Moderate-Intensity Statins Plus Ezetimibe vs. High-Intensity Statins After Coronary Revascularization: A Cohort Study

Low-Intensity Statin Plus Ezetimibe Versus Moderate-Intensity Statin for Primary Prevention: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Asian Population

BACKGROUND

While moderate-intensity statin therapy is recommended for primary prevention, statins may not be utilized at a recommended intensity due to dose-dependent adverse events, especially in an Asian population. However, evidence supporting the use of low-intensity statins in primary prevention is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare clinical outcomes between a low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin for primary prevention.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective cohort study used the Korean nationwide claims database (2002-2019). We included adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases who received moderate-intensity statins or low-intensity statins plus ezetimibe. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. The safety outcomes were liver and muscle injuries and new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM). We used standardized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

In the sIPTW model, 1717 and 36 683 patients used a low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin, respectively. In the PSM model, each group included 1687 patients. Compared with moderate-intensity statin use, low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe use showed similar risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.12 in sIPTW and HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.87-1.56 in PSM model). Low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe use was associated with decreased risks of liver and muscle injuries (subHR [sHR] = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.74-0.96 and sHR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77-0.97 in sIPTW; sHR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.96 and sHR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.72-0.94 in PSM model, respectively). For new-onset DM and hospitalization of liver and muscle injuries, no difference was observed.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe may be an alternative to moderate-intensity statin for primary prevention. Our findings provide evidence on safety and efficacy of statin therapy in Asian population.

Comparison of Effectiveness of High Dose Statin Monotherapy With Combination of Statin and Ezetimibe to Prevent Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of high statin monotherapy and a combination of statin and ezetimibe to prevent cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The study was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted comprehensive searches across online databases, including MEDLINE/ PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science, to find the relevant articles from the databases' inception to 10 Feb 2024. Outcomes assessed in the meta-analysis included major cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Data analysis was conducted utilizing RevMan Version 5.3.1. The comparison of outcomes between the two groups involved the calculation of risk ratios (RR) accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI) using either a random or fixed-effect model. Five studies were included in this meta-analysis, encompassing 48,668 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving high statin monotherapy. However, no significant differences in MACE, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization were reported. While acknowledging the limitations, including the lack of randomized controlled trials and the dominance of one study in the analysis, these findings underscore the importance of further research to clarify the comparative effectiveness of these treatment modalities in preventing cardiovascular outcomes in ACS patients.

Comparative effectiveness of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a nationwide cohort study

The long-term outcome of first-line moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy remains elusive. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy with high-intensity statin monotherapy. We conducted a nationwide, population-based, retrospective, cohort study of patients with ACS from 2013 to 2019. The patients using combination therapy were matched (1:1) to those using monotherapy. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause mortality. We estimated the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Cox proportional hazards regression. After propensity score matching, 10,723 pairs were selected. Men accounted for 70% of the patients and 37% aged > 70 years. The primary endpoint occurred in 1297 patients (12.1%) in the combination group and in 1426 patients (13.3%) in the monotherapy group, and decreased risk (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.92, P < 0.001) in the combination group. Among the patients with ACS, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with decreased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in a nationwide population-based study representing routine clinical practice.

Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Combination versus Quadruple-Dose Rosuvastatin Monotherapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review

PURPOSE

There are few studies in the literature on the dosage of statin that equivalently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to an ezetimibe combination and whether such regimens have differences in safety. We compared the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety of 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe to those of 20 mg rosuvastatin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS databases up to December 2021. Human studies investigating the two aforementioned regimens with a randomized controlled design were selected. Outcome variables included the percentage reduction in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and rates of composite adverse events (AEs), including muscle-related symptoms. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed after heterogeneity testing between studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The percentage LDL-C reduction did not differ between the combination and monotherapy groups [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.26; p=0.35]. The risk of composite AEs (odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.72; p=0.27) of the combination was not different compared to the monotherapy group. The percentage of total cholesterol reduction was greater in the combination group (SMD 0.22; p=0.02), whereas that of triglyceride reduction and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe had largely comparable lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability as 20 mg rosuvastatin.