High-dose statin therapy for secondary prevention of stroke: stroke prevention by aggressive reduction in cholesterol levels study review

Protective Effects of Different Classes, Intensity, Cumulative Dose-Dependent of Statins Against Primary Ischemic Stroke in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study is to investigate the protective effects of different statin classes, intensity, and cumulative dose-dependent against primary ischemic stroke in patients with T2DM.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Cox hazards model was used to evaluate statin use on primary ischemic stroke. Case group: T2DM patients who received statins; control group: T2DM patients who received no statins during the follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for primary ischemic stroke was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.46). Cox regression analysis showed significant reductions in primary ischemic stroke incidence in users of different statin classes. Corresponding aHRs (95% CI) were 0.09 to 0.79 for pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin, fluvastatin, and lovastatin. Multivariate analyses indicated significant reductions in primary ischemic stroke incidence for patients who received different cumulative defined daily doses (cDDDs) per year (cDDD-year). Corresponding aHRs (95% CI) were 0.17 to 0.77 for quartiles 4 to 1 of cDDD-years, respectively (P for trend < .0001). Optimal intensity daily dose of statin use was 0.89 DDD with the lowest aHR of primary ischemic stroke compared with other DDDs. Persistent statin use reduces the risk of primary ischemic stroke in T2DM patients. Higher cDDD-year values are associated with higher reductions in primary ischemic stroke risk in T2DM patients.

Nanomedicines, an emerging therapeutic regimen for treatment of ischemic cerebral stroke: A review

Owing to its intricate pathophysiology, cerebral stroke is a serious medical condition caused by interruption or obstruction of blood supply (blockage of vasculature) to the brain tissues which results in diminished supply of essential nutrients and oxygen (hypoxia) and ultimate necrosis of neuronal tissues. A prompt risks assessment and immediate rational therapeutic plan with proficient neuroprotection play critically important role in the effective management of this neuronal emergency. Various conventional medications are being used for treatment of acute ischemic cerebral stroke but fibrinolytic agents, alone or in combination with other agents are considered the mainstay. These clot-busting agents effectively restore blood supply (reperfusion) to ischemic regions of the brain; however, their clinical significance is hampered due to various factors such as short plasma half-life, limited distribution to brain tissues due to the presence of highly efficient physiological barrier, blood brain barrier (BBB), and lacking of target-specific delivery to the ischemic brain regions. To alleviate these issues, various types of nanomedicines such as polymeric nanoparticles (NPs), liposomes, nanoemulsion, micelles and dendrimers have been designed and evaluated. The implication of these newer therapies (nanomedicines) have revolutionized the therapeutic outcomes by improving the plasma half-life, permeation across BBB, efficient distribution to ischemic cerebral tissues and neuroprotection. Furthermore, the adaptation of some diverse techniques including PEGylation, tethering of targeting ligands on the surfaces of nanomedicines, and pH responsive features have also been pondered. The implication of these emerging adaptations have shown remarkable potential in maximizing the targeting efficiency of drugs to ischemic brain tissues, simultaneous delivery of drugs and imaging agents (for early prognosis as well as monitoring of therapy), and therapeutic outcomes such as long-term neuroprotection.

A lipidologist perspective of global lipid guidelines and recommendations, part 2: Lipid treatment goals

Having knowledge of worldwide areas of harmonization and consensus regarding lipid guidelines and recommendations may provide clinicians a more global perspective on lipid management. This review examines 8 international scientific/medical organizations that have issued lipid guidelines, recommendations, and position papers: the National Lipid Association (2014), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014), International Atherosclerosis Society (2013), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (2013), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (2013), Japan Atherosclerosis Society (2012), European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (2012), and Adult Treatment Panel III (2001/2004). Part 1 of this perspective focused on sentinel components of these lipid guidelines and recommendations as applied to the role of atherogenic lipoprotein cholesterol levels, primary lipid target of therapy, other primary and secondary lipid treatment targets, and assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. This part 2 examines goals of lipid-altering therapy. While lipid guidelines and recommendations may differ regarding ASCVD risk assessment and lipid treatment goals, lipid guidelines and recommendations generally agree on the need to reduce atherogenic lipoprotein cholesterol levels, with statins being the first-line treatment of choice.

Statins and Nonadherence

Statin nonadherence is a major challenge to optimal management. Patients nonadherent to statin therapy do not receive the expected benefit relative to the degree of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering obtained. This is important because new evidence guidelines recommend statins as the first-line therapy for those in high-risk groups (secondary prevention, patients with diabetes 40-75 years of age, and LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL) and in selected primary prevention patients. Statin assignment in the latter group occurs only in those with an estimated ≥7.5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk after shared decision making in a clinician–patient risk discussion. However, in numerous studies, statin nonadherence shows little or no benefit in reducing cardiovascular events or mortality compared to placebo, effectively negating the risk reduction expected from statin use and concomitantly increasing the total cost of health care. The causes and solutions for nonadherence are multifactorial and include patient, clinician, and health system factors. We believe that a clinician–patient partnership that facilitates patients’ understanding of the potential for optimal benefit with the least adverse effects is an important first step toward improving adherence. A transtheoretical model of stages of behavior change helps clinicians address many of the common factors limiting adherence to statins. We conclude with a teaching tool emphasizing a structured approach to statin therapy with patient-centered risk discussions.