Risk of Statin-Induced Hypertransaminasemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Rosuvastatin-Induced Myopathy: A Case Series

Statins are one of the most crucial drugs used for the prevention of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. A wide spectrum of symptoms ranging from myalgia to symptoms of rhabdomyolysis with or without weakness of the upper and lower limbs are indicative of statin-induced rhabdomyolysis or myopathy. The current case series which represents three patients who developed statin-induced myopathy after starting rosuvastatin is one of a few if not the first case series. All three patients had recently started rosuvastatin 40mg once daily post-percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs). Shortly after starting the medication, they were hospitalized due to bilateral lower limb pain and weakness. On further evaluation, they were diagnosed to have rosuvastatin-induced myopathy with acute kidney injury and/or liver injury. In all cases, myopathy, acute renal injury, and liver injury were caused by rosuvastatin, regardless of the presence of a vitamin D deficiency. Despite the documented risk of myopathy and renal toxicity associated with rosuvastatin, the drug remains highly popular worldwide in the modern period. Although all the cases discussed were successfully treated by stopping rosuvastatin and switching it with another class of lipid-lowering agent, it significantly increased morbidity and raised medical expenses. Hence, this case series not only adds to existing safety disputations associated with rosuvastatin but also calls for more pharmacovigilance when recommending this medication.

Lipid-lowering therapies for cardiovascular disease prevention and management in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of lipid-lowering therapies used to prevent or manage cardiovascular disease including bile acid sequestrants (BAS), ezetimibe, fibrates, niacin, omega-3 supplements, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, and statins.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a grey literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published between January 2017 and March 2022 looking at statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, fibrates, BAS, niacin, and omega-3 supplements for preventing cardiovascular outcomes were selected. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events.

SYNTHESIS

A total of 76 systematic reviews were included. Four randomized controlled trials were also included for BAS because no efficacy systematic review was identified. Statins significantly reduced MACE (6 systematic reviews; median risk ratio [RR]=0.74; interquartile range [IQR]=0.71 to 0.76), cardiovascular mortality (7 systematic reviews; median RR=0.85, IQR=0.83 to 0.86), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.88 to 0.92). Major adverse cardiovascular events were also significantly reduced by ezetimibe (3 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94), PCSK9 inhibitors (14 systematic reviews; median RR=0.84, IQR=0.83 to 0.87), and fibrates (2 systematic reviews; mean RR=0.86), but these interventions had no effect on cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Fibrates had no effect on any cardiovascular outcomes when added to a statin. Omega-3 combination supplements had no effect on MACE or all-cause mortality but significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94). Eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester alone significantly reduced MACE (1 systematic review, RR=0.78) and cardiovascular mortality (2 systematic reviews; RRs of 0.82 and 0.82). In primary cardiovascular prevention, only statins showed consistent benefits on MACE (6 systematic reviews; median RR=0.75, IQR=0.73 to 0.78), cardiovascularall-cause mortality (7 systematic reviews, median RR=0.83, IQR=0.81 to 0.90), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.87 to 0.91).

CONCLUSION

Statins have the most consistent evidence for the prevention of cardiovascular complications with a relative risk reduction of about 25% for MACE and 10% to 15% for mortality. The addition of ezetimibe, a PCSK9 inhibitor, or eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester to a statin provides additional MACE risk reduction but has no effect on all-cause mortality.

Associations between statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses of 47 randomized controlled trials

Objectives

To explore the associations between different types and doses of statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials that compared statins with non-statin controls or different types or doses of statins. The primary outcomes included muscle condition, transaminase elevations, renal insufficiency, gastrointestinal discomfort, cancer, new onset or exacerbation of diabetes, cognitive impairment, and eye condition. We also analyzed myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death from cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and all-cause death as the secondary outcomes to compare the potential harms with the benefits of statins. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare the adverse effects of different statins. An Emax model was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.

Results

Forty-seven trials involving 107,752 participants were enrolled and followed up for 4.05 years. Compared with non-statin control, statins were associated with an increased risk of transaminase elevations [OR 1.62 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.18)]. Statins decreased the risk of MI [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.71), P < 0.001], stroke [OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.84), P < 0.001], death from CVD [OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), P < 0.001] and all-cause death [OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.88), P < 0.001]. Atorvastatin showed a higher risk of transaminase elevations than non-statin control [OR 4.0 (95% CI 2.2 to 7.6)], pravastatin [OR 3.49 (95% CI 1.77 to 6.92)] and simvastatin [OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.31 to 5.09)], respectively. Compared with atorvastatin, simvastatin was associated with a lower risk of muscle problems [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.90)], while rosuvastatin showed a higher risk [OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.61)]. An Emax dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on transaminase elevations.

Conclusion

Statins were associated with increased risks of transaminases elevations in secondary prevention. Our study provides the ranking probabilities of statins that can help clinicians make optimal decisions when there is not enough literature to refer to.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021285161].

Associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E_max model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.

RESULTS

62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E_max dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020169955.

Comparison of 48-week efficacy of tenofovir vs entecavir for patients with chronic hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis

Both tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are accepted as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few randomized studies comparing their efficacy. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of TDF and ETV using a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. The secondary aim was to additionally include propensity-matched cohort studies in a conventional meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for published English-language randomized and propensity-matched studies between 1/1/2000 and 4/2/2020. Outcomes included undetectable HBV DNA, ALT normalization and HBeAg seroconversion at 48 weeks. We excluded patients who had co-infection or significant prior treatment with antivirals. 13 517 participants from 16 studies (11 RCTs, n = 2675; five propensity-matched cohort studies, n = 10 842) were included. Virological response at 48 weeks was higher in patients receiving TDF compared to ETV using both the network meta-analytic approach (OR 1.69, P < .001) and the conventional meta-analysis including propensity-matched cohort studies (OR 1.40, P < .001). On subgroup analysis, this difference was only significant in HBeAg-positive patients (OR 1.81, P = .037). There was limited evidence to suggest a higher rate of ALT normalization with ETV (OR 0.74, P = .07). There was no difference in rates of HBeAg seroconversion between the two antivirals. TDF is more likely than ETV to induce virological response at 48 weeks in treatment-naïve CHB patients. Future studies should focus on elucidating associations between early and sustained virological response with adverse patient outcomes including development of HCC or cirrhosis.

Atorvastatin associated with gamma glutamyl transpeptidase elevation in a hyperlipidemia patient: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Atorvastatin is the most common drug used in therapy for cardiovascular diseases. The most common adverse side effects associated with statins are myopathy and hypertransaminasemia. Here, we report a rare case of gamma glutamyl transpeptidase (GGT) elevation induced by atorvastatin.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 47-year-old male was admitted to our hospital with dyslipidemia, he had been taking pitavastatin 2 mg/day for 2 months. The levels of total cholesterol (265.28 mg/dL) and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL) (179.15 mg/dL) were also high.

DIAGNOSIS

Blood lipid test showed mixed dyslipidemia.

INTERVENTION

Atorvastatin 10 mg/day was given to the patient.

OUTCOMES

The patient came back to our hospital for blood tests after 4 weeks. Although no symptoms were detectable, the patient's GGT level was markedly elevated (up to 6-fold over normal level) with less marked increases in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The serum GGT level returned to normal within 6 weeks of cessation of atorvastatin.

LESSONS

This is a case of GGT elevation without hyperbilirubinemia, hypertransaminasemiam, or serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK) abnormalities despite an atorvastatin regimen. This case highlights GGT elevation caused by atorvastatin, a rare but serious condition. Clinicians should be aware of these possible adverse effects and monitor liver function tests in patients on statin therapy.

Statin Use Decreases the Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Statins can decrease hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurrence, but the magnitude and the predictors of these effects remain unclear. This meta-analysis provides a pooled estimate of the impact of statin use on HCC occurrence. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of the DerSimonian and Laird test. Primary endpoint was the time-dependent correlation between statin use and HCC incidence expressed as hazard ratio (HR), both crude and adjusted. The crude and adjusted odds ratios (OR) for HCC occurrence between statin users and non-users were analyzed. Twenty-five studies with 1,925,964 patients were included. Crude OR for HCC incidence was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.47-0.74), confirmed in adjusted analysis (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.70-0.78). Adjusted HR was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.69-0.76). This effect was more pronounced in HBV patients (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.36-0.60) and with a cumulative daily dose beyond 365 (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11-0.67). Lipophilic statins were associated with reduced HCC incidence (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.62). Atorvastatin determined the greater magnitude of effect (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28-0.65). This meta-analysis demonstrates the beneficial chemopreventive effect of statins against HCC occurrence. This effect is dose-dependent and more pronounced with lipophilic statins.