences in the effect of digoxin for the treatment of heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(18):1403-1411.
44. Furberg CD, Vittinghoff E, Davidson M, et al. Subgroup interactions in the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study: lessons learned. Circulation. 2002;105(8):917-922.
45. Drici MD, Clement N. Is gender a risk factor for adverse drug reactions? The example of drug-induced long QT syndrome. Drug Saf. 2001;24(8):575-585.
46. Lehmann MH, Hardy S, Archibald D, et al. Sex differences in risk of torsades de pointes with d,l-sotalol. Circulation. 1996;94(10):2535-2541.
47. Makkar RR, Fromm BS, Steinman RT, et al. Female gender as a risk factor for torsades de pointes associated with cardiovascular drugs. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2590-2597.
48. Bednar MM, Harrigan EP, Ruskin JN. Torsades de pointes associated with nonantiarrhythmic drugs and observations on gender and QTc. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89(11):1316-1319.
49. Koup JR, Abel RB, Smithers JA, et al. Effect of age, gender and race on steady state procainamide pharmacokinetics after administration of procanbid sustained-release tablets. Ther Drug Monit. 1998;20(1): 73-77.
50. Benton RE, Sale M, Flockhart DA, et al. Greater quinidine-induced QTc interval prolongation in women. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut. 2000;67(4):413-418.
51. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002;324(7329):71-86. Erratum in: BMJ. 2002;324(7330):141.
52. Randomised trial of intravenous strepto-kinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17 187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1988;2(8607): 349-360.
53. Kjeldsen SE, Kolloch RE, Leonetti G, et al. Influence of gender and age on preventing cardiovascular disease by antihypertensive treatment and acetylsalicylic acid. The HOT Study. Hypertension Optimal Treatment. J Hypertens. 2000;18(5):629-642.
54. de Gaetano G; Collaborative Group of the Primary Prevention Project. Low-dose aspirin and vitamin E in people at cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial in general practice. Collaborative Group of the Primary Prevention Project. Lancet. 2001;357(9250): 89-95.
55. Ridker PM, Cook NR, Lee I-M, et al. A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(13):1293-1304.
56. Cannon CP for the CAPRIE Investigators. Effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin in preventing acute myocardial infarction in patients with symptomatic atherothrombosis (CAPRIE trial). Am J Cardiol. 2002;90(7):760-762.
57. Bertrand ME, Rupprecht H-J, Urban P, et al. Double-blind study of the safety of clopidogrel with and without a loading dose in combination with aspirin compared with ticlopidine in combination with aspirin after coronary stenting: the Clopidogrel Aspirin Stent International Cooperative Study (CLASSICS). Circulation. 2000;102(6):624-629.
58. Gibson DM, Bron NJ, Richens A, et al. Effect of age and gender on pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin in humans. J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;36(3):242-246.
59. Cheng H, Rogers JD, Sweany AE, et al. Influence of age and gender on the plasma profiles of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitory activity following multiple doses of lovastatin and simvastatin. Pharm Res. 1992;9(12):1629-1633.
60. Isaacsohn J, Zinny M, Mazzu A, et al. Influence of gender on the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of cerivastatin in healthy adults. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;56(12):897-903.
61. Martin PD, Dane AL, Nwose OM, et al. No effect of age or gender on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin: a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. J Clin Pharm. 2002;42(10):1116-1121.
63. Smith HT, Jokubaitis LA, Troendle AJ, et al. Pharmacokinetics of fluvastatin and specific drug interactions. Am J Hypertens. 1993;6(11 pt 2):375-382.
66. Cheung BMY, Lauder IJ, Lau CP, et al. Meta-analysis of large randomized controlled trials to evaluate the impact of statins on cardiovascular outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(5): 640-651.
67. Berra K. Women, coronary heart disease, and dyslipidemia: does gender alter detection, evaluation, or therapy? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2000;14(2):59-78.
Search
Resources
