Effect of simvastatin on Lp(a) concentrations

Statin therapy and lipoprotein(a) levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS 

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). People with elevated Lp(a) are often prescribed statins as they also often show elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. While statins are well-established in lowering LDL-C, their effect on Lp(a) remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of statins compared to placebo on Lp(a) and the effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy on Lp(a).

METHODS AND RESULTS 

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with a statin and placebo arm. Medline and EMBASE were searched until August 2019. Quality assessment of studies was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Mean difference of absolute and percentage changes of Lp(a) in the statin vs. the placebo arms were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We compared effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy using subgroup- and network meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Overall, 39 studies (24 448 participants) were included. Mean differences (95% confidence interval) of absolute and percentage changes in the statin vs. the placebo arms were 1.1 mg/dL (0.5-1.6, P < 0.0001) and 0.1% (-3.6% to 4.0%, P = 0.95), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the types of statins changed Lp(a) significantly compared to placebo (very low- to high-certainty evidence), as well as intensities of statin therapy (low- to moderate-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION 

Statin therapy does not lead to clinically important differences in Lp(a) compared to placebo in patients at risk for CVD. Our findings suggest that in these patients, statin therapy will not change Lp(a)-associated CVD risk.

Effect of different types and dosages of statins on plasma lipoprotein(a) levels: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Studies differ with respect to the effects of statins and their on lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] levels. The aim of the present study was to resolve these differences by determining the effect of various types and dosages of statins on Lp(a) levels.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of statins on plasma Lp(a) levels. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by four authors. We conducted pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Consistency models were applied to NMA and the ranking probabilities for each treatment's efficacy were calculated. Node-splitting analysis was used to test inconsistency. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020167612.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs with 23,605 participants were included, involving 11 interventions. Most of the included studies presented some risks of bias, especially risks of performance and detection bias. In the pairwise meta-analysis, pooled results showed a small but statistically significant difference between high-intensity rosuvastatin and placebo on Lp(a) levels (MD = 1.81, 95 % CI [0.43, 3.19], P = 0.01). In the NMA, different types and dosages of statins showed no significant effect on the level of Lp(a), and there was no obvious difference between them. Subgroup analysis based on different populations and treatment durations did not provide any statistically significant findings about different statins on Lp(a) levels. Node-splitting analysis showed that no significant inconsistency existed (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Statins have no clinically significant effect on Lp(a) levels, and there is no significant difference in the effect on Lp(a) levels between different types and dosages of statins. Moderate-intensity pitavastatin tended to have the best effect on reducing Lp(a) levels; nevertheless, it was insignificant. Our findings highlight the necessity for further study of the effect of statins on Lp(a) levels in future studies.

A selective androgen receptor modulator SARM-2f activates androgen receptor, increases lean body mass, and suppresses blood lipid levels in cynomolgus monkeys

SARM-2f a selective androgen receptor (AR) modulator, increases skeletal muscle mass and locomotor activity in rats. This study aimed to clarify its pharmacological effects in monkeys. In reporter assays, the EC50 values of SARM-2f for rat, monkey, and human AR were 2.5, 3, and 3.6 nmol/L, respectively; those of testosterone were 12, 3.2, and 11 nmol/L, respectively. A single oral administration (10 mg/kg SARM-2f) produced a maximal plasma concentration of 3011 ng/mL, with an area under the 24 hours concentration-time curve of 8152 ng·h/mL in monkeys. Body weight (BW), lean body mass (LBM), and plasma levels of total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein (a), alanine aminotransferase, and asparagine aminotransferase were measured after 4 weeks of treatment with SARM-2f (1, 3, and 10 mg/kg/day, QD, p.o.) or testosterone enanthate (TE; 2 mg/kg/2 weeks, s.c.) in monkeys. BW and LBM were significantly increased by 12% each by SARM-2f at 10 mg/kg, and by 5% and 8%, respectively, by TE, but these effects were not statistically significant. Plasma levels of all lipids were either decreased or showed a tendency to be decreased by SARM-2f. TE decreased the triglyceride level and increased the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level. Liver marker levels were not changed by either SARM-2f or TE. Our data demonstrated that SARM-2f exerted anabolic effects and produced a lipid profile that differed from that produced by testosterone in monkeys, suggesting that SARM-2f might be useful for diseases such as sarcopenia.

Apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, lipoprotein(a) concentration, and coronary artery disease: a mendelian randomisation analysis

BACKGROUND

The lipoprotein(a) pathway is a causal factor in coronary heart disease. We used a genetic approach to distinguish the relevance of two distinct components of this pathway, apolipoprotein(a) isoform size and circulating lipoprotein(a) concentration, to coronary heart disease.

METHODS

In this mendelian randomisation study, we measured lipoprotein(a) concentration and determined apolipoprotein(a) isoform size with a genetic method (kringle IV type 2 [KIV2] repeats in the LPA gene) and a serum-based electrophoretic assay in patients and controls (frequency matched for age and sex) from the Pakistan Risk of Myocardial Infarction Study (PROMIS). We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for myocardial infarction per 1-SD difference in either LPA KIV2 repeats or lipoprotein(a) concentration. In a genome-wide analysis of up to 17 503 participants in PROMIS, we identified genetic variants associated with either apolipoprotein(a) isoform size or lipoprotein(a) concentration. Using a mendelian randomisation study design and genetic data on 60 801 patients with coronary heart disease and 123 504 controls from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D consortium, we calculated ORs for myocardial infarction with variants that produced similar differences in either apolipoprotein(a) isoform size in serum or lipoprotein(a) concentration. Finally, we compared phenotypic versus genotypic ORs to estimate whether apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, lipoprotein(a) concentration, or both were causally associated with coronary heart disease.

FINDINGS

The PROMIS cohort included 9015 patients with acute myocardial infarction and 8629 matched controls. In participants for whom KIV2 repeat and lipoprotein(a) data were available, the OR for myocardial infarction was 0·93 (95% CI 0·90-0·97; p<0·0001) per 1-SD increment in LPA KIV2 repeats after adjustment for lipoprotein(a) concentration and conventional lipid concentrations. The OR for myocardial infarction was 1·10 (1·05-1·14; p<0·0001) per 1-SD increment in lipoprotein(a) concentration, after adjustment for LPA KIV2 repeats and conventional lipids. Genome-wide analysis identified rs2457564 as a variant associated with smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoform size, but not lipoprotein(a) concentration, and rs3777392 as a variant associated with lipoprotein(a) concentration, but not apolipoprotein(a) isoform size. In 60 801 patients with coronary heart disease and 123 504 controls, OR for myocardial infarction was 0·96 (0·94-0·98; p<0·0001) per 1-SD increment in apolipoprotein(a) protein isoform size in serum due to rs2457564, which was directionally concordant with the OR observed in PROMIS for a similar change. The OR for myocardial infarction was 1·27 (1·07-1·50; p=0·007) per 1-SD increment in lipoprotein(a) concentration due to rs3777392, which was directionally concordant with the OR observed for a similar change in PROMIS.

INTERPRETATION

Human genetic data suggest that both smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoform size and increased lipoprotein(a) concentration are independent and causal risk factors for coronary heart disease. Lipoprotein(a)-lowering interventions could be preferentially effective in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease in individuals with smaller apolipoprotein(a) isoforms.

FUNDING

British Heart Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Center, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Pfizer.

Long-term statin therapy could be efficacious in reducing the lipoprotein (a) levels in patients with coronary artery disease modified by some traditional risk factors

BACKGROUND

Lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)] is a well-established risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). However, up till now, treatment of patients with higher Lp (a) levels is challenging. This current study aimed to investigate the therapeutic effects of short-, medium and long-term statin use on the Lp (a) reduction and its modifying factors.

METHODS

The therapeutic duration was categorized into short-term (median, 39 days), medium term (median, 219 days) and long-term (median, 677 days). The lipid profiles before therapy served as baselines. Patients at short-, medium or long-term exactly matched with those at baseline. Every patient's lipid profiles during the follow-ups were compared to his own ones at baselines.

RESULTS

The current study demonstrated that long-term statin therapy significantly decreased the Lp (a) levels in CAD patients while short-term or medium term statin therapy didn't. When grouped by statin use, only long-term simvastatin use significantly decreased the Lp (a) levels while long-term atorvastatin use insignificantly decreased the Lp (a) levels. Primary hypertension (PH), DM, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) could modify the therapeutic effects of statin use on the Lp (a) levels in CAD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term statin therapy could be efficacious in reducing the Lp (a) levels in CAD patients, which has been modified by some traditional risk factors. In the era of commercial unavailability of more reliable Lp (a) lowering drugs, our findings will bolster confidence in fighting higher Lp (a) abnormalities both for patients and for doctors.

Chronotherapy versus conventional statins therapy for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases. Cholesterol biosynthesis follows a circadian rhythm and is principally produced at night (between 12:00 am and 6:00 am). The adjustment of hypolipaemic therapy to biologic rhythms is known as chronotherapy. Chronotherapy is based on the idea that medication can have different effects depending on the hour at which it is taken. Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular events. In usual clinical practice, statins are administered once per day without specifying the time when they should be taken. It is unknown whether the timing of statin administration is important for clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To critically evaluate and analyse the evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the effects of chronotherapy on the effectiveness and safety of treating hyperlipidaemia with statins.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, OpenSIGLE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, and various other resources including clinical trials registers up to November 2015. We also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling people with primary or secondary hyperlipidaemia. To be included, trials must have compared any chronotherapeutic lipid-lowering regimen with statins and any other statin lipid-lowering regimen not based on chronotherapy. We considered any type and dosage of statin as eligible, as long as the control and experimental arms differed only in the timing of the administration of the same statin. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted the key data from studies in relation to participants, interventions, and outcomes for safety and efficacy. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and we used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes eight RCTs (767 participants analysed in morning and evening arms). The trials used different lipid-lowering regimens with statins (lovastatin: two trials; simvastatin: three trials; fluvastatin: two trials; pravastatin: one trial). All trials compared the effects between morning and evening statin administration. Trial length ranged from four to 14 weeks. We found a high risk of bias in the domain of selective reporting in three trials and in the domain of incomplete outcome data in one trial of the eight trials included. None of the studies included were judged to be at low risk of bias.None of the included RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, incidence of cardiovascular events, or deaths from any cause. Pooled results showed no evidence of a difference in total cholesterol (MD 4.33, 95% CI -1.36 to 10.01), 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD 4.85 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.87 to 10.57, 473 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 0.54, 95% CI -1.08 to 2.17, 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) or triglycerides (MD -8.91, 95% CI -22 to 4.17, 510 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) between morning and evening statin administration.With regard to safety outcomes, five trials (556 participants) reported adverse events. Pooled analysis found no differences in statins adverse events between morning and evening intake (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.15, 556 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and low-quality evidence suggested that there were no differences between chronomodulated treatment with statins in people with hyperlipidaemia as compared to conventional treatment with statins, in terms of clinically relevant outcomes. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, cardiovascular clinical events or death. The review did not find differences in adverse events associated with statins between both regimens. Taking statins in the evening does not have an effect on the improvement of lipid levels with respect to morning administration. Further high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this review.

PCSK9 inhibition in the management of hyperlipidemia: focus on evolocumab

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) increases low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations through interference with normal physiologic hepatic LDL receptor (LDLR) recycling. Inhibiting PCSK9 results in improved LDLR recycling, increased LDLR availability on hepatocyte cell surfaces, and reduced blood LDL-C levels, making PCSK9 inhibition a novel therapeutic strategy for managing hypercholesterolemia. Monoclonal antibodies directed against PCSK9 have been developed for this purpose. A large number of clinical trials have demonstrated that monoclonal antibodies against PCSK9 yield substantial reductions in LDL-C when administered as monotherapy or in combination with statins to patients with nonfamilial and familial forms of hypercholesterolemia. Data from long-term trials demonstrate that the LDL-C-lowering effect of PCSK9 inhibitors is durable. These agents are generally well tolerated, and few patients discontinue treatment due to adverse events. Moreover, PCSK9 inhibitors do not appear to elicit the hepatic and muscle-related side effects associated with statin use. The ultimate value of PCSK9 inhibitors will be measured by their effect on clinical outcomes. Early evidence of a reduction in cardiovascular events after 1 year of treatment was shown in a prospective exploratory analysis of two ongoing long-term open-label extension evolocumab trials. Similarly, cardiovascular events were reduced in another exploratory analysis after >1 year of therapy with alirocumab. For the primary care physician, PCSK9 inhibitors represent a welcome additional option for lowering LDL-C in patients with familial forms of hypercholesterolemia and those with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who are on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Long-term efficacy and safety of cerivastatin 0.8 mg in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND

Statins are the agents of choice in reducing elevated plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).

HYPOTHESIS

Cerivastatin 0.8 mg has greater long-term efficacy in reducing LDL-C than pravastatin 40 mg in primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week study, patients (n = 1,170) were randomized (4:1:1) to cerivastatin 0.8 mg, cerivastatin 0.4 mg, or placebo daily. After 8 weeks, placebo was switched to pravastatin 40 mg. Patients with insufficient LDL-C lowering after 24 weeks were allowed open-labeled resin therapy.

RESULTS

Cerivastatin 0.8 mg reduced LDL-C versus cerivastatin 0.4 mg (40.8 vs. 33.6%, p <0.0001) or pravastatin 40 mg (31.5%, p<0.0001), and brought 81.8% of all patients, and 54.1% of patients with atherosclerotic disease, to National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals. Cerivastatin 0.8 mg improved mean total C (-29.0%), triglycerides (-18.3%), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+9.7%) (all p < or = 0.013 vs. pravastatin 40 mg). Higher baseline triglycerides were associated with greater reductions in triglycerides and elevations in HDL-C with cerivastatin. Cerivastatin was well tolerated; the most commonly reported adverse events were arthralgia, headache, pharyngitis, and rhinitis. Symptomatic creatine kinase > 10x the upper limit of normal (ULN) occurred in 1, 1.5, and 0% of patients receiving cerivastatin 0.8 mg, cerivastatin 0.4 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg, respectively. Repeat hepatic transaminases >3 x ULN occurred in 0.3-0.5, 0.5, and 0% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In long-term use, cerivastatin 0.8 mg effectively and safely brings the majority of patients to NCEP goal.

Effects of statins on high-density lipoproteins: a potential contribution to cardiovascular benefit

PURPOSE

The objective was to systematically review clinical trial data on the effects of statins on high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and to examine the possibility that this provides cardiovascular benefits in addition to those derived from reductions in low-density lipoproteins (LDL).

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for publications describing clinical trials of atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin. On the basis of predefined criteria, 103 were selected for review.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, statins raise HDL, measured as HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I); these elevations are maintained in the long-term. In hypercholesterolemia, HDL-C is raised by approximately 4% to 10%. The percentage changes are greater in patients with low baseline levels, including those with the common combination of high triglycerides (TG) and low HDL-C. These effects do not appear to be dose-related although there is evidence that, with the exception of atorvastatin, the changes in HDL-C are proportional to reductions in apo B-containing lipoproteins. The most likely explanation is a reduced rate of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP)-mediated flow of cholesterol from HDL. There is some evidence that the statin effects on HDL reduce progression of atherosclerosis and risk of cardiovascular disease independently of reductions in LDL.

CONCLUSION

Statins cause modest increases in HDL-C and apo A-I probably mediated by reductions in CETP activity. It is plausible that such changes independently contribute to the cardiovascular benefits of the statin class but more studies are needed to further explore this possibility.

Efficacy and tolerability of combined treatment with L-carnitine and simvastatin in lowering lipoprotein(a) serum levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentration is generally related to coronary artery disease (CAD) and cerebrovascular disease. However, at present, few interventions are available to lower Lp(a) concentrations. We investigated the effects of l-carnitine, co-administered with simvastatin, on hyper-Lp(a) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We conducted an open, randomised, parallel-group study, in one investigational center (University hospital). Fifty-two patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a triglyceride serum levels <400mg/dL (<4.5 mmol/L), and Lp(a) serum levels >20mg/dL (0.71 mmol/L) were randomised to receive simvastatin alone (n=26) or simvastatin plus l-carnitine (n=26) for 60 days. Simvastatin was administered, in both groups, at a dosage of 20 mg/day, while l-carnitine was administered at a dosage of 2g/day once daily. Both treatments were given orally. Serum levels of triglycerides, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol (total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol), apolipoprotein B, and Lp(a) were measured at baseline and 60 days after starting treatment. No difference in time by groups (simvastatin and simvastatin plus l-carnitine) were observed in the reduction of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apoB serum levels. On the other hand, Lp(a) serum levels increase from baseline to 60 days in the simvastatin group alone versus a significant decrease in the combination group. Our findings provide support for a possible role of combined treatment with l-carnitine and simvastatin in lowering Lp(a) serum levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus than with simvastatin alone. Our results strongly suggest that l-carnitine may have a role among lipid-lowering strategies.

Efficacy and safety of statins in hypercholesterolemia with emphasis on lipoproteins

Information of the effect of statin on lipoproteins such as apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, lipoprotein (a) [Lp (a)], or apolipoprotein B levels is limited. This investigation was a crossover study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and simvastatin in patients with hyperlipidemia. Sixty-six patients were involved in the study. Group I consisted of 32 patients, who were first treated with atorvastatin (10 mg) then switched to simvastatin (10 mg). Group II consisted of 34 patients, who were first treated with simvastatin then switched to atorvastatin. Each regimen was used for 3 months (phase I), stopped for 2 months, and then restarted for another 3 months (phase II). Both statins effectively reduced total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), apo B, and Lp (a) (P < 0.001 in all comparisons). A significant increase in the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was noted after both statin treatments (P < 0.05 in all comparisons). Both statins caused an increase in the apo A-I levels, and the extent of changes in apo A-I revealed no difference between the two drugs. Compared to the simvastatin group, there were more patients in the atorvastatin group achieving the National Cholesterol Education Program ATP-III LDL-C goal (P < 0.05) and European LDL-C goal (P < 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated; no patient was withdrawn from the study. This study demonstrates that both statins can effectively improve lipid profiles in patients with hyperlipidemia. Atorvastatin is more effective in helping patients reach the ATP-III and European LDL-C goals than simvastatin at the same dosage.

Effect of Nandrolone Decanoate on serum lipoprotein (a) and its isoforms in hemodialysis patients

Malnutrition, anemia and increased atherosclerosis are the main causes of mortality in hemodialysis patients. Therapies designed to improve the disorders might therefore be expected to improve outcome. The effects of Nandrolone Decanoate (ND), in 64 stable hemodialysis patients, were studied with respect to the following parameters: nutritional status, hematological indexes, lipid profiles including serum levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in terms of differences in apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. The patients were treated with ND at dose of 100 mg/I.M./week for 4 months. After 2 and 4 months of treatment the elevations in the serum levels of albumin (p < 0.0001), creatinine (p < 0.009), hemoglobin (p < 0.03), hematocrit (p < 0.03), cholesterol (p = 0.007) and triglyceride (p < 0.04) were noticed. Marked decrease in the concentration of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.007) and Lp(a) (p < 0.0001) were also found. These effects after 2 months of treatment withdrawal were relatively constant. By dividing patients according to the baseline Lp(a) levels and molecular weight of apo(a) isoform, it was noticed that the decrease in serum Lp(a) was significant in patients with high Lp(a) (>30 mg/dl) than those of with low Lp(a) (<30 mg/dl), irrespective of apo(a) molecular weight. It may be suggested that, ND has beneficial effect on nutritional status and treatment of anemia in hemodialysis patients. In spite the adverse effect of ND on lipid profile, it decreases Lp(a) mostly in patients with high serum Lp(a) preferently by the effect on apo(a) gene transcriptional activity.

Long term statin treatment reduces lipoprotein(a) concentrations in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia

BACKGROUND

Raised plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. It is unknown whether increased Lp(a) is an additional risk factor for coronary artery disease in familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) or whether statin treatment can reduce Lp(a) concentrations in the long term.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate Lp(a) concentrations in relation to statin treatment and the progression of atherosclerosis in a large cohort of FH patients.

DESIGN

A two year, randomised, double blind trial (the ASAP trial).

PATIENTS

325 heterozygous FH patients.

INTERVENTION

Treatment with 80 mg atorvastatin or 40 mg simvastatin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Change in Lp(a) concentrations and intima-media thickness of carotid artery segments at one year and two years.

RESULTS

At baseline, median Lp(a) concentrations were 327 mg/l and 531 mg/l in the atorvastatin and simvastatin arms, respectively (p = 0.03). In the atorvastatin arm, Lp(a) concentrations decreased to 243 mg/l after one year (p < 0.001) and to 263 mg/l after two years (p < 0.001). In the simvastatin arm, Lp(a) concentrations decreased to 437 mg/l after one year (p < 0.001) and to 417 mg/l after two years (p < 0.001). The difference in Lp(a) reduction between the two treatment arms was significant after one year (p = 0.004), but not after two years (p = 0.086). Lp(a) concentrations at baseline were not related to cardiovascular events at baseline. There was no correlation between baseline Lp(a) concentrations and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations or intima-media thickness at baseline. Change in Lp(a) concentrations was not correlated with change in intima-media thickness after one or two years.

CONCLUSIONS

Long term statin treatment significantly lowers Lp(a) in FH patients. However, this reduction was unrelated to changes in intima-media thickness and casts doubt on the importance of Lp(a) in the progression of atherosclerotic disease in these patients.

Prospective, noninterventional, uncontrolled, open-chart, pharmacoepidemiologic study of prescribing patterns for lipid-lowering drugs at a tertiary care teaching hospital in North India

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for management of dyslipidemia released by the US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) have been questioned for their relevance in the South Asian Indian populations because these populations are reported to have significantly different lipoprotein parameters and atherogenic risk factors than Western populations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine current prescribing patterns for lipid-lowering drugs (LLDs) adopted by physicians in North India.

METHODS

This prospective, noninterventional, uncontrolled, open-chart, pharmacoepidemiologic study was conducted from June 2000 to August 2000 at a tertiary care hospital in North India and included 200 dyslipidemic patients. The pattern of prescribing LLDs was recorded, along with the serum levels of lipid parameters-total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a])-at the time of initiating LLD therapy and compared with the 1993 NCEP-II therapeutic guidelines for dyslipidemia management.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) levels of lipid parameters in the study population were as follows: TC, 223.2 (21.5) mg/dL; TG, 258.4 (61.3) mg/dL; LDL-C, 131.6 (26.5) mg/dL; HDL-C, 39.8 (8.9) mg/dL; and Lp(a), 44.8 (26.8) mg/dL. The LLDs prescribed were fibrates (53.5%) and statins (46.5%). Forty percent of patients prescribed LLDs did not meet the NCEP-II criteria for initiation of LLD therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable differences in prescribing patterns of LLDs were observed compared with the then-prevalent NCEP-II guidelines. However, due to the abnormally high serum Lp(a) levels present in the average dyslipidemia profile in South Asian Indian populations, this pattern was in accordance with the specific recommendations made for these populations, as well as with the 2001 NCEP-III guidelines.

Lack of therapeutic interchangeability of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To review relevant literature and provide an opinion on the class effect of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins).

DATA SOURCES

Primary and review articles were identified by MEDLINE search (1990-July 2002).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Editorials, studies, and review articles related to the class effect or therapeutic interchangeability of statins were reviewed. Also included was information that is relevant to this topic.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although statins share common main actions, they may have clinically important differences in terms of efficacy and safety. At fixed or allowable dosages, rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin produced greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effects compared with other statins. Some statins have shown reduction in either cardiovascular and/or total mortality. Statins also differ in their structure, pharmacokinetics, potency, and rate of metabolism, any or all of which may have clinical significance. Although inconclusive, subtle differences in nonlipid effects of some statins may have contributed to positive benefits observed in clinical studies. As a result of drug-related deaths, cerivastatin was withdrawn voluntarily from the market, which may raise the question whether there is therapeutic interchangeability (due to class effect) among statins.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the competition for market share and strategies attempting to identify differences in therapeutic value, few head-to-head comparisons between statins have been performed. The limited, available data suggest that statins are not therapeutically interchangeable.

Atorvastatin lowers lipoprotein(a) but not apolipoprotein(a) fragment levels in hypercholesterolemic subjects at high cardiovascular risk

The effect of statins on Lp(a) levels is controversial; furthermore, the potential action of statins on apo(a) fragmentation is indeterminate. We therefore determined the circulating levels of Lp(a) and of apo(a) fragments in hypercholesterolemic patients before and after treatment (6 weeks) with Atorvastatin 10 mg/day (A10) or Simvastatin 20 mg/day (S20). In a double blind study, hypercholesterolemic patients (n=391) at high cardiovascular risk (LDL-C>=4.13 mmol/l; TG<2.24 mmol/l; 34% with documented CHD; 45% hypertensive; and 29% current smokers) were assigned to treatment with A10 (n=199) or S20 (n=192). Plasma Lp(a) and apo(a) fragment levels (n=206) were measured prior to and after treatment. At baseline, A10 and S20 groups did not differ in plasma levels of lipids, Lp(a) (A10: 0.45+/-0.48 mg/ml, S20: 0.46+/-0.5), and apo(a) fragments (A10: 3.88+/-5.22 microg/ml; S20: 3.25+/-3), and equally in apo(a) isoform size (A10: 26+/-5 kr, S20: 25.5+/-5.3). After treatment, both statins significantly reduced Lp(a) levels (A10: 0.42+/-0.47 mg/ml, 6% variation, P<0.001; S20: 0.45+/-0.53 mg/ml, 0.02% variation, P=0.046). A10 and S20 did not significantly differ in their efficacy to lower Lp(a) levels. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the reduction of Lp(a) levels was independently associated with Lp(a) baseline concentration, but not to other variables, including LDL-C reduction. Plasma levels of apo(a) fragments were not modified by either statin. In conclusion, both A10 and S20 significantly lowered Lp(a), although this effect was of greater magnitude in atorvastatin-treated patients.

Simvastatin lowers C-reactive protein within 14 days: an effect independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction

BACKGROUND

The early response of C-reactive protein to initiation of a hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine the rate at which highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels change after initiation of simvastatin and whether this occurs independently of the change in LDL cholesterol.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study was a crossover, double-blind design including 40 subjects with elevated LDL cholesterol. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: simvastatin 40 mg for 14 days, then placebo for 14 days, or placebo first, then simvastatin. Simvastatin decreased LDL cholesterol by 56+/-4 mg/dL (P<0.0001) at day 7 and by an additional 8+/-3 mg/dL (P=0.02) at day 14. Baseline log(hsCRP) levels were similar in the 2 groups. By day 14, log(hsCRP) was significantly lower in patients on simvastatin when compared with placebo (P=0.011). Although there was no significant difference in fibrinogen levels, simvastatin produced a modest increase in log[lipoprotein(a)] (P=0.03) at days 7 and 14. There were no relationships between the decrease in LDL cholesterol and the decrease in hsCRP.

CONCLUSIONS

Simvastatin lowers hsCRP by 14 days, independent of its effect on LDL cholesterol. This rapid impact of a statin on hsCRP has potential implications in the management of acute coronary syndromes.

Major reduction in plasma Lp(a) levels during sepsis and burns

Plasma levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], an atherogenic particle, vary widely between individuals and are highly genetically determined. Whether Lp(a) is a positive acute-phase reactant is debated. The present study was designed to evaluate the impact of major inflammatory responses on plasma Lp(a) levels. Plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), low density lipoprotein cholesterol, Lp(a), and apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)] fragments, as well as urinary apo(a), were measured serially in 9 patients admitted to the intensive care unit for sepsis and 4 patients with extensive burns. Sepsis and burns elicited a major increase in plasma CRP levels. In both conditions, plasma concentrations of Lp(a) declined abruptly and transiently in parallel with plasma low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and closely mirrored plasma CRP levels. In 5 survivors, the nadir of plasma Lp(a) levels was 5- to 15-fold lower than levels 16 to 18 months after the study period. No change in plasma levels of apo(a) fragments or urinary apo(a) was noticed during the study period. Turnover studies in mice indicated that clearance of Lp(a) was retarded in lipopolysaccharide-treated animals. Taken together, these data demonstrate that Lp(a) behaves as a negative acute-phase reactant during major inflammatory response. Nongenetic factors have a major, acute, and unexpected impact on Lp(a) metabolism in burns and sepsis. Identification of these factors may provide new tools to lower elevated plasma Lp(a) levels.

Long-term effects of a sustained-release preparation of acipimox on dyslipidemia and glucose metabolism in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

Elevated circulating plasma nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) may contribute to the insulin resistance and hyperglycemia of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM), and decreasing plasma NEFA could provide a therapeutic benefit. A sustained-release preparation of acipimox, a lipolysis inhibitor, was used in an attempt to decrease circulating plasma NEFA levels long-term, and the effects on glycemic control, insulin resistance, and serum lipids were measured. Sixty NIDDM patients (43 males and 17 females) took part in a randomized controlled trial of acipimox or placebo for 12 weeks. Fasting plasma NEFA levels did not change in acipimox-treated patients (baseline v 12 weeks, 0.84 +/- 0.35 v 0.88 +/- 0.55 mmol x L(-1), mean +/- SD). Fasting blood glucose was unchanged (mean difference v placebo, -0.5 mmol x L(-1); 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 0.3 mmol x L[-1]), but serum fructosamine decreased (mean difference v placebo, -26 micromol x L(-1); 95% CI, -51 to 0 mmol x L[-1]), as did the standardized hemoglobin A1 ([HbA1] mean difference v placebo, -1.4%; 95% CI, -3.0% to -0.1%). Insulin resistance measured as steady-state plasma glucose during an insulin-dextrose infusion test was unchanged (mean difference v placebo, -1.4 mmol x L(-1); 95% CI, -3.2 to 0.5 mmol x L[-1]). Serum total cholesterol (mean difference v placebo, -0.4 mmol x L(-1); 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 mmol x L[-1]), serum apolipoprotein B ([apo B] mean difference v placebo, -0.19 g x L(-1); 95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1 g x L[-1]), and serum triglycerides (mean difference v placebo for pretreatment v posttreatment ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.88) were all lower with acipimox. Serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (mean difference v placebo, 0.10 mmol x L(-1); 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.3 mmol x L[-1]), serum apo A1 (mean difference v placebo, 0.03 g x L(-1); 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.1 g x L[-1]), and serum lipoprotein(a) ([Lp(a)] acipimox v placebo, 154 (0 to 1,574) v 71 (0 to 1,009), median and range) were unchanged. Despite the lack of change in fasting plasma NEFA levels, acipimox caused a modest beneficial improvement in overall glycemic control and plasma lipids in NIDDM patients and could be a useful agent in the treatment of dyslipidemic NIDDM patients.

Serum Lp(a) lipoprotein concentration is not associated with clinical and angiographic outcome five years after coronary artery bypass graft surgery

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between serum Lp(a) lipoprotein concentration and clinical and angiographic outcomes five years after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

SETTING

A regional cardiothoracic centre, Freeman Hospital, and the University Clinical Investigation Unit, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne.

PATIENTS AND DESIGN

353 consecutive patients (56 female, 297 male, mean age 57-2 years) undergoing first time CABG surgery for stable angina were studied prospectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Late cardiac death (beyond 30 days) and non-fatal myocardial infarction; prevalence of angina five years after surgery in 291 (94%) survivors and vein graft patency (evaluated by patient) in 118 survivors five years after surgery. Serum Lp(a) concentration and lipid profiles were measured before operation, and 3, 6, 12, and 60 months after surgery. Lipid profiles were also measured 24 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Weighted Lp(a) concentration (by tertile) was not associated with late cardiac death or with the combination of late cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, with the presence of angina, or with vein graft occlusion. The association remained non-significant if analysis was restricted to the upper tertile of LDL cholesterol (> 4.1 mmol/l) or to patients under the age of 55 years at the time of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Serum Lp(a) concentration did not predict late cardiac death, the combination of late cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, or the prevalence of angina or vein graft occlusion five years after CABG surgery.

Efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Recent studies have documented the long-term impact of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors on mortality and morbidity related to coronary heart disease, establishing the link between lowering cholesterol levels and reducing cardiac events. Our study was a comparative literature review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of four HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors-fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin-used in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia. The data sources for our meta-analysis of the efficacy of these cholesterol-lowering agents were 52 randomized, double-masked clinical trials with at least 25 patients per treatment arm. The results showed all four agents to be effective in reducing blood cholesterol levels. We computed summary efficacy estimates for all published dose strengths for the four agents. Fluvastatin 20 mg/d reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels by 21.0% and total cholesterol (total-C) levels by 16.4%; fluvastatin 40 mg/d reduced these levels by 23.1% and 17.7%, respectively. Lovastatin 20 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 24.9% and total-C levels by 17.7%; lovastatin 80 mg/d reduced these levels by 39.8% and 29.2%, respectively. Pravastatin 10 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 19.3% and total-C levels by 14.0%; pravastatin 80 mg/d reduced these levels by 37.7% and 28.7%, respectively. Simvastatin 2.5 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 22.9% and total-C levels by 15.7%; simvastatin 40 mg/d reduced these levels by 40.7% and 29.7%, respectively. The results of our meta-analysis can be used in conjunction with treatment objectives and comparative cost-effectiveness data for these agents to decide appropriate therapeutic alternatives for individual patients.