Long-term effects of pravastatin and fosinopril on peripheral endothelial function in albuminuric subjects

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for preventing the progression of diabetic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I2 = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I2 = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I2 = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I2 = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I2 = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), and the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people with coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014, which included 50 studies (45,285 participants).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD not requiring dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 4 October 2023. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. An updated search will be undertaken every three months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on death, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 90 to 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed the study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous benefits and harms with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 studies (50,725 randomised participants); of these, 53 studies (42,752 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 12 months (range 2 to 64.8 months), the median dosage of statin was equivalent to 20 mg/day of simvastatin, and participants had a median eGFR of 55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Ten studies (7973 participants) compared two different statin regimens. We were able to meta-analyse 43 studies (41,273 participants). Most studies had limited reporting and hence exhibited unclear risk of bias in most domains. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statins prevent major cardiovascular events (14 studies, 36,156 participants: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79; I2 = 39%; high certainty evidence), death (13 studies, 34,978 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96; I² = 53%; high certainty evidence), cardiovascular death (8 studies, 19,112 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87; I² = 0%; high certainty evidence) and myocardial infarction (10 studies, 9475 participants: RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). There were too few events to determine if statins made a difference in hospitalisation due to heart failure. Statins probably make little or no difference to stroke (7 studies, 9115 participants: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.08; I² = 39%; moderate certainty evidence) and kidney failure (3 studies, 6704 participants: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Potential harms from statins were limited by a lack of systematic reporting. Statins compared to placebo may have little or no effect on elevated liver enzymes (7 studies, 7991 participants: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60; I² = 37%; low certainty evidence), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; I² = 0%; low certainty evidence). However, few studies reported rhabdomyolysis or elevated creatinine kinase; hence, we are unable to determine the effect due to very low certainty evidence. Statins reduce the risk of death, major cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction in people with CKD who did not have cardiovascular disease at baseline (primary prevention). There was insufficient data to determine the benefits and harms of the type of statin therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins reduce death and major cardiovascular events by about 20% and probably make no difference to stroke or kidney failure in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. However, due to limited reporting, the effect of statins on elevated creatinine kinase or rhabdomyolysis is unclear. Statins have an important role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and death in people who have CKD and do not require dialysis. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. We will search for new evidence every three months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Pravastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

Endothelial dysfunction in conduit arteries and in microcirculation. Novel therapeutic approaches

The vascular endothelium not only is a single monolayer of cells between the vessel lumen and the intimal wall, but also plays an important role by controlling vascular function and structure mainly via the production of nitric oxide (NO). The so called "cardiovascular risk factors" are associated with endothelial dysfunction, that reduces NO bioavailability, increases oxidative stress, and promotes inflammation contributing therefore to the development of atherosclerosis. The significant role of endothelial dysfunction in the development of atherosclerosis emphasizes the need for efficient therapeutic interventions. During the last years statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor antagonists, antioxidants, beta-blockers and insulin sensitizers have been evaluated for their ability to restore endothelial function (Briasoulis et al., 2012). As there is not a straightforward relationship between therapeutic interventions and improvement of endothelial function but rather a complicated interrelationship between multiple cellular and sub-cellular targets, research has been focused on the understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Moreover, the development of novel diagnostic invasive and non-invasive methods has allowed the early detection of endothelial dysfunction expanding the role of therapeutic interventions and our knowledge. In the current review we present the available data concerning the contribution of endothelial dysfunction to atherogenesis and review the methods that assess endothelial function with a view to understand the multiple targets of therapeutic interventions. Finally we focus on the classic and novel therapeutic approaches aiming to improve endothelial dysfunction and the underlying mechanisms.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most frequent cause of death in people with early stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD), for whom the absolute risk of cardiovascular events is similar to people who have existing coronary artery disease. This is an update of a review published in 2009, and includes evidence from 27 new studies (25,068 participants) in addition to the 26 studies (20,324 participants) assessed previously; and excludes three previously included studies (107 participants). This updated review includes 50 studies (45,285 participants); of these 38 (37,274 participants) were meta-analysed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits (such as reductions in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, MI and stroke; and slow progression of CKD to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)) and harms (muscle and liver dysfunction, withdrawal, and cancer) of statins compared with placebo, no treatment, standard care or another statin in adults with CKD who were not on dialysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 5 June 2012 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of statins with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or other statins, on mortality, cardiovascular events, kidney function, toxicity, and lipid levels in adults with CKD not on dialysis were the focus of our literature searches.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more authors independently extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. Treatment effects were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (lipids, creatinine clearance and proteinuria) and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or non-fatal stroke, ESKD, elevated liver enzymes, rhabdomyolysis, cancer and withdrawal rates) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 studies (45,285 participants): 47 studies (39,820 participants) compared statins with placebo or no treatment and three studies (5547 participants) compared two different statin regimens in adults with CKD who were not yet on dialysis. We were able to meta-analyse 38 studies (37,274 participants).The risk of bias in the included studies was high. Seven studies comparing statins with placebo or no treatment had lower risk of bias overall; and were conducted according to published protocols, outcomes were adjudicated by a committee, specified outcomes were reported, and analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat methods. In placebo or no treatment controlled studies, adverse events were reported in 32 studies (68%) and systematically evaluated in 16 studies (34%).Compared with placebo, statin therapy consistently prevented major cardiovascular events (13 studies, 36,033 participants; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.79), all-cause mortality (10 studies, 28,276 participants; RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.91), cardiovascular death (7 studies, 19,059 participants; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87) and MI (8 studies, 9018 participants; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72). Statins had uncertain effects on stroke (5 studies, 8658 participants; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.12).Potential harms from statin therapy were limited by lack of systematic reporting and were uncertain in analyses that had few events: elevated creatine kinase (7 studies, 4514 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.48), liver function abnormalities (7 studies, RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50), withdrawal due to adverse events (13 studies, 4219 participants; RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.60), and cancer (2 studies, 5581 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 130).Statins had uncertain effects on progression of CKD. Data for relative effects of intensive cholesterol lowering in people with early stages of kidney disease were sparse. Statins clearly reduced risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and MI in people with CKD who did not have CVD at baseline (primary prevention).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins consistently lower death and major cardiovascular events by 20% in people with CKD not requiring dialysis. Statin-related effects on stroke and kidney function were found to be uncertain and adverse effects of treatment are incompletely understood. Statins have an important role in primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality in people who have CKD.

Endothelial damage in long-term survivors of childhood cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the presence of vascular damage in long-term childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and sibling controls, and to evaluate the association between vascular damage parameters and cancer treatment and influence of cardiovascular risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Vascular assessment was performed in 277 adult CCSs (median age at diagnosis, 9 years; range, 0 to 20 years; median current age, 28 years; range, 18 to 48 years) treated with potentially cardiovascular toxic anticancer treatment (ie, anthracyclines, platinum, and/or radiotherapy [RT]). Measurements included carotid- and femoral-wall intima-media thickness (IMT), flow-mediated vasodilatation of the brachial artery by ultrasound, assessment of endothelial and inflammatory marker proteins (including tissue-type plasminogen activator [t-PA], plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 [PAI-I]), and cardiovascular risk factors. CCS assessments were compared with those of 130 sibling controls (median age, 26 years; range, 18 to 51 years).

RESULTS

At a median of 18 years (range, 5 to 31 years) after treatment, carotid and femoral IMTs in CCSs were not different from those of controls. However, CCSs who received RT as part of their treatment regimen had increased carotid and femoral IMTs and higher t-PA and PAI-I levels, indicating vascular damage and persistent endothelial activation. Patients treated with RT to the neck or chest also had greater femoral IMT. Greater IMT was associated with presence of cardiovascular risk factors (eg, hypertension and overweight).

CONCLUSION

After potentially cardiovascular toxic anticancer treatment, CCSs who received RT showed signs of endothelial damage and an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile compared with controls. CCSs treated with localized RT had increased IMT outside the primary irradiation field. These abnormalities are probably involved in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular morbidity in CCSs.

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Reducing high blood cholesterol, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in people with and without a past history of CVD is an important goal of pharmacotherapy. Statins are the first-choice agents. Previous reviews of the effects of statins have highlighted their benefits in people with CVD. The case for primary prevention was uncertain when the last version of this review was published (2011) and in light of new data an update of this review is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, both harms and benefits, of statins in people with no history of CVD.

SEARCH METHODS

To avoid duplication of effort, we checked reference lists of previous systematic reviews. The searches conducted in 2007 were updated in January 2012. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2022, Issue 4), MEDLINE OVID (1950 to December Week 4 2011) and EMBASE OVID (1980 to 2012 Week 1).There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of statins versus placebo or usual care control with minimum treatment duration of one year and follow-up of six months, in adults with no restrictions on total, low density lipoprotein (LDL) or high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, and where 10% or less had a history of CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events, combined endpoints (fatal and non-fatal CHD, CVD and stroke events), revascularisation, change in total and LDL cholesterol concentrations, adverse events, quality of life and costs. Odds ratios (OR) and risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and for continuous data, pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

The latest search found four new trials and updated follow-up data on three trials included in the original review. Eighteen randomised control trials (19 trial arms; 56,934 participants) were included. Fourteen trials recruited patients with specific conditions (raised lipids, diabetes, hypertension, microalbuminuria). All-cause mortality was reduced by statins (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94); as was combined fatal and non-fatal CVD RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.81), combined fatal and non-fatal CHD events RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.80) and combined fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.89). Reduction of revascularisation rates (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.72) was also seen. Total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol were reduced in all trials but there was evidence of heterogeneity of effects. There was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription. Evidence available to date showed that primary prevention with statins is likely to be cost-effective and may improve patient quality of life. Recent findings from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists study using individual patient data meta-analysis indicate that these benefits are similar in people at lower (< 1% per year) risk of a major cardiovascular event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in all-cause mortality, major vascular events and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events among people without evidence of CVD treated with statins.

High-dose statin monotherapy versus low-dose statin/ezetimibe combination on fasting and postprandial lipids and endothelial function in obese patients with the metabolic syndrome: The PANACEA study

BACKGROUND

Low-dose statin therapy in combination with ezetimibe, an inhibitor of intestinal cholesterol absorption, lowers plasma LDL-cholesterol levels to a similar degree as high-dose statin monotherapy. This study assessed whether similar LDL-cholesterol lowering with simvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy improves fasting and postprandial arterial endothelial function compared to high-dose statin therapy alone.

METHODS

Multicenter, double-blind, crossover trial in 100 abdominally obese patients with the metabolic syndrome, randomized to 6 weeks' treatment with simvastatin 80 mg or simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg. Flow mediated dilatation (FMD) and peripheral arterial tonometry (EndoPAT) as well as plasma lipids were measured in the fasting state and after an oral lipid load at baseline and after both treatments.

RESULTS

Fasting LDL-cholesterol levels (3.57 mmol/L at baseline) were reduced to 1.79 mmol/L following treatment with simvastatin 80 mg and 1.81 mmol/L with simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg, respectively. Plasma lipids were similar at 4 h after an oral lipid load following both treatments for 6 weeks. Fasting endothelial function was also similar with both treatments when assessed by FMD (adjusted mean ± SE: 4.35 ± 0.19 vs. 4.43 ± 0.18; P = 0.777) and EndoPAT (2.12 ± 0.05 vs 2.20 ± 0.05; P = 0.304). After an oral fat load, changes in endothelial function were also comparable for both treatments as assessed by FMD (-0.34 ± 0.21 vs. -0.43 ± 0.20; P = 0.766) and EndoPAT (0.00 ± 0.07 vs. -0.04 ± 0.08; P = 0.712).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg induced no difference in endothelial function in the fasting and postprandial state compared to simvastatin 80 mg while attaining similar LDL-c levels in obese patients with metabolic syndrome.

Adverse events associated with individual statin treatments for cardiovascular disease: an indirect comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Statins are the most widely prescribed drug available. Due to this reason, it is important to understand the risks involved with the drug class and individual statins.

AIM

We conducted a meta-analysis and employed indirect comparisons to identify differing risk effects across statins.

DESIGN

We included any randomized clinical trial (RCT) of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin used for cardiovascular disease event prevention. The main outcome was adverse events [all-cause mortality, cancers, rhabdomylosis, diabetes, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT), and creatinine kinase (CK) increases beyond the upper limit of normal]. In order to evaluate the relative effects of each drug on adverse events, we calculated adjusted indirect comparisons of the adverse-event outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy-two trials involving 159,458 patients met our inclusion criteria. Overall, statin treatments significantly increased the rate of diabetes when compared to controls (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.16) and elevated AST (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.04-1.66) and ALT (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.11-1.48) levels when compared to controls. Using indirect comparisons, we also found that atorvastatin significantly elevated AST levels compared to pravastatin (OR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.13-4.29) and simvastatin significantly increased CK levels when compared to rosuvastatin (OR: 4.39; 95% CI: 1.01-19.07). Higher dose studies had increased risk of AST elevations.

DISCUSSION

Although statins are generally well tolerated, there are risks associated with almost all drugs. With few exceptions, statins appear to exert a similar risk across individual drugs.

The role of flow-mediated dilatation in the evaluation and development of antiatherosclerotic drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present article reviews the use of flow-mediated dilatation in clinical cardiovascular research. Its value as a surrogate tool for development of antiatherosclerotic drugs and noninvasive assessment of cardiovascular risk is also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Atherosclerosis remains the leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Development of new drugs is required to target both the evolution of this disease and its clinical consequences. Noninvasive measures of arterial function and structure have been widely used as intermediate phenotypes in clinical trials. Numerous studies have demonstrated the interplay between vascular risk factors and endothelial function as assessed by flow-mediated dilatation in children and adults. Additionally, a number of studies have documented the prognostic value of the method.

SUMMARY

Detection of early arterial changes can prove particularly useful in clinical research for the development of antiatherosclerotic drugs. They permit identification of vascular toxicity as well as characterization of the safety and risk profile of a new cardiovascular treatment modality on vascular health. This approach is likely to prove cost-effective before embarking on large longitudinal studies to assess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for people with chronic kidney disease not requiring dialysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidaemia occurs frequently in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients and contributes both to cardiovascular disease and worsening renal function. Statins are widely used in non-dialysis dependent CKD patients (pre-dialysis) even though evidence favouring their use is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of statins in CKD patients who were not receiving renal replacement therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (in The Cochrane Library), and hand-searched reference lists of textbooks, articles and scientific proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing statins with placebo, no treatment or other statins in adult pre-dialysis CKD patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (lipids, creatinine clearance and proteinuria) and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, elevated liver enzymes, rhabdomyolysis and withdrawal rates) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty six studies (25,017 participants) comparing statins with placebo were identified. Total cholesterol decreased significantly with statins (18 studies, 1677 patients: MD -41.48 mg/dL, 95% CI -49.97 to -33.99). Similarly, LDL cholesterol decreased significantly with statins (16 studies, 1605 patients: MD -42.38 mg/dL, 95% CI -50.71 to -34.05). Statins decreased both the risk of all-cause (21 RCTs, 18,781 patients, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74, 0.89) and cardiovascular deaths (20 studies, 18,746 patients: RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.90). Statins decreased 24-hour urinary protein excretion (6 studies, 311 patients: MD -0.73 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.52), but there was no significant improvement in creatinine clearance - a surrogate marker of renal function (11 studies, 548 patients: MD 1.48 mL/min, 95% CI -2.32 to 5.28).The incidence of rhabdomyolysis, elevated liver enzymes and withdrawal rates due to adverse events (well known complications of statins use), were not significantly different between patients receiving statins and placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Statins significantly reduced the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in CKD patients who are not receiving renal replacement therapy. They do not impact on the decline in renal function as measured by creatinine clearance, but may reduce protein excretion in urine. Statins appear to be safe in this population. Guidelines recommendations on hyperlipidaemia management in CKD patients could therefore be followed targeting higher proportions of patients receiving a statin, with appropriate monitoring of adverse events.