Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Controlled Trials on the Prevalence of Statin Intolerance

Lipid management strategies for diabetic patients align with an evidence-based guideline

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) significantly. Statins are recommended for all diabetic patients aged ≥ 40 years to alleviate this risk.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the status of the implementation of the recommendations of lipid management strategies for diabetic patients.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 500 patients with DM, aged ≥ 40 referring to a public pharmacy with at least one diabetic medication in their prescription, were enrolled. Patients' demographics, lipid panel data, medications, personal and family history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and risk factors for ASCVD were documented. The appropriateness of stain dosing intensity was judged based on the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guideline.

RESULTS

The mean ± SD of the age of patients was 61.39 ± 10.49 years. Among patients, 238 (47.6) were men. More than half of the patients were subject to receiving primary prevention (59.8%, n = 299). For 80.8% (n = 404) of patients, a statin, most frequently atorvastatin (61.8%), was prescribed. The appropriate statin dose based on the guideline for 470 patients (94%), was high-intensity statin. In 70.6% (n = 353) of patients, lipid management was not in accordance with the guideline. Patients with ASCVD were more likely to receive the statins and the appropriate doses compared to patients without ASCVD (p-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite a relatively high percentage of patients who received statins, the lipid management in most patients was not in accordance with the guideline. The profound problem was the suboptimal dosage of statins. Investigating the reasons and barriers of the appropriate management can be helpful. Additionally, since patients without ASCVD who should receive statins for primary prevention were significantly less likely to receive statins and evidence-based doses, more attention is needed for this population.

Comparative Muscle Tolerability of Different Types and Intensities of Statins: A Network Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

The benefits of statins for ischemic cardio-cerebrovascular diseases are well known. However, concerns around muscle adverse events still exist. We therefore aimed to compare the muscle safety of individual statins in adults.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched to include double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one statin with another or with control treatment. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were undertaken with Stata 14.0 software. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was adopted for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 83 RCTs were included. In the pairwise meta-analysis, statins were significantly associated with only a slight increase in muscle symptoms compared with control (RR=1.05; 95% CI=1.01-1.09). In the drug-level network meta-analyses, no statistically significant difference was found between individual statins in the incidence of muscle symptoms, myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, creatine kinase (CK) >10 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) or discontinuation due to muscle adverse events. In the dose-level network meta-analyses, there were no statistically significant dose-dependent effects on any outcomes except that moderate-intensity statins had a higher incidence of muscle symptoms than control (RR=1.13; 95% CI=1.01-1.27). Moderate simvastatin (RR=6.57; 95% CI=1.26-34.41) and moderate pravastatin (RR=5.96; 95% CI=1.00-35.44) had a statistically significantly higher incidence of CK >10×ULN compared with moderate atorvastatin. Lipophilic statins and statins metabolized by liver cytochrome P450 3A4 were not associated with an increased risk of muscle adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Statins may be generally safe on muscle. Moderate atorvastatin may be superior to equivalent simvastatin and pravastatin in muscle tolerability.

Achievement of Primary Prevention Cardiometabolic Targets in Women with HIV: An Urgent Call to Action to Pursue Cardiovascular Health

BACKGROUND

Cardiometabolic health has become crucial, especially for women with HIV (WWH). We assessed the achievement of targets for hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes (H/Dy/DT) in primary prevention in a WWH cohort.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis including all WWH in our clinic, excluding those who had a myocardial infarction. H/Dy/DT achievement was assessed by both EACS guidelines and individual cardiovascular risk, CVR (measured by ESC calculator), using logistic regression to evaluate differences in H/Dy/DT achievement between migrant and Italian women.

RESULTS

We included 292 WWH, 55.5% Italian and 44.5% migrant women; the median age was 50 (IQR:42-58) years, 94.5% had undetectable HIV-RNA, 55.1% had a high level of education, 27.1% were smokers, and 19.2% did regularly physical exercise. Overall, 76%, 19%, and 5% of women presented a low, a high, and a very high CVR, respectively. Among Italians, 28.4% and 6.2% women presented a high and a very high CVR, respectively. Considering migrants, 7.7% and 3.8% women presented a high and a very high CVR, respectively. Overall, among migrant women, those with a high CVR were more likely to be not at target than those with a low risk (especially for LDL-c and blood pressure among people on treatment), despite the fact that we did not detect a statistically significant difference. By contrast, migrants were more likely to achieve glycemic targets than Italians (p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

H/Dy/DT target achievement is suboptimal, especially in migrants. A more aggressive pharmacological treatment, also assessing adherence to medical prescriptions, and promotion of healthy lifestyle should be urgently implemented, possibly redrawing the current model of care.

Individual lifetime benefit from low-dose colchicine in patients with chronic coronary artery disease

AIMS

Low-dose colchicine reduces cardiovascular risk in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but absolute benefits may vary between individuals. This study aimed to assess the range of individual absolute benefits from low-dose colchicine according to patient risk profile.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline-recommended SMART-REACH model was combined with the relative treatment effect of low-dose colchicine and applied to patients with CAD from the Low-Dose Colchicine 2 (LoDoCo2) trial and the Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort-Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease (UCC-SMART) study (n = 10 830). Individual treatment benefits were expressed as 10-year absolute risk reductions (ARRs) for myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death (MACE), and MACE-free life-years gained. Predictions were also performed for MACE plus coronary revascularization (MACE+), using a new lifetime model derived in the REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry. Colchicine was compared with other ESC guideline-recommended intensified (Step 2) prevention strategies, i.e. LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction to 1.4 mmol/L and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction to 130 mmHg. The generalizability to other populations was assessed in patients with CAD from REACH North America and Western Europe (n = 25 812). The median 10-year ARR from low-dose colchicine was 4.6% [interquartile range (IQR) 3.6-6.0%] for MACE and 8.6% (IQR 7.6-9.8%) for MACE+. Lifetime benefit was 2.0 (IQR 1.6-2.5) MACE-free years, and 3.4 (IQR 2.6-4.2) MACE+-free life-years gained. For LDL-c and SBP reduction, respectively, the median 10-year ARR for MACE was 3.0% (IQR 1.5-5.1%) and 1.7% (IQR 0.0-5.7%), and the lifetime benefit was 1.2 (IQR 0.6-2.1) and 0.7 (IQR 0.0-2.3) MACE-free life-years gained. Similar results were obtained for MACE+ and in American and European patients from REACH.

CONCLUSION

The absolute benefits of low-dose colchicine vary between individual patients with chronic CAD. They may be expected to be of at least similar magnitude to those of intensified LDL-c and SBP reduction in a majority of patients already on conventional lipid-lowering and blood pressure-lowering therapy.

The Efficacy and Safety of Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin with Ezetimibe versus High-Intensity Rosuvastatin in High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open, Parallel, Phase 4 Study

BACKGRUOUND

To investigate the efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination compared to highintensity rosuvastatin in high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This study was a randomized, multicenter, open, parallel phase 4 study, and enrolled T2DM subjects with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. The primary endpoint was the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) change rate after 24-week rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg treatment was non-inferior to that of rosuvastatin 20 mg. The achievement proportion of 10-year ASCVD risk <7.5% or comprehensive lipid target (LDL-C <70 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and apolipoprotein B <80 mg/dL) without discontinuation, and several metabolic parameters were explored as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A hundred and six participants were assigned to each group. Both groups showed significant reduction in % change of LDL-C from baseline at week 24 (-63.90±6.89 vs. -55.44±6.85, combination vs. monotherapy, p=0.0378; respectively), but the combination treatment was superior to high-intensity monotherapy in LDL-C change (%) from baseline (least square [LS] mean difference, -8.47; 95% confidence interval, -16.44 to -0.49; p=0.0378). The combination treatment showed a higher proportion of achieved comprehensive lipid targets rather than monotherapy (85.36% vs. 62.22% in monotherapy, p=0.015). The ezetimibe combination significantly improved homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function even without A1c changes (LS mean difference, 17.13; p=0.0185).

CONCLUSION

In high ASCVD risk patients with T2DM, the combination of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was not only non-inferior but also superior to improving dyslipidemia with additional benefits compared to high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

The Impact of Perioperative Morbidities, Lack of Discharge Aspirin, and Lack of Discharge Statin on Long Term Survival Following EVAR

OBJECTIVE

Adverse perioperative events and discharge medications both have the potential to impact survival following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). We hypothesize that variables such as blood loss, reoperation in the same hospital admission, and lack of discharge statin/aspirin have significant effect on long term survival following EVAR. Similarly, other perioperative morbidities, are hypothesized to affect long term mortality. Quantifying the mortality effect of perioperative events and treatment emphasizes to physicians the critical nature of preoperative optimization, case planning, operative execution and postoperative patient management.

METHODS

All EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative between 2003 and 2021 were queried. Exclusions were: ruptured/symptomatic aneurysm; concomitant renal artery or supra-renal intervention at the time of EVAR; conversion to open aneurysm repair at the time of initial operation; and undocumented mortality status at the 5 year mark postoperatively. 18,710 patients met inclusion criteria. Multivariable Cox regression time dependent analysis was performed to investigate the strength of mortality association of the exposure variables. Standard demographic variables and pre-existing major co-morbidities were included in the regression analysis to account for disproportionate, deleterious co-variables amongst those experiencing the various morbidities. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to provide survival curves for the key variables.

RESULTS

Mean follow up was 5.99 years and 5-year survival for included patients was 69.2%. Cox regression revealed increased long term mortality to be associated with the following perioperative events: reoperation during the index hospital admission (HR 1.21, P = .034), perioperative leg ischemia (HR 1.34, P = .014), perioperative acute renal insufficiency (HR 1.24, P = .013), perioperative myocardial infarction (HR 1.87, P < .001), perioperative intestinal ischemia (HR 2.13, P < .001), perioperative respiratory failure (HR 2.15, P < .001), lack of discharge aspirin (HR 1.26, P < .001), and lack of discharge statin (HR 1.26, P < .001). The following pre-existing co-morbidities correlated with increased long term mortality (P < .001 for all) : body mass index under 20 kg/m2, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, reported history congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral artery disease, advancing age, baseline renal insufficiency and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%. Females were more likely to have EBL >300 mL, reoperation, perioperative MI, limb ischemia and acute renal insufficiency than males (P < .01 for all). Female sex trended but was not associated with increased long term mortality risk (HR 1.06, 95% CI .995-1.14, P = .072).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after EVAR is improved with optimal operative planning to facilitate evading the need for reoperation and ensuring patients without contra-indication are discharged with aspirin and statin medications. Females and patients with pre-existing co-morbidity are at particularly higher risk for perioperative limb ischemia, renal insufficiency, intestinal ischemia and myocardial ischemia necessitating appropriate preparation and preventative measures.

HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors for Traumatic Brain Injury

Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) are associated with high morbidity and mortality due to both the original insult as well as the destructive biological response that follows. Medical management aims to slow or even halt secondary neurological injury while simultaneously laying the groundwork for recovery. Statins are one class of medications that is showing increased promise in the management of TBI. Used extensively in cardiovascular disease, these drugs were originally developed as competitive inhibitors within the cholesterol production pipeline. They are now used in diverse disease states due to their pleiotropic effects on other biological processes such as inflammation and angiogenesis. Preclinical studies, retrospective reviews, and randomized clinical trials have shown a variety of benefits in the management of TBI, but to date, no large-scale randomized clinical trial has been performed. Despite this limitation, statins' early promise and well-tolerated side effect profile make them a promising new tool in the management of TBIs. More bench and clinical studies are needed to delineate proper treatment regimens as well as understand their true potential.

Incidence of muscle symptoms in placebo arm among statin-intolerant patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Statins are highly used in cardiovascular prevention. Statin intolerance is the most significant cause of decreased adherence, translating into a higher cardiovascular risk. This systematic review aims to estimate the incidence of muscle adverse events in patients with a history of statin intolerance receiving placebo.

METHODS

Database search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE until March 2023. This systematic review included blinded randomized control trials enrolling patients with a history of statin intolerance who received a placebo. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results were presented in percentages, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Overall, eight studies with 8095 patients with a history of statin intolerance receiving placebo were included. The muscle adverse events incidence rate was 21.34% (95% CI 13.26-30.63%, 8 studies), and discontinuation due to adverse muscle events was 6.12% (95% CI 1.22-13.70%, 3 studies). The incidence was higher in subcutaneous placebo/sham (41.67%, 1 study) compared to oral placebo studies (22.95%, 6 studies).

CONCLUSION

In patients previously labeled as statin-intolerant, about a fifth of the patients exhibited muscle symptoms when receiving a placebo. This highlights the importance of ruling out non-statin-related symptoms to further optimize statin therapy for cardiovascular risk improvement.

Effectiveness and safety of statins on outcomes in patients with HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Statins are hypolipidaemic in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive individuals. However, their effect on all-cause mortality and rate of discontinuation is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of statins on all-cause mortality, discontinuation rates, and risk of adverse effects among HIV patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). We searched four electronic databases from inception until October 2021 for trials and cohort studies evaluating the effects of statin treatment versus placebo in HIV patients. Forty-seven studies involving 91,594 patients were included. Statins were associated with significantly lower risk of discontinuation (RR, 0.701; 95% CI 0.508-0.967; p = 0.031). The risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.994; 95% CI 0.561-1.588; p = 0.827), any adverse effects (RR, 0.780; 95% CI 0.564-1.077; p = 0.131) and, diabetes mellitus (RR, 0.272; 95% CI 0.031-2.393; p = 0.241) with statin treatment were lower but not statistically significant compared to placebo/control. Statin treatment was associated with a trend of higher but statistically insignificant risk of myalgia (RR, 1.341; 95% CI 0.770-2.333; p = 0.299), elevated creatine kinase (RR, 1.101; 95% CI 0.457-2.651; p = 0.830) and liver enzyme activities (RR, 1.709; 95% CI 0.605-4.831; p = 0.312). Clinicians should consider the nocebo effect in the effective management of PLWH on statins, who present with common adverse effects such as myalgia and, elevated levels of creatine kinase and liver enzymes.

Statin-associated muscle symptoms-A review: Individualizing the approach to optimize care

The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, also known as "statins" are considered first-line pharmacologic therapy for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). They have been demonstrated efficacy in a variety of patients populations to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Like any pharmacologic therapy, however, they are not without possible adverse effects that can lead to discontinuation, thus leading to a loss of benefit. The most common side effect related to statin therapy impacting compliance is musculoskeletal related, commonly referred to as statin-associated muscle systems (SAMS). While the overall incidence is relatively low, the consequences of nonadherence to statin therapy can have a negative impact on patient care. Therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to understand risk factors, how to diagnose, and how to manage this unfortunate adverse effect in order to optimize care.

Improving statin treatment strategies to reduce LDL-cholesterol: factors associated with targets' attainment in subjects with and without type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study aimed to identify actionable factors to improve LDL-cholesterol target achievement and overcome underuse of lipid-lowering treatments in high- or very-high-cardiovascular risk patients.

METHODS

We evaluated healthcare records of 934,332 subjects from North-Italy, including subjects with available lipid profile and being on statin treatments up to December 2018. A 6-month-period defined adherence with proportion-of-days-covered ≥ 80%. Treatment was classified as high-intensity-statin (HIS) + ezetimibe, HIS-alone, non-HIS (NHIS) + ezetimibe or NHIS alone.

RESULTS

We included 27,374 subjects without and 10,459 with diabetes. Among these, 30% and 36% were on secondary prevention, respectively. Adherence was high (78-100%) and increased with treatment intensity and in secondary prevention. Treatment intensity increased in secondary prevention, but only 42% were on HIS. 2019-guidelines LDL-cholesterol targets were achieved in few patients and more often among those with diabetes (7.4% vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001). Patients in secondary prevention had mean LDL-cholesterol levels aligned slightly above 70 mg/dl (range between 68 and 73 mg/dl and between 73 and 85 mg/dl in patients with and without diabetes, respectively). Moreover, the differences in mean LDL-cholesterol levels observed across patients using treatments with well-stablished different LDL-lowering effect were null or much smaller than expected (HIS vs. NHIS from - 3 to - 11%, p < 0.001, HIS + ezetimibe vs. HIS-from - 4 to + 5% n.s.). These findings, given the observational design of the study, might suggest that a "treat to absolute LDL-cholesterol levels" approach (e.g., targeting LDLc of 70 mg/dl) was mainly used by physicians rather than an approach to also achieve the recommended 50% reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels. Our analyses suggested that female sex, younger age, higher HDL-c, and elevated triglycerides are those factors delaying prescription of statin treatments, both in patients with and without diabetes and in those on secondary prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients on statin treatment and high adherence, only a small proportion of patients achieved LDL-cholesterol targets. Late initiation of high-intensity treatments, particularly among those with misperceived low-risk (e.g., female subjects or those with high HDL-cholesterol), appears as pivotal factors needing to be modified to improve CVD prevention.

Reported muscle symptoms during statin treatment amongst Italian dyslipidaemic patients in the real-life setting: the PROSISA Study

AIM

Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are a major determinant of poor treatment adherence and/or discontinuation, but a definitive diagnosis of SAMS is challenging. The PROSISA study was an observational retrospective study aimed to assess the prevalence of reported SAMS in a cohort of dyslipidaemic patients.

METHODS

Demographic/anamnestic data, biochemical values and occurrence of SAMS were collected by 23 Italian Lipid Clinics. Adjusted logistic regression was performed to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for association between probability of reporting SAMS and several factors.

RESULTS

Analyses were carried out on 16 717 statin-treated patients (mean ± SD, age 60.5 ± 12.0 years; 52.1% men). During statin therapy, 9.6% (N = 1599) of patients reported SAMS. Women and physically active subjects were more likely to report SAMS (OR 1.23 [1.10-1.37] and OR 1.35 [1.14-1.60], respectively), whist age ≥ 65 (OR 0.79 [0.70-0.89]), presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (OR 0.62 [0.51-0.74]), use of concomitant nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs (OR 0.87 [0.76-0.99]), use of high-intensity statins (OR 0.79 [0.69-0.90]) and use of potential interacting drugs (OR 0.63 [0.48-0.84]) were associated with lower probability of reporting SAMS. Amongst patients reporting SAMS, 82.2% underwent dechallenge (treatment interruption) and/or rechallenge (change or restart of statin therapy), with reappearance of muscular symptoms in 38.4% (3.01% of the whole cohort).

CONCLUSIONS

The reported prevalence of SAMS was 9.6% of the whole PROSISA cohort, but only a third of patients still reported SAMS after dechallenge/rechallenge. These results emphasize the need for a better management of SAMS to implement a more accurate diagnosis and treatment re-evaluation.

Main barriers in the management of dyslipidaemias: Intolerants

The lack of achieving the LDL-cholesterol goal observed in epidemiological studies, highlights the difficulty of transferring the benefit of the hypolipidaemic treatment noted in clinical trials, to current clinical practice. Although the reasons for not reaching LDL targets are probably multiple, i.e. treatment non-adherence, or therapeutic inertia, or treatment discontinuation as a consequence of statin intolerance, is frequently described. Statins are safe medications. However, 10 to 20% of the population refer to myalgias associated with their use, and 1 to 3% abandon treatment for this cause. In these subjects, it is necessary to change to a different statin, to use lower doses of statins, or to use irregular prescription regimes. If these actions are not useful, emphasis should be placed on the importance of hygienic and dietary recommendations and, when needed and depending on the cholesterol goal to achieve, the need of other lipid lowering treatments, like ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants, bempedoic acid, or PCSK9i, often in combination.

Prescription of suboptimal statin treatment regimens: a retrospective cohort study of trends and variation in English primary care

BACKGROUND

Since 2014 English national guidance recommends 'high-intensity' statins, reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by ≥40%.

AIM

To describe trends and variation in low-/medium-intensity statin prescribing and assess the feasibility of rapid prescribing behaviour change.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A retrospective cohort study using OpenPrescribing data from all 8142 standard NHS general practices in England from August 2010 to March 2019.

METHOD

Statins were categorised as high- or low-/medium-intensity using two different thresholds, and the proportion prescribed below these thresholds was calculated. The authors plotted trends and geographical variation, carried out mixed-effects logistic regression to identify practice characteristics associated with breaching of guidance, and used indicator saturation to identify sudden prescribing changes.

RESULTS

The proportion of statins prescribed below the recommended 40% LDL-lowering threshold has decreased gradually from 80% in 2011/2012 to 45% in 2019; the proportion below a pragmatic 37% threshold decreased from 30% to 18% in 2019. Guidance from 2014 had minimal impact on trends. Wide variation was found between practices (interdecile ranges 20% to 85% and 10% to 30% respectively in 2018). Regression identified no strong associations with breaching of guidance. Indicator saturation identified several practices exhibiting sudden changes towards greater guideline compliance.

CONCLUSION

Breaches of guidance on choice of statin remain common, with substantial variation between practices. Some have implemented rapid change, indicating the feasibility of rapid prescribing behaviour change. This article discusses the potential for a national strategic approach, using data and evidence to optimise care, including targeted education alongside audit and feedback to outliers through services such as OpenPrescribing.

Predictors of Statin Intolerance in Patients With a New Diagnosis of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Within a Large Integrated Health Care Institution: The IMPRES Study

Statins are among the most prescribed medications because of the well-documented benefits of safely lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. However, many patients are unable or unwilling to continue statin therapy because of real or perceived adverse effects. This study sought to increase understanding about which patients are unlikely to tolerate statin therapy. The Intermountain Healthcare's electronic data repository was queried from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2013, to identify all adults who survived their first encounter of coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebral vascular disease, or peripheral artery disease and received statin therapy during follow-up. Statin intolerance (SI) was identified by the documentation of clinician-noted intolerance or allergy or by the use of pitavastatin. Patients were followed up for ≥3 years or until death. Of the 48,997 patients evaluated, 3049 (6.2%) were documented with SI. Of those with SI, 9.8% were prescribed a low-intensity, 73.4% a moderate-intensity, and 16.8% a high-intensity statin dose. After adjustment for covariables, significant predictors of SI were female sex [odds ratio (OR) = 1.47, P < 0.0001], age (65-74 vs. <65: OR = 1.15, P = 0.002; ≥75 vs. <65: OR = 0.90, P = 0.03), hypertension (OR = 1.11, P = 0.01), hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.31, P < 0.0001), smoking (OR = 0.88, P = 0.001), renal failure (OR = 1.20, P = 0.009), heart failure (OR = 1.26, P < 0.0001), sleep apnea (OR = 1.22, P < 0.0001), prior malignancy (OR = 1.18, P = 0.007), depression (OR = 1.13, P = 0.04), and index atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease diagnosis (CAD vs. cerebral vascular disease: OR = 1.71, P < 0.0001; CAD vs. peripheral artery disease: OR = 1.23, P = 0.02). In this study, the strongest identified clinical predictor of future SI was female sex. Many standard cardiovascular risk factors were also associated with SI, suggesting that patients with multiple comorbidities are more likely to be vulnerable.

Atorvastatin for prevention of disease progression and hospitalisation in liver cirrhosis: protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with liver cirrhosis are often diagnosed late and once complications are present, the 2-year survival is 50%. Increasing evidence supports systemic inflammation and metabolic dysfunction in the hepatic stellate cell as key drivers of progression of cirrhosis. However, there is no registered medication, that targets inflammation and cellular dysfunction in the liver.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In a randomised double-blind and placebo-controlled trial with atorvastatin for liver cirrhosis, we aim to investigate clinical endpoints of survival, hospitalisations and safety, but also exploratory endpoints of genomics and protein functions in the liver.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

There is no registered medication that actively prevents development of complications or systemic inflammation in liver cirrhosis. All patients continue regular clinical management during the trial period. Atorvastatin has been on the market for several years with a safety profile that is acceptable even in patients with liver disease. A beneficial effect of atorvastatin on clinical outcomes in cirrhosis will provide cheap and effective causal treatment for chronic liver disease. The trial is registered by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2019-635) and approved by the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT 2019-001806-40) and the Scientific Ethics Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (H-19030643) before initiation. Reporting of the trial will follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines for reporting of randomised clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04072601) and in clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT 2019-001806-40) (Pre-results).

Evolocumab vs. Ezetimibe in Statin-Intolerant Hyperlipidemic Japanese Patients: Phase 3 GAUSS-4 Trial

Aim: In patients with hyperlipidemia, intolerance to statins presents a challenge in reducing the risk of events associated with cardiovascular disease. This phase 3, randomized, double-blind trial in Japanese patients with statin intolerance aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of evolocumab vs. ezetimibe in lowering low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C).

Methods: This study was conducted in a 12-week, double-blind period followed by an open-label extension designed to characterize 1 year of evolocumab treatment. Statin intolerance was defined as failure of two or more statins due to myalgia, myositis, or rhabdomyolysis. Eligible patients were randomized at 2:2:1:1 into four groups: 420 mg evolocumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) + oral placebo daily, 140 mg evolocumab every 2 weeks (Q2W) + oral placebo daily, subcutaneous (SC) placebo Q4W + 10 mg ezetimibe daily, and SC placebo Q2W + 10 mg ezetimibe daily.

Results: Sixty-one patients were randomized to evolocumab (n = 40) or ezetimibe (n = 21). For the co-primary endpoints of percent change from the baseline in mean LDL-C to the mean of weeks 10 and 12 and to week 12, the evolocumab-ezetimibe treatment differences were −39.4% (95% CI, −47.2% to −31.5%) and −40.1% (95% CI, −48.7% to −31.6%), respectively (adjusted p < 0.0001). The most common adverse events were diarrhea (9.5%) and nasopharyngitis (12.5%) in the ezetimibe and evolocumab groups, respectively, during the double-blind period and nasopharyngitis (29%) during the open-label extension.

Conclusion: Evolocumab was superior to ezetimibe in reducing LDL-C during the 12-week double-blind period in this population of Japanese patients with statin intolerance, with efficacy and safety results maintained for 1 year.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02634580

Gut Microbiota as an Objective Measurement for Auxiliary Diagnosis of Insomnia Disorder

Insomnia is a type of sleep disorder which is associated with various diseases’ development and progression, such as obesity, type II diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Recent investigation of the gut-brain axis enhances our understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in brain-related diseases. However, whether the gut microbiota is associated with insomnia remains unknown. In the present investigation, leveraging the 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing of V3-V4 region and the novel bioinformatic analysis, it was demonstrated that between insomnia and healthy populations, the composition, diversity and metabolic function of the gut microbiota are significantly changed. Other than these, redundancy analysis, co-occurrence analysis and PICRUSt underpin the gut taxa composition, signaling pathways, and metabolic functions perturbed by insomnia disorder. Moreover, random forest together with cross-validation identified two signature bacteria, which could be used to distinguish the insomnia patients from the healthy population. Furthermore, based on the relative abundance and clinical sleep parameter, we constructed a prediction model utilizing artificial neural network (ANN) for auxiliary diagnosis of insomnia disorder. Overall, the aforementioned study provides a comprehensive understanding of the link between the gut microbiota and insomnia disorder.

Muscle and statins: from toxicity to the nocebo effect

INTRODUCTION

Although statins have a satisfactory safety profile and are well tolerated, many statin-treated patients report muscle symptoms in clinical practice which contribute to drug discontinuation and, consequently, adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review will cover the definition and prevalence of statin intolerance, the clinical spectrum of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) with special focus on patients with only mild myalgias, the complexity of statin muscle intolerance diagnosis and provide an overview on the nocebo effect of particular importance for physicians.

EXPERT OPINION

Many patients are unable to tolerate statin therapy, with SAMS being the most common cause of statin intolerance. The reported incidence of SAMS was consistently lower in randomized placebo-controlled trials than in observational studies. These results strongly suggested that SAMS were not always due to by the pharmacologic effects of statin therapy. Convincing patients that their muscle symptoms might be due to causes other than statin treatment is sometimes difficult. Furthermore, clinicians should not prematurely discontinue statin therapy before considering other possible causes, including the nocebo effect.

Introducing the 'Drucebo' effect in statin therapy: a systematic review of studies comparing reported rates of statin-associated muscle symptoms, under blinded and open-label conditions

BACKGROUND

The 'placebo effect' and 'nocebo effect' are phenomena whereby beneficial (placebo) or adverse (nocebo) effects result from the expectation that an inert substance will relieve or cause a particular symptom. These terms are often inappropriately applied to effects experienced on drug therapy. Quantifying the magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in clinical trials is problematic because it requires a 'no treatment' arm. To overcome the difficulties associated with measuring the nocebo effect, and the fact that its definition refers to inert compounds, rather than drugs, we introduce the concept of 'drucebo' (a combination of DRUg and plaCEBO or noCEBO) to relate to beneficial or adverse effects of a drug, which result from expectation and are not pharmacologically caused by the drug. As an initial application of the concept, we have estimated the contribution of the drucebo effect to statin discontinuation and statin-induced muscle symptoms by performing a systematic review of randomized controlled trial of statin therapy.

METHODS

This preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis-compliant systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017082700). We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central from inception until 3 January 2018 using a search strategy designed to detect studies including the concepts (Statins AND Placebo AND muscle pain). We included studies that allowed us to quantify the drucebo effect for adverse muscle symptoms of statins by (i) comparing reported rates of muscle symptoms in blinded and unblinded phases of randomized controlled trials and (ii) comparing rates of muscle symptoms at baseline and during blinded therapy in trials that included patients with objectively confirmed statin intolerance at baseline. Extraction was performed by two researchers with disagreements settled by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Five studies allowed the estimation of the drucebo effect. All trials demonstrated an excess of side effects under open-label conditions. The contribution of the drucebo effect to statin-associated muscle pain ranged between 38% and 78%. The heterogeneity of study methods, outcomes, and reporting did not allow for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The drucebo effect may be useful in evaluating the safety and efficacy of medicines. Diagnosis of the drucebo effect in patients presenting with statin intolerance will allow restoration of life-prolonging lipid-lowering therapy. Our study was limited by heterogeneity of included studies and lack of access to individual patient data. Further studies are necessary to better understand risk factors for and clinical management of the drucebo effect.