Effects of cerivastatin on forearm vascular responses, blood pressure responsiveness and ambulatory blood pressure in type 2 diabetic men

Cerivastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Cerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of cerivastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of cerivastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in children and adults with and without cardiovascular disease. The aim of this review is to examine the pharmacology of cerivastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of cerivastatin on surrogate markers. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of cerivastatin compared to placebo on withdrawals due to adverse effects. To compare the relative potency of cerivastatin with respect to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for RCTs up to March 2019: CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.We also searched the European Patent Office, FDA.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of cerivastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for trials to be included and extracted data. We entered data from RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data respectively. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from the RCTs. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials (19 RCTs and 31 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of cerivastatin in 12,877 participants who had their LDL cholesterol measured. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease and the trials studied cerivastatin effects within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Cerivastatin 0.025 mg/day to 0.8 mg/day caused LDL cholesterol decreases of 11.0% to 40.8%, total cholesterol decreases of 8.0% to 28.8% and triglyceride decreases of 9.0% to 21.4%. We judged the certainty of evidence for these effects to be high. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglycerides. When compared to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol; 233-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 18-fold more potent than atorvastatin and six-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol; and 125-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 11-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 13-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of cerivastatin on HDL cholesterol, but overall cerivastatin increased HDL cholesterol by 5%. There was a high risk of bias for the outcome withdrawals due to adverse effects, but a low risk of bias for the lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not different between cerivastatin and placebo in 11 of 19 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride lowering effect of cerivastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Cerivastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin in reducing LDL cholesterol, and 233-fold greater potency than fluvastatin, 18-fold greater potency than atorvastatin and six-fold greater potency than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with cerivastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 42% of the RCTs.

Statin treatment in hypercholesterolemic men does not attenuate angiotensin II-induced venoconstriction

Experimental studies suggested that statins attenuate vascular AT1 receptor responsiveness. Moreover, the augmented excessive pressor response to systemic angiotensin II infusions in hypercholesterolemic patients was normalized with statin treatment. In 12 hypercholesterolemic patients, we tested the hypothesis that statin treatment attenuates angiotensin II-mediated vasoconstriction in hand veins assessed by a linear variable differential transducer. Subjects ingested daily doses of either atorvastatin (40 mg) or positive control irbesartan (150 mg) for 30 days in a randomized and cross-over fashion. Ang II-induced venoconstriction at minute 4 averaged 59%±10% before and 28%±9% after irbesartan (mean ± SEM; P<0.05) compared to 65%±11% before and 73%±11% after 30 days of atorvastatin treatment. Plasma angiotensin levels increased significantly after irbesartan treatment (Ang II: 17±22 before vs 52±40 pg/mL after [p = 0.048]; Ang-(1-7): 18±10 before vs 37±14 pg/mL after [p = 0.002]) compared to atorvastatin treatment (Ang II: 9±4 vs 11±10 pg/mL [p = 0.40]; Ang-(1-7): 24±9 vs 32±8 pg/mL [p = 0.023]). Our study suggests that statin treatment does not elicit major changes in angiotensin II-mediated venoconstriction or in circulating angiotensin II levels whereas angiotensin-(1-7) levels increased modestly. The discrepancy between local vascular and systemic angiotensin II responses might suggest that statin treatment interferes with blood pressure buffering reflexes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00154024.

Endothelial dysfunction in diabetes: pathogenesis, significance, and treatment

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) markedly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Endothelial dysfunction (ED), an early indicator of diabetic vascular disease, is common in T2D and independently predicts cardiovascular risk. Although the precise pathogenic mechanisms for ED in T2D remain unclear, at inception they probably involve uncoupling of both endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity and mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, as well as the activation of vascular nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase. The major contributing factors include dyslipoproteinemia, oxidative stress, and inflammation. Therapeutic interventions are designed to target these pathophysiological factors that underlie ED. Therapeutic interventions, including lifestyle changes, antiglycemic agents and lipid-regulating therapies, aim to correct hyperglycemia and atherogenic dyslipidemia and to improve ED. However, high residual cardiovascular risk is seen in both research and clinical practice settings. Well-designed studies of endothelial function in appropriately selected volunteers afford a good opportunity to test new therapeutic interventions, paving the way for clinical trials and utilization in the care of the diabetic patient. However, based on the results from a recent clinical trial, niacin should not be added to a statin in individuals with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and very well controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Role and significance of statins in the treatment of hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

Statins are the first-line drug therapy in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. The beneficial clinical impact of statins on the cardiovascular system results not only from their lipid-lowering action but also from other effects. Recently, it has been suggested that statins can reduce blood pressure, especially in hypertensive patients.

AIM

The role of the hypotensive action of statins and other mechanisms which reduce cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients are discussed in this review.

METHODS

Electronic databases searched were [MEDLINE (1966 - February 2009), EMBASE and SCOPUS (1965 - February 2009), DARE (1966 -- February 2009)]. Additionally, abstracts from national and international cardiovascular meetings were studied to identify unpublished studies. The main data search terms were: blood pressure, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia and statins.

FINDINGS

At present, it is difficult to unequivocally assess the impact of statins on blood pressure. However, according to most authors, the impact of statins on the decrease in BP is slight, but significant, especially among patients with hypertension.

Therapeutic regulation of endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Endothelial dysfunction is universal in diabetes, being intimately involved with the development of cardiovascular disease. The pathogenesis of endothelial dysfunction in diabetes is complex. It is initially related to the effects of fatty acids and insulin resistance on 'uncoupling' of both endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity and mitochondrial function. Oxidative stress activates protein kinase C (PKC), polyol, hexosamine and nuclear factor kappa B pathways, thereby aggravating endothelial dysfunction. Improvements in endothelial function in the peripheral circulation in diabetes have been demonstrated with monotherapies, including statins, fibrates, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, metformin and fish oils. These observations are supported by large clinical end point trials. Other studies show benefits with certain antioxidants, L-arginine, folate, PKC-inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR)-alpha and -gamma agonists and phosphodiesterase (PDE-5) inhibitors. However, the benefits of these agents remain to be shown in clinical end point trials. Combination treatments, for example, statins plus ACE inhibitors and statins plus fibrates, have also been demonstrated to have additive benefits on endothelial function in diabetes, but there are no clinical outcome data to date. Measurement of endothelial dysfunction in cardiovascular research can provide fresh opportunities for exploring the mechanism of benefit of new therapeutic regimens and for planning and designing large clinical trials.