Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Combination versus Quadruple-Dose Rosuvastatin Monotherapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review

PURPOSE

There are few studies in the literature on the dosage of statin that equivalently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to an ezetimibe combination and whether such regimens have differences in safety. We compared the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety of 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe to those of 20 mg rosuvastatin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS databases up to December 2021. Human studies investigating the two aforementioned regimens with a randomized controlled design were selected. Outcome variables included the percentage reduction in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and rates of composite adverse events (AEs), including muscle-related symptoms. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed after heterogeneity testing between studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The percentage LDL-C reduction did not differ between the combination and monotherapy groups [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.26; p=0.35]. The risk of composite AEs (odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.72; p=0.27) of the combination was not different compared to the monotherapy group. The percentage of total cholesterol reduction was greater in the combination group (SMD 0.22; p=0.02), whereas that of triglyceride reduction and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe had largely comparable lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability as 20 mg rosuvastatin.

Expanding the therapeutic landscape: ezetimibe as non-statin therapy for dyslipidemia

Dyslipidemia is a significant risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and statins are the primary therapeutic options for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, it can be challenging to achieve optimal LDL-C goals with statin monotherapy. Ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, offers a potential non-statin therapy to optimize LDL-C management. Key clinical trials, such as IMPROVE-IT and RACING, have demonstrated that the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy leads to further decreases in LDL-C or significant decreases in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), particularly in patients with high ASCVD risk. Subsequent meta-analyses and clinical trials have further supported the beneficial effect of ezetimibe, suggesting additive decreases in LDL-C and MACEs, as well as pleiotropic effects. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the clinical implications of ezetimibe for managing dyslipidemia; it also evaluates the available evidence that supports the role of ezetimibe as an adjunct non-statin therapy for long-term use. However, the long-term pleiotropic effects of ezetimibe remain controversial because of limited clinical data. Therefore, additional research is needed to clarify its potential benefits beyond LDL-C reduction. Nonetheless, an understanding of the role of ezetimibe in dyslipidemia management will help clinicians to develop effective treatment strategies.

Effects of statin therapy on glycemic control and insulin resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To update the evidence about the diabetogenic effect of statins.

METHODS

We searched for randomized-controlled trials reporting the effects of statin therapy on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and/or homeostatic model insulin resistance (i.e., HOMA-IR) as indexes of diabetes. Studies were classified between the ones testing normal vs individuals with already altered glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%; and HOMA-IR ≥ 2.15). Furthermore, studies were separated by statin type and dosage prescribed. Data are presented as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 67 studies were included in the analysis (>25,000 individuals). In individuals with altered glycemic control, statins increased HbA1c levels (MD 0.21%, 95% CI 0.16-to-0.25) and HOMA-IR index (MD 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-to-0.38). In individuals with normal glycemic control, statin increased HbA1c (MD 1.33%, 95% CI 1.31-to-1.35) and HOMA-IR (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-to-0.58) in comparison to the placebo groups. The dose or type of statins did not modulate the diabetogenic effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins, slightly but significantly raise indexes of diabetes in individuals with adequate or altered glycemic control. The diabetogenic effect does not seem to be influenced by the type or dosage of statin prescribed.

Diabetes and Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Interplay between Lipid and Glucose Metabolism

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic disease characterized by high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-c) concentrations that increase cardiovascular risk and cause premature death. The most frequent cause of the disease is a mutation in the LDL receptor (LDLR) gene. Diabetes is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. People with FH seem to be protected from developing diabetes, whereas cholesterol-lowering treatments such as statins are associated with an increased risk of the disease. One of the hypotheses to explain this is based on the toxicity of LDL particles on insulin-secreting pancreatic β-cells, and their uptake by the latter, mediated by the LDLR. A healthy lifestyle and a relatively low body mass index in people with FH have also been proposed as explanations. Its association with superimposed diabetes modifies the phenotype of FH, both regarding the lipid profile and cardiovascular risk. However, findings regarding the association and interplay between these two diseases are conflicting. The present review summarizes the existing evidence and discusses knowledge gaps on the matter.

The Effect of Statins on Mortality of Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Based on Data of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM) and Korea National Health Insurance Claims Database

The role of statins in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has been extensively evaluated, but it remains controversial in specific population such as dialysis-dependent CKD. This study examined the effect of statins on mortality in CKD patients using two large databases. In data from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM) from two hospitals, CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/m2; we compared survival between patients with or without statin treatment. As a sensitivity analysis, the results were validated with the Korea National Health Insurance (KNHI) claims database. In the analysis of CDM datasets, statin users showed significantly lower risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in both hospitals, compared to non-users. Similar results were observed in CKD patients from the KNHI claims database. Lower mortality in the statin group was consistently evident in all subgroup analyses, including patients on dialysis and low-risk young patients. In conclusion, we found that statins were associated with lower mortality in CKD patients, regardless of dialysis status or other risk factors.

Effect of Switching from Low-Dose Simvastatin to High-Dose Atorvastatin on Glucose Homeostasis and Cognitive Function in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

High-intensity statin is recommended in high-risk type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, statin dose dependently increases the risk of developing new-onset diabetes, can potentially worsen glycemic control in T2D, and may cause cognitive impairment. This study aimed to investigate the effect of statin intensification on glucose homeostasis and cognitive function in T2D.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

T2D patients who were taking simvastatin ≤20 mg/day were randomized to continue taking the same dosage of simvastatin (low-dose simvastatin group; LS, n=63) for 12 weeks, or to change to atorvastatin 40 mg/day for 6 weeks, and if tolerated, atorvastatin was increased to 80 mg/day for 6 weeks (high-dose atorvastatin group; HS, n=62). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), plasma insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and of β-cell function (HOMA-B), cognitive functions using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Trail Making Test (TMT) were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 58.8±8.9 years, and 72% were female. Mean baseline FPG and HbA1c were 124.0±27.5 mg/dl and 6.9±0.8%, respectively. No differences in baseline characteristics between groups were observed. Change in HbA1c from baseline in the LS and HS groups was -0.1% and +0.1% (p=0.03) at 6 weeks, and -0.1% and +0.1% (p=0.07) at 12 weeks. There were no significant differences in FPG, fasting plasma insulin, HOMA-B, HOMA-IR, MoCA score, or TMT between groups at 6 or 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Switching from low-dose simvastatin to high-dose atorvastatin in T2D resulted in a slight increase in HbA1c (0.1%) without causing cognitive decline.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Combination Therapy and Rosuvastatin Monotherapy on Lipoprotein in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study

INTRODUCTION

Ezetimibe/statin combination therapy has been reported to provide additional cardioprotective effects compared to statin monotherapy. The apolipoprotein B/A1 (apoB/A1) ratio is an effective predictor of cardiovascular diseases. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy versus rosuvastatin monotherapy using the apoB/A1 ratio in patients with diabetes and hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

In this randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study, patients were randomly assigned to receive the combination therapy of rosuvastatin 5 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg once daily (n = 68) or monotherapy with rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily (n = 68), for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

After the 8-week treatment, percentage change (least-square means ± standard error) in the apoB/A1 ratio in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group was significantly decreased compared to the rosuvastatin group (- 46.14 ± 1.58% vs.  - 41.30 ± 1.58%, respectively; P = 0.03). In addition, the proportion of patients achieving > 50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and in the comprehensive lipid target (LDL-C < 70 mg/dL, non-HDL-cholesterol [non-HDL-C] < 100 mg/dL, and apoB < 80 mg/dL) was significantly different between the two groups (76.5 and 73.5% in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group and 47.1 and 45.6% in the rosuvastatin group, respectively; P < 0.001). The reduction in total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, LDL-C, and apoB were greater in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group than in the rosuvastatin group. Both treatments were well tolerated, and no between-group differences in drug-related adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

The apoB/A1 ratio was significantly reduced in patients receiving combination therapy with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin compared to those receiving rosuvastatin monotherapy. Both treatments were well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03446261.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Rosuvastatin Monotherapy 20 mg with Rosuvastatin 5 mg and Ezetimibe 10 mg Combination Therapy on Lipid Parameters in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

The apolipoprotein B/A1 (apoB/A1) ratio is a stronger predictor of future cardiovascular disease than is the level of conventional lipids. Statin and ezetimibe combination therapy have shown additional cardioprotective effects over statin monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study in Korea. A total of 36 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to either rosuvastatin monotherapy (20 mg/day, n=20) or rosuvastatin/ezetimibe (5 mg/10 mg/day, n=16) combination therapy for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

After the 6-week treatment, low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and apoB reduction were comparable between the two groups (-94.3±15.4 and -62.0±20.9 mg/dL in the rosuvastatin group, -89.9±22.7 and -66.8±21.6 mg/dL in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group, P=0.54 and P=0.86, respectively). In addition, change in apoB/A1 ratio (-0.44±0.16 in the rosuvastatin group and -0.47±0.25 in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group, P=0.58) did not differ between the two groups. On the other hand, triglyceride and free fatty acid (FFA) reductions were greater in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group than in the rosuvastatin group (-10.5 mg/dL [interquartile range (IQR), -37.5 to 29.5] and 0.0 μEq/L [IQR, -136.8 to 146.0] in the rosuvastatin group, -49.5 mg/dL [IQR, -108.5 to -27.5] and -170.5 μEq/L [IQR, -353.0 to 0.8] in the rosuvastatin/ezetimibe group, P=0.010 and P=0.049, respectively). Both treatments were generally well tolerated, and there were no differences in muscle or liver enzyme elevation.

CONCLUSION

A 6-week combination therapy of low-dose rosuvastatin and ezetimibe showed LDL-C, apoB, and apoB/A1 ratio reduction comparable to that of high-dose rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Triglyceride and FFA reductions were greater with the combination therapy than with rosuvastatin monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin in lowering LDL cholesterol : A meta-analysis of trials with East Asian populations

BACKGROUND

The VOYAGER meta-analysis reported on the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering effect of commonly used statins in Caucasian subjects. As there is limited literature available on the efficacy of statins in Asian populations, the current meta-analysis compared the effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on LDL-C levels in an East Asian population.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing lipid-lowering effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in an East Asian population. Data on the study design, participant characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. Odds ratios (OR), weighted mean differences (WMD), or standardized mean differences were calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis comprised 16 randomized controlled trials with 5930 participants. Compared with atorvastatin, patients treated with rosuvastatin had a significant reduction in LDL-C: WMD = -7.15 mg/dl (95% confidence intervals [CI]: -10.71--3.60) mg/dl, p < 0.0001. Meta-regression analyses revealed no significant association between the superior benefits of rosuvastatin and other variables including age, sex, baseline LDL-C level, and follow-up duration. Additionally, the rosuvastatin group of patients, who were treated with half the dose of atorvastatin, achieved a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels (WMD = -3.57; 95% CI: -5.40--1.74 mg/dl, p < 0.001). Both rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Similar to the VOYAGER meta-analysis, which reported a greater efficacy of rosuvastatin in comparison with atorvastatin and simvastatin in Caucasian patients, we found that the efficacy of rosuvastatin was superior to atorvastatin in East Asian patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Risk and Benefits of Statins in Glucose Control Management of Type II Diabetes

Worldwide statins are considered to be the first-line pharmacological treatment for dyslipidemia and reducing the risk of coronary heart disease. However, recently various studies have shown its adverse effect on glucose control among diabetic patients and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have revised statin drug labels to include information that increases in fasting serum glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels have been reported. This systematic review objective is to evaluate the risks and benefits of statins in glucose control management of type 2 diabetes patients based on the 44 published journal articles included and obtained through MEDLINE full text, PubMed, Science Direct, Pro Quest, SAGE, Taylor and Francis Online, Google Scholar, High Wire, and Elsevier Clinical Key. Statins were found to affect glucose control through several ways, namely, by affecting insulin production and secretion by β-pancreatic cells, insulin resistance, insulin uptake by the muscles and adipocytes and production of adipokines. Current evidence available shows that most of the statins give unfavorable side effects with regards to glucose control among diabetic patients. A dose-dependent and time-dependent effect was also observed in some statins which may be present among other statins as well.

Effect of ezetimibe on glycemic control: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Given the increased risk of incident diabetes and the side effects on glycemic control with statin treatment, statin and ezetimibe combination therapy has been widely used. However, whether the same concern exists in ezetimibe remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the influence of ezetimibe treatment on glycemic control.

METHODS

Articles were searched from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they compared the effects of ezetimibe with placebo, ezetimibe plus statin with the same statin, or low-dose stain plus ezetimibe with high-dose statin on FBG and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

RESULTS

Of the 2440 articles retrieved, 16 RCTs were included. Ezetimibe did not cause side effects on FBG (WMD -0.62, 95% CI: -3.13 to 1.90) and HbA1c (WMD 0.07, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.20%). No significant changes in FBG (WMD -1.78, 95% CI: -6.33 to 2.77%) and HbA1c (WMD -0.05, 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.05%) were observed in ezetimibe plus low-dose statin treatment compared with high-dose statin. According to subgroup analysis, in comparison with high-dose statin, ezetimibe plus low-dose statin taken for more than 3 months showed a significant decrease in FBG (WMD -7.12, 95% CI: -13.86 to -0.38%) compared with that taken for less than 3 months (WMD 0.90, 95% CI: -2.91 to 4.71%). Nevertheless, this difference was invalid when the study conducted by Dagli et al. was removed.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with high-dose statin therapy, ezetimibe with low-dose statin for more than 3 months may have a beneficial tendency of effects on glycemic control.

Effect of two lipid-lowering strategies on high-density lipoprotein function and some HDL-related proteins: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The influence of lipid-lowering therapy on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) is incompletely understood. We compared the effect of two lipid-lowering strategies on HDL functions and identified some HDL-related proteins.

METHODS

Thirty two patients were initially screened and HDLs of 21 patients were finally analyzed. Patients were randomized to receive atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 11) or atorvastatin 5 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination (n = 10) for 8 weeks. The cholesterol efflux capacity and other anti-inflammatory functions were assessed based on HDLs of the participants before and after treatment. Pre-specified HDL proteins of the same HDL samples were measured.

RESULTS

The post-treatment increase in cholesterol efflux capacities was similar between the groups (35.6% and 34.6% for mono-therapy and combination, respectively, p = 0.60). Changes in nitric oxide (NO) production, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) expression, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production were similar between the groups. The baseline cholesterol efflux capacity correlated positively with apolipoprotein (apo)A1 and C3, whereas apoA1 and apoC1 showed inverse associations with VCAM-1 expression. The changes in the cholesterol efflux capacity were positively correlated with multiple HDL proteins, especially apoA2.

CONCLUSIONS

Two regimens increased the cholesterol efflux capacity of HDL comparably. Multiple HDL proteins, not limited to apoA1, showed a correlation with HDL functions. These results indicate that conventional lipid therapy may have additional effects on HDL functions with changes in HDL proteins.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02942602 .

Lipid-lowering efficacy of atorvastatin

BACKGROUND

This represents the first update of this review, which was published in 2012. Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed statin in the world. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of atorvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of atorvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol and triglycerides in individuals with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. The primary focus of this review was determination of the mean per cent change from baseline of LDL-cholesterol. Secondary objectives • To quantify the variability of effects of various doses of atorvastatin.• To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to December Week 2 2013), EMBASE (1980 to December Week 2 2013), Web of Science (1899 to December Week 2 2013) and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to December Week 2 2013). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of atorvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we found an additional 42 trials and added them to the original 254 studies. The update consists of 296 trials that evaluated dose-related efficacy of atorvastatin in 38,817 participants. Included are 242 before-and-after trials and 54 placebo-controlled RCTs. Log dose-response data from both trial designs revealed linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides. The Summary of findings table 1 documents the effect of atorvastatin on LDL-cholesterol over the dose range of 10 to 80 mg/d, which is the range for which this systematic review acquired the greatest quantity of data. Over this range, blood LDL-cholesterol is decreased by 37.1% to 51.7% (Summary of findings table 1). The slope of dose-related effects on cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol was similar for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, but rosuvastatin is about three-fold more potent. Subgroup analyses suggested that the atorvastatin effect was greater in females than in males and was greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. Risk of bias for the outcome of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) was high, but the mostly unclear risk of bias was judged unlikely to affect lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not statistically significantly different between atorvastatin and placebo groups in these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.40).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update resulted in no change to the main conclusions of the review but significantly increases the strength of the evidence. Studies show that atorvastatin decreases blood total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in a linear dose-related manner over the commonly prescribed dose range. New findings include that atorvastatin is more than three-fold less potent than rosuvastatin, and that the cholesterol-lowering effects of atorvastatin are greater in females than in males and greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. This review update does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with atorvastatin because included trials were of short duration and adverse effects were not reported in 37% of placebo-controlled trials.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 20 mg on apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin on traditional lipid parameters has been studied extensively, the apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 (ApoB/ApoA1) ratio, which has a better predictive value for cardiovascular events, has not previously been used as a primary endpoint in these two treatment groups.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus atorvastatin 20 mg once daily in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was an open-label, randomized, controlled study. Type 2 diabetes patients with high levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (>100 mg/dL) were randomized to receive ezetimibe/simvastatin or atorvastatin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary endpoint was the difference in the percent change of ApoB/ApoA1 at 12 weeks, and secondary endpoints were changes in lipid profiles, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), homeostatic model assessment (HOMA) index, and C-reactive protein.

RESULTS

In total, 132 patients (66 for each group) were enrolled and randomized. After 12 weeks of treatment, the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio was significantly reduced in both groups; however, the difference of changes between the two groups was not statistically significant (ezetimibe/simvastatin -38.6 ± 18.0 % vs. atorvastatin -34.4 ± 15.5 %; p = 0.059). There were no significant differences in changes to total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, ApoB, and ApoB48 between the two groups. However, the increments of ApoA1 were significantly greater in the ezetimibe/simvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group (2.8 ± 10.0 vs. -1.8 ± 9.8 %; p = 0.002). In the per-protocol analysis, improvement in ApoB/ApoA1 was significantly greater in the ezetimibe/simvastatin group (-42.8 ± 11.8 vs. -36.7 ± 13.2 %; p = 0.019). The changes in HbA1c, HOMA index, and C-reactive protein were comparable between the two groups. The adverse reaction rate was similar between the two groups (24.2 vs. 34.9 %; p = 0.180).

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg is comparable to atorvastatin 20 mg for the management of dyslipidemia, and may have more favorable effects on apolipoprotein profiles than atorvastatin 20 mg in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Effects of pravastatin and atorvastatin on HDL cholesterol and glucose metabolism in patients with dyslipidemia and glucose intolerance: the PRAT study

AIMS

While statins have the property of increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in addition to lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a potential adverse effect on glucose metabolism has raised a concern over statin therapy. In a comparative trial, we investigated the effects of low-dose pravastatin and atorvastatin on HDL-C and glucose metabolism in patients with elevated LDL-C levels and glucose intolerance.

METHODS

Eligible patients were men aged ≥20 years or postmenopausal women who had LDL-C ≥140 mg/dL, HDL-C <80 mg/dL, and triglycerides <500 mg/dL and who had glucose intolerance. The patients were randomly allocated to either pravastatin (10 mg/day) or atorvastatin (10 mg/day) treatment for 12 months in an unblinded fashion. The percent changes from the baseline were compared between the treatments.

RESULTS

Of 202 patients who were randomized to either of the two treatments, 195 patients started the study medication, and 187 patients underwent the follow-up measurements at 6 or 12 months (pravastatin, n= 93; atorvastatin, n= 94). HDL-C increased by 4.3% (p= 0.03) in the pravastatin group and by 5.8% (p=0.0005) in the atorvastatin group and showed no between-group difference (p= 0.38). LDL-C decreased substantially in both groups (pravastatin, 21.5%; atorvastatin, 35.5%), and the decrease was much greater in the atorvastain group (p<0.0001). HbA1c slightly increased in both groups, but showed no measurable difference in the increase between the two treatments (p=0.30).

CONCLUSION

Pravastatin and atorvastatin of 10 mg per day each increased HDL-C by almost the same extent. These two statins did not show a differential effect on glucose metabolism.

Lipid lowering efficacy of atorvastatin

BACKGROUND

Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed statin in the world. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of atorvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of atorvastatin on blood lipids and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011, MEDLINE (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (1980 to November 2011), ISI Web of Science (1899 to November 2011) and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to November 2011). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of atorvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of 3 to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. WDAE information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-four trials evaluated the dose-related efficacy of atorvastatin in 33,505 participants. Log dose-response data revealed linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol and triglycerides. Combining all the trials using the generic inverse variance fixed-effect model for doses of 10 to 80 mg/day resulted in decreases of 36% to 53% for LDL-cholesterol. There was no significant dose-related effects of atorvastatin on blood high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol. WDAE were not statistically different between atorvastatin and placebo for these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride lowering effect of atorvastatin was dependent on dose. Log dose-response data was linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Manufacturer-recommended atorvastatin doses of 10 to 80 mg/day resulted in 36% to 53% decreases of LDL-cholesterol. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with atorvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 37% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Spectroscopic characterization and quantitative determination of atorvastatin calcium impurities by novel HPLC method

Seven process related impurities were identified by LC-MS in the atorvastatin calcium drug substance. These impurities were identified by LC-MS. The structure of impurities was confirmed by modern spectroscopic techniques like (1)H NMR and IR and physicochemical studies conducted by using synthesized authentic reference compounds. The synthesized reference samples of the impurity compounds were used for the quantitative HPLC determination. These impurities were detected by newly developed gradient, reverse phase high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method. The system suitability of HPLC analysis established the validity of the separation. The analytical method was validated according to International Conference of Harmonization (ICH) with respect to specificity, precision, accuracy, linearity, robustness and stability of analytical solutions to demonstrate the power of newly developed HPLC method.

Comparison of the effects of simvastatin vs. rosuvastatin vs. simvastatin/ezetimibe on parameters of insulin resistance

BACKGROUND

Statin treatment may be associated with adverse effects on glucose metabolism. Whether this is a class effect is not known. In contrast, ezetimibe monotherapy may beneficially affect insulin sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of three different regimens of equivalent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering capacity on glucose metabolism.

METHODS

A total of 153 patients (56 men), who had not achieved the LDL-C goal recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) despite a 3-month dietary and lifestyle intervention, were randomly allocated to receive open-label simvastatin 40 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg for 12 weeks. The primary end point was changes in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Secondary endpoints consisted of changes in fasting insulin levels, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c) ), the HOMA of β-cell function (HOMA-B) (a marker of basal insulin secretion by pancreatic β-cells), LDL-C and high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP).

RESULTS

  At week 12, all three treatment regimens were associated with significant increases in HOMA-IR and fasting insulin levels (p < 0.05 compared with baseline). No significant difference was observed between groups. No change in FPG, HbA(1c) and HOMA-B levels compared with baseline were noted in any of the three treatment groups. Changes in serum lipids and hsCRP were similar across groups.

CONCLUSION

To the extent that simvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg are associated with adverse effects on insulin resistance, they appear to be of the same magnitude.

Comparative effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on glucose metabolism and adipokine levels in non-diabetic patients with dyslipidaemia: a prospective randomised open-label study

AIMS

The impact of statins on glucose metabolism and adipokines remains controversial. We compared the effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on glucose homeostasis, insulin sensitivity (IS), adiponectin and leptin levels as well as systemic inflammation in non-diabetic patients with dyslipidaemia.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to 10 mg/day of rosuvastatin (n = 18) or 20 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 18) for 12 weeks. Total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), fasting plasma glucose, insulin, homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quantitative IS check index (QUICKI), adiponectin, leptin and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were measured at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Both statins significantly lowered TC, LDL-C, non-HDL-C and TG compared with baseline. Only rosuvastatin caused a significant reduction in insulin and HOMA-IR levels (-35%, p = 0.005 and -33%, p = 0.011 respectively) and a significant increase in QUICKI (+11%, p = 0.003) at 12 weeks. In terms of adipokines and hsCRP, no difference was observed after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment with either statin.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin resulted in significant improvements in IS indices. No significant changes in adiponectin, leptin or hsCRP levels were observed at 4 and 12 weeks of treatment with either statin.

The effects of statin monotherapy and low-dose statin/ezetimibe on lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A₂

BACKGROUND

Many of the pleiotropic effects of statins remain to be elucidated.

HYPOTHESIS

Different statin regimens with similar lipid-lowering efficacy may have different effects on biomarkers of atherothrombosis including lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A₂ (Lp-PLA₂ ).

METHODS

After a 4-week dietary lead-in, 82 hypercholesterolemic patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups: atorvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin/ezetimibe 5 mg/5 mg. After 8 weeks of drug treatment, the groups were compared for percent change in lipid parameters, Lp-PLA₂ , interleukin-6 (IL-6), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, and fibrinogen.

RESULTS

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering was comparable between the 2 groups (-47% ± 11% and -49% ± 7% in the atorvastatin and combination groups, respectively). Although Lp-PLA₂ was reduced in both groups, the reduction was greater in the atorvastatin group (-42% and -9% [median], respectively, P = 0.03). Although IL-6 was decreased only in the atorvastatin group, IL-6 changes were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The changes in monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and fibrinogen were similar in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

Atorvastatin monotherapy was stronger at reducing plasma Lp-PLA₂ than the low-dose atorvastatin/ezetimibe combination after equivalent LDL-C lowering. This result may provide evidence of potential statin effects beyond the lowering of LDL-C.

Effects of maximal atorvastatin and rosuvastatin treatment on markers of glucose homeostasis and inflammation

Studies have reported an increased risk of developing diabetes in subjects receiving statins versus placebo. Our purpose was to compare the effects of maximum doses of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on the plasma levels of the insulin, glycated albumin, adiponectin, and C-reactive protein compared to baseline in hyperlipidemic patients. We studied 252 hyperlipidemic men and women who had been randomized to receive atorvastatin 80 mg/day or rosuvastatin 40 mg/day during a 6-week period. Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were both highly effective in lowering the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels, with rosuvastatin more effective than atorvastatin in increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin at the maximum dosage both significantly (p <0.05) increased the median insulin levels by 5.2% and 8.7%, respectively, from baseline. However, only atorvastatin increased the glycated albumin levels from baseline (+0.8% for atorvastatin vs -0.7% for rosuvastatin, p = 0.002). Both atorvastatin and rosuvastatin caused significant (p <0.001) and similar median reductions in the C-reactive protein level of -40% and -26% compared to the baseline values. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups in the adiponectin changes from baseline (-1.5% vs -4.9%, p = 0.15). In conclusion, our data have indicated that the maximum dosage of atorvastatin or rosuvastatin therapy significantly lower C-reactive protein levels but also moderately increase insulin levels.