Usefulness of hydrophilic vs lipophilic statins after acute myocardial infarction: subanalysis of MUSASHI-AMI

A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Hydrophilic Versus Lipophilic Statins in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

Statins differ in their solubility. Some previous studies suggested a difference in clinical efficacy and adverse events between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, and Scopus were systemically searched for articles published from inception until the 18th of July 2024. The primary outcome included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), while the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina (UA), revascularization, stroke, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, and adverse events. The results were pooled as risk ratio (RR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Nine studies were included. Hydrophilic statins showed a significantly higher risk of MACE and UA compared to lipophilic statins (RR 1.11 [95% CI 1.02, 1.21] and 1.30 [95% CI 1.04, 1.62]), but subgroup analysis showed a lack of significant difference between statins of similar intensity (1.01 [95% CI 0.86, 1.18] and 0.98 [0.67, 1.45], respectively). Both statins showed comparable results regarding the occurrence of MI (1.18 [95% CI 0.98, 1.40]), revascularization (1.09 [95% CI 0.99, 1.20]), stroke (1.16 [95% CI 0.80, 1.66]), all-cause mortality (1.13 [95% CI 0.92, 1.38]), cardiovascular deaths (1.14 [95% CI 0.76, 1.72]), adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.03 [95% CI 0.56, 1.90]), increased alanine aminotransferase (0.61 [95% CI 0.32, 1.16]), increased creatine kinase (0.90 [95% CI 0.30, 2.72]), and increased serum creatinine (1.03 [95% CI 0.49, 2.19]). The efficacy and safety of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins are comparable when the cholesterol-lowering intensity of statins is similar. This suggests that intensity, rather than the lipophilicity of the statin, plays a more important role in the secondary prevention of MACE and individual adverse events.

Association of venous thromboembolism between hydrophilic and lipophilic statin users among diabetic subjects

This retrospective analysis aimed to compare the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) between patients with diabetes mellitus who received hydrophilic statin treatment to those who receive lipophilic statin. There were 6639 patients receiving hydrophilic statin therapy and 10,854 patients receiving lipophilic statin therapy in the study. The hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for VTE were estimated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models when the study cohorts were compared. Among all patients, the incidence rate of VTE was 4.27 per 1000 person-years in the control cohort, 4.18 per 1000 person-years in the hydrophilic statin use cohort, and 3.91 per 1000 person-years in the lipophilic statin use cohort. After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, the risk of VTE in the hydrophilic statin use cohort was 0.90 (0.72, 1.12) lower than that in the control cohort, the risk of VTE in the lipophilic statin use cohort was 0.87 (0.72, 1.05) lower than that in the control cohort, and the risk of VTE in the lipophilic statin use cohort was 0.97 (0.78, 1.21) lower than that in the hydrophilic statin use cohort. However, all were not statistically significant. Our result showed that there was no significant difference among the study cohorts regarding the outcome of VTE.

Statins in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients: Do Comorbidities and Characteristics Matter?

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) morbidity and mortality are decreasing in high-income countries, but ASCVD remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in high-income countries. Over the past few decades, major risk factors for ASCVD, including LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), have been identified. Statins are the drug of choice for patients at increased risk of ASCVD and remain one of the most commonly used and effective drugs for reducing LDL cholesterol and the risk of mortality and coronary artery disease in high-risk groups. Unfortunately, doctors tend to under-prescribe or under-dose these drugs, mostly out of fear of side effects. The latest guidelines emphasize that treatment intensity should increase with increasing cardiovascular risk and that the decision to initiate intervention remains a matter of individual consideration and shared decision-making. The purpose of this review was to analyze the indications for initiation or continuation of statin therapy in different categories of patient with high cardiovascular risk, considering their complexity and comorbidities in order to personalize treatment.

Hydrophilic Versus Lipophilic Statin Treatments in Patients With Renal Impairment After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background Hydrophilic and lipophilic statins have similar efficacies in treating coronary artery disease. However, specific factors relevant to renal impairment and different arterial pathogeneses could modify the clinical effects of statin lipophilicity, and create differences in protective effects between statin types in patients with renal impairment. Methods and Results A total of 2062 patients with acute myocardial infarction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m² were enrolled from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry between November 2011 and December 2015. The primary end point was a composite of 2-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACEs) after acute myocardial infarction occurrence. MACEs were defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke. Propensity-score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed. A total of 529 patients treated with hydrophilic statins were matched to 529 patients treated with lipophilic statins. There was no difference in the statin equivalent dose between the 2 statin groups. The cumulative event rate of MACEs, all-cause mortality, and recurrent myocardial infarction were significantly lower in patients treated with hydrophilic statins in the propensity-score matched population (all P<0.05). In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, patients treated with hydrophilic statins had a lower risk for composite MACEs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]), all-cause mortality (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.93]), and recurrent myocardial infarction (HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.21-0.73]), but not for revascularization and ischemic stroke. Conclusions Hydrophilic statin treatment was associated with lower risk of MACEs and all-cause mortality than lipophilic statin in a propensity-score matched observational cohort of patients with renal impairment following acute myocardial infarction.

Comparison of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and persistent physical disability in older adults

PURPOSE

Recent epidemiological evidence has suggested that use of lipid-lowering medications, particularly statins, was associated with reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and persistent physical disability in healthy older adults. However, the comparative efficacy of different statins in this group remains unclear. This study aimed to compare different forms of statins in their associations with CVD and physical disability in healthy older adults.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis included data from 5981 participants aged ≥ 70 years (≥ 65 if US minorities; median age:74.0) followed for a median of 4.7 years, who had no prior CVD events or physical disability and reported using a statin at baseline. The incidence of the composite and components of major adverse cardiovascular events and persistent physical disability were compared across different statins according to their type, potency, and lipophilicity using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models.

RESULTS

Atorvastatin was the most used statin type at baseline (37.9%), followed by simvastatin (29.6%), rosuvastatin (25.5%), and other statins (7.0%, predominantly pravastatin). In comparisons of specific statins according to type and lipophilicity (lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin), observed differences in all outcomes were small and not statistically significant (all p values > 0.05). High-potency statin use (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) was marginally associated with lower risk of fatal CVD events compared with low-/moderate-potency statin use (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 1.00).

CONCLUSION

There were minimal differences in CVD outcomes and no significant difference in persistent physical disability between various forms of statins in healthy older adults. Future investigations are needed to confirm our results.

Effectiveness of hospital lipid-lowering protocol of intensive lipid-lowering therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The achievement of a target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level in clinical settings is often insufficient. A hospital lipid-lowering protocol (HLP) could be effective for providing the optimal lipid-lowering therapy. Herein we determined the effectiveness of a HLP for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 1,497 patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention for ACS at our hospital (November 2011 to May 2020). In December 2018, we introduced a HLP that included the prescription of the maximum tolerated dose of statin, ezetimibe, and eicosapentaenoic acid. We compared the lipid profile and clinical outcomes at 12 months between before (Control group: 1,219 patients) and after the HLP's introduction (HLP group: 278 patients). The primary outcome was the achievement rate of LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL). The key secondary outcomes were the change value and ratio of LDL-C plus the major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis.

RESULTS

The achievement rate of LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/L was significantly higher in the HLP group than in the Control group (58% vs. 27%, p < 0.01). The HLP group's change ratio and LDL-C values were significantly lower than those of the Control group (-39.5 [-55.1, -13.2]% vs. -20.4 [-38.4, 0]%, p < 0.001; -41 [-69, -11] mg/dL vs. -21 [-38, 0] mg/dL, p < 0.001). MACE was similar between the groups (16.9 vs. 15.5%, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

Implementing a HLP for ACS patients improved the achievement of target LDL-C at 12 months.

Comparative effect of statin intensity between prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus after implanting newer-generation drug-eluting stents in Korean acute myocardial infarction patients: a retrospective observational study

Background

Comparative studies regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of statin intensity between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with prediabetes and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), after successful implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with statin treatment, are limited. We compared the 2-year clinical outcomes between these patients.

Methods

A total of 11,612 AMI patients were classified as statin users (n = 9893) and non-users (n = 1719). Thereafter, statin users were further divided into high-intensity (n = 2984) or low-moderate-intensity statin (n = 6909) treatment groups. Those in these two groups were further classified into patients with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and T2DM. The major outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI), or any repeat coronary revascularization.

Results

After adjusting for both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin users, the cumulative incidences of MACE (p = 0.737, p = 0.062, respectively), all-cause death, Re-MI, and any repeat revascularization were similar between the prediabetes and T2DM groups. In the total study population, both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin treatments showed comparable results. However, in the patients who enrolled after October 2012, the cumulative incidences of MACE (aHR 1.533; 95% CI 1.144–2.053; p = 0.004) and any repeat revascularization (aHR, 1.587; 95% CI 1.026–2.456; p = 0.038) were significantly lower in high-intensity statin users than in low-moderate intensity statin users. The beneficial effects of high-intensity compared to low-moderate-intensity statin therapy were more apparent in the normoglycemia group than hyperglycemia group, as it reduced the cumulative incidences of MACE (aHR 1.903; 95% CI 1.203–3.010; p = 0.006) and any repeat revascularization (aHR 3.248; 95% CI 1.539–6.854; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

In this retrospective registry study, prediabetes and T2DM groups showed comparable clinical outcomes, after administering both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin treatments. However, these results are likely to be clearly proved by further studies, especially in patients with AMI who are being treated in contemporary practice.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02198-w.

Effect of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins on early onset cataract: A nationwide case-control study

BACKGROUND

Statin is biologically plausible in cataract development, but inconclusive associations between statin and cataract are presented in human studies. Given most early onset cataract (EOC) occurs in regions with high cholesterol composition, we therefore aimed to assess the association between statin and EOC.

METHODS

A population based case-control study was performed using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). The case involved patients aged 20-55 years with EOC. Controls were 1:1 matched by age, gender, year of index date, and propensity score estimated from comorbidities and comedications. Statin exposure, including intensity, properties and cumulative exposure one year before the index date were tracked. The odds ratios (ORs) of EOC associated with statin were estimated by conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 4213 cases and 4213 controls were included. Statins were associated with EOC (OR = 3.257, 95% CI 2.519-4.211). The ORs of cataract was positively associated with cumulative exposure. Subgroup analysis indicated that the ORs of cataract were significant both in lipophilic (OR = 3.485, 95% CI 2.606-4.659) and hydrophilic (OR = 3.241, 95% CI 1.975-5.321) statin users.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins were associated with an increased risk of cataract in young populations.

Hydrophilic or Lipophilic Statins?

Drugs can be classified as hydrophilic or lipophilic depending on their ability to dissolve in water or in lipid-containing media. The predominantly lipophilic statins (simvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin, lovastatin and atorvastatin) can easily enter cells, whereas hydrophilic statins (rosuvastatin and pravastatin) present greater hepatoselectivity. Although the beneficial role of statins in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention has been unequivocally confirmed, the possible superiority of one statin or other regarding their solubility profile is still not well-established. In this respect, although some previously published observational studies and clinical trials observed a superiority of lipophilic statins in cardiovascular outcomes, these results could also be explained by a greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with this statin type. On the other hand, previous studies reported conflicting results as to the possible superiority of one statin type over the other regarding heart failure outcomes. Furthermore, adverse events with statin therapy may also be related to their solubility profile. Thus, the aim of the present review was to collect clinical evidence on possible differences in cardiovascular outcomes among statins when their solubility profile is considered, and how this may also be related to the occurrence of statin-related adverse effects.

Hydrophilic vs. Lipophilic Statins in Diabetic Patients - Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Studies comparing the cardiac consequences of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins in experimental and clinical practice settings have produced inconsistent results. In particular, evidence focusing on diabetic patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is lacking.

Methods and Results: From the Osaka Acute Coronary Insufficiency Study (OACIS) registry database, 1,752 diabetic patients with AMI who were discharged with a prescription for statins were studied. Long-term outcomes were compared between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins, including all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI) and admission for heart failure (HF) and a composite of these (major adverse cardiac events; MACE). During a median follow-up period of 1,059 days, all-cause death, non-fatal re-MI, admission for HF, and MACE occurred in 95, 89, 112 and 249 patients, respectively. Although there was no significant difference between statins in the risk of all-cause death, re-MI and MACE, the risk of HF admission was significantly lower in patients with hydrophilic than lipophilic statins before (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.560; 95% CI: 0.345–0.911, P=0.019) and after (aHR, 0.584; 95% CI: 0.389–0.876, P=0.009) propensity score matching. Hydrophilic statin use was consistently associated with lower risk for HF admission than lipophilic statins across the subgroup categories.

Conclusions: In the present diabetic patients with AMI, hydrophilic statins were associated with a lower risk of admission for HF than lipophilic statins.

Association of Statin and Its Lipophilicity With Cardiovascular Events in Patients Receiving Chronic Dialysis

Lipophilicity of statins has been linked to extrahepatic cell penetration and inhibition of isoprenoid synthesis and coenzyme Q10, which may affect myocardial contraction. Whether statins' lipophilicity affects the risk of cardiovascular disease development in patients under dialysis is unclear. This population‐based study included 114,929 patients undergoing chronic dialysis, retrieved from the Registry for Catastrophic Illness Patients from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan from 2000 to 2013. Statins were initiated after dialysis and classified into hydrophilic and lipophilic by the duration of use. In total, 17,015 statin users and match controls were identified by using propensity score matching in 1:1 ratio. New statin use was associated with higher cardiovascular disease risk (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.2, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13–1.28) but lower all‐cause mortality (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.89–0.96). Hydrophilic statins were significantly associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared with lipophilic statins (aHR: 0.91, 95% CI, 0.85–0.97).

The Different Cardiovascular Outcomes Between Long-Term Efficacy of Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Statin Therapy in Both Asian Diabetic Sexes

Purpose:

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of hydrophilic and lipophilic statin therapy for cardiovascular outcomes in Asian diabetic patients.

Method:

Newly diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes during the period from January 2000 to December 2011 were divided into 2 cohorts on the basis of their statin use, namely hydrophilic statin and lipophilic statin. We used Cox proportional hazard regression models to analyze the risks of cardiovascular outcomes.

Result:

In this study, 12 896 patients used statin, including 4259 patients using hydrophilic statin and 8637 patients using lipophilic statin. With 12-year follow-up, higher incidence rate of coronary artery disease and stroke was noted in the lipophilic statin use instead of hydrophilic statin use.

Conclusion:

According to our long-term cohort study, hydrophilic statin use may be a better choice than lipophilic statin to reduce cardiovascular events in Asian diabetic patients.

Impact of Different Types of Statins on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for Ischemic Heart Failure

Introduction:

The effect of statins on risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and lethal outcome remains dubious.

Aim:

To investigate whether statin therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized for ischemic heart failure (HF), to compare the efficacy of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins and to investigate which statin subtype provides better survival and other outcome benefits.

Material and Methods:

Total amount of 155 patients in the study were admitted to the Clinic for Cardiology, Rheumatology and Vascular diseases in Clinical Center University of Sarajevo in the period from January 2014- December 2017. Inclusion criteria was HF caused by ischemic coronary artery disease upon admission. For each patient the following data were obtained: gender, age, comorbidities and medications on discharge. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class for heart failure was determined by physician evaluation and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) was determined by echocardiography. The patients were followed for a period of two years. Outcome points were: rehospitalization, in-hospital death, mortality after 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. All-cause mortality included cardiovascular events or worsening heart failure.

Results:

Overall, 58.9% of HF patients received statin therapy, with 33.9% patients receiving atorvastatin and 25.0% rosuvastatin therapy. The most frequent rehospitalization was in patients without statin therapy (66.7%), followed by patients on rosuvastatin (64.1%), and atorvastatin (13.2%), with statistically significant difference p = 0.001 between the groups. Mortality after 6 months, 1 year and 2 years was the most frequent in patients without statin therapy with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.001). Progression of HF accounted for 31.7% of mortality in patients without statin therapy, 12.8% in patients on rosuvastatin therapy and 3.8% in patients on atorvastatin therapy (p = 0.004).

Conclusion:

Lipophilic statin therapy is associated with substantially better long-term outcomes in patients with HF.

Oxidative stress as a possible mechanism of statin-induced myopathy

Statins, inhibitors of hydroxy methyl glutaryl coenzyme-A (HMG-CoA) reductase, are the most widely used drugs for treating hypercholesterolemia. However, statins can cause disabling myopathy as their main adverse effect. Several molecular mechanisms underlie the statin-induced myopathy including the decrease in the levels of essential mevalonate and cholesterol derivatives. This review discusses a further mechanism involving the loss of other anti-oxidant defenses besides ubiquinone (Co-Q) in skeletal muscles which produce a significant amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Therefore, to maintain their function, skeletal muscles need a high level of anti-oxidants.

Effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Early and intensive atorvastatin treatment can decrease nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (nsVT) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The objective of this study was to compare the effects of hydrophilic rosuvastatin and lipophilic atorvastatin on nsVT in STEMI patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

The data from a cohort of patients undergoing primary PCI at Jinhua Municipal Central Hospital from January 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 were analyzed. The patients were divided into the rosuvastatin group and the atorvastatin group based on which kind of statins that they had received. The endpoint of the study was the occurrence of nsVT on either electrocardiogram monitoring or Holter monitoring.

RESULTS

A total of 301 patients were enrolled in the study (rosuvastatin group: n = 103; atorvastatin group: n = 198). The baseline and procedural characteristics were similar between the two groups, except that total ischemic time in the rosuvastatin group was markedly longer than that in the atorvastatin group (8 (5-16) h vs. 6 (4-12) h; P = 0.001). The administration of rosuvastatin was significantly associated with lower occurrence of nsVT than that of atorvastatin (9.71 vs. 19.70%; P = 0.026). Multivariable logistic regression analysis suggested that the independent predictors of nsVT included rosuvastatin (odds ratio (OR) 0.397, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.176-0.894), current smoking (OR 2.307, 95% CI 1.011-5.262), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (OR 1.060, 95% CI 1.023-1.098).

CONCLUSIONS

The effects of rosuvastatin on nsVT might be better than that of atorvastatin in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI.

Relationship Between Serum Inflammatory Marker Levels and the Dynamic Changes in Coronary Plaque Characteristics After Statin Therapy

BACKGROUND

The mechanism of statin for atheroma stabilization remains unclear. We aimed to assess the relationship between on-treatment changes in serum inflammatory biomarker levels and plaque composition in differed nonculprit coronary lesions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The changes in serum biochemical values, and intravascular ultrasound data were evaluated in 218 patients with virtual histology (VH)-intravascular ultrasound-defined fibroatheroma-containing segments after 12-month rosuvastatin treatment. When stratifying patients into quartiles according to the change in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), there was a significant positive linear relationship for the changes in %necrotic core (coefficient, 1.31; standard error, 0.54) and %dense calcium volumes (coefficient, 0.80; standard error, 0.27), but a negative linear relationship for the changes in %fibrous (coefficient, -0.94; standard error, 0.45) and %fibrofatty volumes (coefficient, -1.17; standard error, 0.56; all P<0.05). The decrease in hsCRP (-1.2±3.9 versus 0.5±3.4 mg/L; P=0.02) was greater in those without VH-defined thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA, defined as >30° of necrotic core abutting the lumen in 3 consecutive slices) than those with VH-TCFA at follow-up. Diabetes mellitus, a larger normalized total atheroma volume, and the presence of VH-TCFA at baseline predicted the presence of VH-TCFA at follow-up (odds ratio, 4.01, 1.18, and 9.21, respectively; all P<0.05), whereas the change in hsCRP showed a trend (odds ratio, 1.19; P=0.07). The change in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol had no relationship with the changes in hsCRP or plaque compositions.

CONCLUSIONS

With 12-month rosuvastatin therapy, a greater hsCRP reduction (not low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) was associated with a greater decrease in %necrotic core volume and the absence of VH-TCFA, indicating a link between the anti-inflammatory action of statin and plaque stabilization by reducing NC and reinforcing fibrous cap.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00997880.

Hydrophilic vs lipophilic statins in coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Some available experimental studies have reported that hydrophilic statins might have advantages compared with lipophilic statins in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the potential differences of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins in patients with CAD.

METHODS

We systematically searched selected electronic databases up to September 2016 to select RCTs, which compared clinical outcomes of hydrophilic vs lipophilic statins. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular (CV) events: major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, cardiac revascularization, stroke, CV death, CV hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were safety parameters: drug discontinuation, statin-associated muscle symptoms and alanine aminotransferase level increase.

RESULTS

A total of 11,697 patients from 11 RCTs, randomly allocated to lipophilic (n = 5736) or hydrophilic statins (n = 5961), with a mean follow-up 14 months, were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with hydrophilic, the lipophilic statins showed similar risk reduction for major adverse cardiac events (relative risk = 0.969, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.835-1.125, P = .682), myocardial infarction (0.880, 95% CI: 0.731-1.058, P = .174), CV death (0.757, 95% CI: 0.486-1.180, P = .219), and all-cause mortality (0.797, 95% CI: 0.590-1.075, P = .137), as well as cardiac revascularization, stroke, drug discontinuation, and statin-associated muscle symptoms. CV hospitalization was lower (0.789, 95% CI: 0.643-0.969, P = .024) and alanine aminotransferase elevation was higher (2.689, 95% CI: 1.841-3.954, P ≤ .001) in lipophilic than in hydrophilic-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, similarity between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins holds between various clinical CAD settings.

Renal hemodynamic effects of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

To determine the effect of statins on renal hemodynamics in normal volunteers and those with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease either with mild or moderate renal dysfunction.

METHODS

Thirty-two study subjects were enrolled in this study: 11 normal volunteers, 11 study subjects with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and mild kidney disease and 10 study subjects with ADPKD and moderate kidney disease. Subjects in each group received simvastatin 40 mg once daily for a period of 4 weeks. Renal blood flow was measured based on para-amino-hippurate (PAH) clearance and with the use of a magnetic resonance (MR) scanner at the beginning and following 4 weeks of therapy with statins.

RESULTS

At the end of the study, except for the lipid profile, which was significantly lower in all groups, other laboratory results showed no change. Four weeks of therapy with simvastatin resulted in no change in serum creatinine, 24-h urinary protein, sodium, iothalamate clearance, PAH clearance or renal blood flow as measured by MRI or based on PAH clearance.

CONCLUSIONS

Four weeks of therapy with simvastatin did not change renal blood flow in the study subjects with ADPKD with mild-to-moderate renal dysfunction or in healthy volunteers.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02511418.

Association between use of statins and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: prospective propensity score matched cohort study of 21 864 patients in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry

BACKGROUND

In heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, randomized trials of statins did not demonstrate improved outcomes. However, randomized trials may not always be generalizable. The aim was to determine whether statins are associated with improved outcomes in an unselected nationwide population of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction overall and in relation to ischemic heart disease (IHD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, 21 864 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (age ± SD, 72±12 years; 29% women), of whom 10 345 (47%) were treated with statins, were studied. Propensity scores for statin use were derived from 42 baseline variables. The associations between statin use and outcomes were assessed with Cox regressions in a population matched 1:1 based on propensity score and age and in the overall population with adjustment for propensity score and age. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality; HF hospitalization; and combined all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. Survival at 1 year in the matched population was 83% for statin-treated versus 79% for untreated patients (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.86; P<0.001). In the unmatched population, 1-year survival was 85% for statin-treated versus 79% for untreated patients, hazard ratio after adjustment for propensity score and age was 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.89; P<0.001). No examined baseline variables interacted with statin use except for IHD (P=0.001), with a hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.82, P<0.001) with IHD and 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.07; P=0.430 without IHD. Statin use was also associated with reduced risk for all 3 secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In an unselected nationwide population of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, statins were associated with improved outcomes, specifically in the presence of IHD. This contrasts with previous randomized controlled trials. Additional randomized controlled trials with more generalized inclusion or focused on IHD may be warranted.

Impact of statin treatment on strut coverage after drug-eluting stent implantation

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of statin treatment on strut coverage after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 60 patients were randomly assigned to undergo sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or biolimus-eluting stent (BES) implantation, after which patients were randomly treated with pitavastatin 2 mg or pravastatin 20 mg for 6 months. The degree of strut coverage was assessed by 6-month follow-up optical coherence tomography, which was performed in 52 DES-implanted patients.

RESULTS

The percentages of uncovered struts were 19.4±14.7% in pitavastatin-treated patients (n=25) and 19.1±15.2% in pravastatin-treated patients (n=27; p=0.927). A lower percentage of uncovered struts was significantly correlated with a lower follow-up low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level (r=0.486; p=0.009) and a greater decline of the LDL cholesterol level (r=-0.456; p=0.015) in SES-implanted patients, but not in BES-implanted patients. In SES-implanted patients, the percentage of uncovered struts was significantly lower among those with LDL cholesterol levels of less than 70 mg/dL after 6 months of follow-up (p=0.025), but no significant difference in this variable according to the follow-up LDL cholesterol level was noted among BES-implanted patients (p=0.971).

CONCLUSION

Lower follow-up LDL cholesterol levels, especially those less than 70 mg/dL, might have a protective effect against delayed strut coverage after DES implantation. This vascular healing effect of lower LDL cholesterol levels could differ according to the DES type.

Effects of statin therapy on cardiac sympathetic nerve activity and left ventricular remodeling in patients with chronic heart failure: a propensity score-matched analysis

Statin therapy reduces enhanced cardiac sympathetic nerve activity (CSNA) in patients with heart disease, and prevents left ventricular (LV) remodeling in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. We sought to evaluate the effects of statin therapy on CSNA, as evaluated by I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scintigraphy, and LV remodeling in CHF patients. This study was sub-analysis of our previous report of the result that the serial I-MIBG studies were the most useful prognostic indicator in CHF patients. Patients with CHF (n = 208; left ventricular ejection fraction <45%) but no cardiac events for at least 5 months before the study, were identified according to their history of decompensated acute heart failure requiring hospitalization. The patients underwent I-MIBG scintigraphy and echocardiography immediately before hospital discharge and after 6 months. The delayed % denervation, delayed heart/mediastinum count (H/M) ratio, and washout rate (WR) were determined by I-MIBG scintigraphy. The LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) and end-systolic volume (ESV) were also determined by echocardiography. We selected 164 patients and used propensity score matching to compare patients who received oral statin (n = 82), and those who did not (n = 82).The changes in I-MIBG scintigraphic parameters improved, and in echocardiographic LVEDV and LVESV reduced in the statin group compared with those in the non-statin group. Moreover, there were significant correlations between changes in the I-MIBG scintigraphic findings and those in the LVEDV (% denervation, r = 0.534, P < 0.001; H/M ratio, r =  -0.516, P < 0.001; and WR, r = 0.558, P < 0.001); or the LVESV (% denervation, r = 0.479, P < 0.001; H/M ratio, r =  -0.450, P < 0.001; and WR, r = 0.520, P < 0.001) in the statin group. In contrast, there was no relationship between these parameters in the non-statin group.Statin therapy not only improved CSNA, but also reduced LV volume, in other wards, prevented LV remodeling in CHF patients.

Assessment of lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin therapy in acute myocardial infarction – ALPS-AMI study

BACKGROUND

Statins reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, but no randomized trial has investigated the best statins for secondary prevention. We compared the efficacy of hydrophilic pravastatin with that of lipophilic atorvastatin in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, multicenter study enrolled 508 patients (410 men; mean age, 66.0 ± 11.6 years) with AMI who were randomly assigned to atorvastatin (n=255) or pravastatin (n=253). The target control level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was <100 mg/dl, and patients were followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the composite of death due to any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, unstable angina or congestive heart failure requiring hospital admission, or any type of coronary revascularization. The primary endpoint occurred in 77 patients (30.4%) and in 80 patients (31.4%) in the pravastatin and atorvastatin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.181; 95% confidence interval: 0.862-1.619; P=0.299), whereas greater reductions in serum total cholesterol and LDL-C were achieved in the atorvastatin group (P<0.001 for each). Changes in hemoglobin A1c, brain natriuretic peptide, and creatinine were not significant between the 2 regimens, and safety and treatment adherence were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

On 2-year comparison of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins there was no significant difference in prevention of secondary cardiovascular outcome.

Effect of a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic statin on cardiac salvage after ST-elevated acute myocardial infarction - a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Early statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome reduces atherothrombotic vascular events. This study aimed to compare the effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic statins on myocardial salvage and left ventricular (LV) function in patients with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS

Seventy-five STEMI patients who had received emergency reperfusion therapy were enrolled and randomized into the hydrophilic statin group (rosuvastatin; 5 mg/day, n = 38) and hydrophobic statin group (atorvastatin; 10 mg/day, n = 37) for 6 months. LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and co-enzyme Q10 (CoQ10) levels were measured at baseline and the end of treatment. The myocardial salvage index was assessed by single photon emission computed tomography with (123-)I-β-methyl-iodophenylpentadecanoic acid (ischemic area-at-risk at onset of STEMI: AAR) and (201-)thallium scintigraphy (area-at-infarction at 6 months: AAI) [myocardial salvage index = (AAR-AAI) × 100/AAR (%)].

RESULTS

Onset-to-balloon time and maximum creatine phosphokinase levels were comparable between the groups. After 6 months, rosuvastatin (-37.6% ± 17.2%) and atorvastatin (-32.4% ± 22.4%) equally reduced low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (p = 0.28). However, rosuvastatin (+3.1% ± 5.9%, p < 0.05), but not atorvastatin (+1.6% ± 5.7%, p = 0.15), improved LVEF. Rosuvastatin reduced BNP levels compared with atorvastatin (-53.3% ± 48.8% versus -13.8% ± 82.9%, p < 0.05). The myocardial salvage index was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin group than the atorvastatin group (78.6% ± 29.1% versus 52.5% ± 38.0%, p < 0.05). CoQ10/LDL-C levels at 6 months were increased in the rosuvastatin group (+23.5%, p < 0.01) and percent changes in CoQ10/LDL-C were correlated with the myocardial salvage index (r = 0.56, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin shows better beneficial effects on myocardial salvage than atorvastatin in STEMI patients, including long-term cardiac function, associated with increasing CoQ10/LDL-C.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm Unique Identifier: UMIN000003893.

Differences between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in lipid-lowering action and effect on glucose metabolism in Japanese hypercholesterolemic patients with concurrent diabetes. Lipid-lowering with highly potent statins in hyperlipidemia with type 2 diabetes patients (LISTEN) study –

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the differences between standard-dose statins effects on glucose level and lipids in Japanese patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The 1,049 patients were randomly assigned to either the rosuvastatin group or atorvastatin group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in the effect on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and HbA1c at 12 months. However, physicians tended to switch to more intensive therapy for DM in the atorvastatin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin 5 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg have a similar lowering effect on non-HDL-C, but might be different in terms of adverse effect on glucose levels.

Differential metabolic actions of specific statins: clinical and therapeutic considerations

SIGNIFICANCE

Statins, the most widely prescribed drugs in clinical practice, mainly act by reducing the plasma level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol. A shift in redox homeostasis to an imbalance between reactive oxygen species generation and endogenous antioxidant mechanisms results in oxidative stress that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of various diseases, including those of the cardiovascular system. Beyond their efficacy in lowering LDL cholesterol, statins modulate redox systems that are implicated in the development of atherosclerosis, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality.

RECENT ADVANCES

Differences in specific statins or their dosages result in differential metabolic actions arising from off-target or unknown mechanisms of action that can have important implications for overall patient morbidity and mortality.

CRITICAL ISSUES

A recent meta-analysis and a combined analysis have suggested that high doses of statins increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus, but reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Thus, it is important to consider the cardiovascular and metabolic context and natural history of diseases when choosing a specific statin therapy for optimal individual patient health over the long term.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

More information is needed regarding the metabolism of statins, and the off-target or unknown actions of statins in affecting insulin resistance and metabolic homeostasis. The differential metabolic effects of specific statins should be considered in formulating optimal therapeutic strategies to reduce not just cardiovascular-related but also overall patient morbidity and mortality.

Statins exert the pleiotropic effects through small GTP-binding protein dissociation stimulator upregulation with a resultant Rac1 degradation

OBJECTIVE

The pleiotropic effects of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) independent of cholesterol-lowering effects are thought to be mediated through inhibition of the Rho/Rho-kinase pathway. However, we have previously demonstrated that the pleiotropic effects of regular-dose statins are mediated mainly through inhibition of the Rac1 signaling pathway rather than the Rho/Rho-kinase pathway, although the molecular mechanisms of the selective inhibition of the Rac1 signaling pathway by regular-dose statins remain to be elucidated. In this study, we tested our hypothesis that small GTP-binding protein GDP dissociation stimulator (SmgGDS) plays a crucial role in the molecular mechanisms of the Rac1 signaling pathway inhibition by statins in endothelial cells.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

In cultured human umbilical venous endothelial cells, statins concentration-dependently increased SmgGDS expression and decreased nuclear Rac1. Statins also enhanced SmgGDS expression in mouse aorta. In control mice, the protective effects of statins against angiotensin II-induced medial thickening of coronary arteries and fibrosis were noted, whereas in SmgGDS-deficient mice, the protective effects of statins were absent. When SmgGDS was knocked down by its small interfering RNA in human umbilical venous endothelial cells, statins were no longer able to induce Rac1 degradation or inhibit angiotensin II-induced production of reactive oxygen species. Finally, in normal healthy volunteers, statins significantly increased SmgGDS expression with a significant negative correlation between SmgGDS expression and oxidative stress markers, whereas no correlation was noted with total or low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that statins exert their pleiotropic effects through SmgGDS upregulation with a resultant Rac1 degradation and reduced oxidative stress in animals and humans.

Lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin therapy for heart failure: a protocol for an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Statins are known to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in primary and secondary prevention studies. Subsequently, a number of nonrandomised studies have shown statins improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Small randomised controlled trials (RCT) also show improved cardiac function, reduced inflammation and mortality with statins in HF. However, the findings of two large RCTs do not support the evidence provided by previous studies and suggest statins lack beneficial effects in HF. Two meta-analyses have shown statins do not improve survival, whereas two others showed improved cardiac function and reduced inflammation in HF. It appears lipophilic statins produce better survival and other outcome benefits compared to hydrophilic statins. But the two types have not been compared in direct comparison trials in HF.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy in patients with HF. Our objectives are:1. To determine the effects of lipophilic statins on (1) mortality, (2) hospitalisation for worsening HF, (3) cardiac function and (4) inflammation.2. To determine the effects of hydrophilic statins on (1) mortality, (2) hospitalisation for worsening HF, (3) cardiac function and (4) inflammation.3. To compare the efficacy of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on HF outcomes with an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis.We will conduct an electronic search of databases for RCTs that evaluate statins in patients with HF. The reference lists of all identified studies will be reviewed. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search. The inclusion criteria include:1. RCTs comparing statins with placebo or no statin in patients with symptomatic HF.2. RCTs that employed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle in data analysis.3. Symptomatic HF patients of all aetiologies and on standard treatment.4. Statin of any dose as intervention.5. Placebo or no statin arm as control.The exclusion criteria include:1. RCTs involving cerivastatin in HF patients.2. RCTs with less than 4 weeks of follow-up.

DISCUSSION

We will perform an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statins in patients with HF using placebo or no statin arm as common comparator.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins in patients with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND/AIMS

A controversy exists about which statin is preferable for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and clinical impacts of different statins according to lipophilicity have not been established.

METHODS

The 1,124 patients with AMI included in the present study were divided into hydrophilic- and lipophilic-statin groups. In-hospital complications (defined as death, cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmia, infection, bleeding, and renal insufficiency, and other fatal arrhythmias), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), all-cause death, re-myocardial infarction, re-percutaneous coronary intervention (re-PCI), and surgical revascularization were analyzed during a 1-year clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, and in-hospital complication rates showed no between-group differences (11.7% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.688). Although MACE at the 1- and 6-month clinical follow-ups occurred more in hydrophilic statin group I (1 month: 10.0% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.001; 6 month: 19.9% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.022), no significant difference in MACE was observed at the 1-year follow-up (21.5% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.172). Both statin groups showed similar efficacy for reducing serum lipid concentrations. A Cox-regression analysis showed that the use of a hydrophilic statin did not predict 1-year MACE, all-cause death, AMI, or re-PCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Although short-term cardiovascular outcomes were better in the lipophilic-statin group, 1-year outcomes were similar in patients with AMI who were administered hydrophilic and lipophilic statins. In other words, the type of statin did not influence 1-year outcomes in patients with AMI.

Intensively lowering both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood pressure does not reduce cardiovascular risk in Japanese coronary artery disease patients

BACKGROUND

Despite mounting evidence of the benefit of intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients, it has not been shown that intensive lowering of both LDL-C and blood pressure (BP) reduces cardiovascular events in these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

498 patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia with ≥ 75% stenosis in at least one major coronary artery, were recruited from 17 cardiovascular centers in eastern Japan. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional therapy (CT) or intensive therapy (IT). CT aimed to reduce BP to < 140/90 mm Hg and LDL-C to <100mg/dl, and IT aimed for < 120/80 mm Hg and < 80 mg/dl, respectively. The primary endpoint was a composite of all deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal major vascular disease, and peripheral artery disease. The mean follow-up period was 3.2 years. The achieved systolic BP was 126.8 mm Hg for the CT group, and 121.3 mm Hg for the IT group (P < 0.001). The achieved LDL-C was 92.1mg/dl for the CT group, and 79.6 mg/dl for the IT group (P < 0.001). We detected the primary endpoint in 18 (7.1%) patients in the CT group, and 26 (10.7%) in the IT group (hazard ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 0.84-2.80, P = 0.164).

CONCLUSIONS

We could not show that intensively lowering both BP and LDL-C reduced cardiovascular risks in Japanese CAD patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (UMIN-CTR UMIN000000571).

Pitavastatin approved for treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia and combined dyslipidemia

Pitavastatin was first developed in Japan and is expanding the regions in which it is clinically available. A considerable number of clinical studies have been conducted and published to date on the usefulness of pitavastatin for patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or combined dyslipidemia. Pitavastatin demonstrates potent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction at low doses of 1–4 mg/day. It also affects the regression of coronary plaques, as observed in intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention studies. Moreover, the persistent, long-term high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation observed in the populations treated with pitavastatin is worthy of further attention. The reported improvements in lipid profiles are consistent among the studies conducted in Japan, Korea, Thailand, and Europe. In light of accumulating clinical experience worldwide, pitavastatin is now expected to establish its position for preventing and treating cardiovascular disease.

"Just make it lower" is an alternative strategy of lipid-lowering therapy with statins in Japanese patients: LDL-cholesterol: the lower, the better; is it true for Asians? (Con)

It is well known that statins improve the prognosis of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Recent randomized control trials (RCTs) of statins conducted in Western countries revealed greater avoidance of cardiovascular events if low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reached lower levels. However, it is obvious that this evidence cannot be unconditionally extrapolated to Asians because there are great differences between Japanese and Caucasians in the absolute onset rate of CVD. Results of RCTs with Japanese for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular events indicate that we could benefit from statins with a relatively higher target LDL-C as compared with Western populations. In this situation, not only strong but also standard statins are still advantageous and the so-called pleiotropic effects of the drugs come to the fore. In this review, we first discuss differences in the absolute event rate in different populations, and then the lack of evidence for recommended LDL-C treatment targets, particularly in Japanese, although there is reliable evidence for reductions in plaque volume in coronary arteries from RCTs recently conducted in Japan with aggressive lipid-lowering therapy with strong statins. Finally, based on recent data, we propose a new concept regarding the secondary prevention of CVD for current Japanese populations.

A Randomized Controlled Study to Compare the Effects of Rosuvastatin 5 mg and Atorvastatin 10 mg on the Plasma Lipid Profile in Japanese Patients with Hypercholesterolemia (ASTRO-2)

OBJECTIVE

For new evidence of aggressive lipid lowering treatment with statins in Japanese hypercholesterolemic patients, we performed an open-label, randomized, parallel-group comparative study to assess the effect of rosuvastatin 5 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg on plasma lipids.

METHODS

A total of 900 patients in whom the target control levels of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) set by the Japan Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines (JASGL2007) had not been achieved were randomly assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg / day (n = 450) or atorvastatin 10 mg / day (n = 450) for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change of LDL-C at week 8.

RESULTS

LDL-C was lowered by -44.5% (from 170.2 to 93.3 mg / dL) in the rosuvastatin group and -41.6% (from 169.5 to 97.9 mg / dL) in the atorvastatin group, at week 8 (P = 0.002 vs. atorvastatin). LDL-C / HDL-C ratio was lowered by -47.6% (from 3.01 to 1.56) and -43.5 % (from 2.96 to 1.66), respectively, at week 8 (P < 0.001 vs. atorvastatin). The changes in HDL-C, ApoB, ApoA-1, and ApoB / ApoA-1 ratio showed significant improvement in the rosuvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group. Adverse events were observed comparably between the rosuvastatin group (121 events) and the atorvastatin group (104 events). None of these events had adverse clinical consequence. Both drugs were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin 5 mg produced significantly greater reduction in LDL-C and beneficial effect on other lipid parameters than atorvastatin 10 mg, and was also well tolerated.

Rationale and design of assessment of lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin therapy in acute myocardial infarction (the ALPS-AMI) study

BACKGROUND

Statins reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Although all statins are equally effective in secondary prevention, there might be certain differences in the effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins. Therefore, our aim is to compare the effectiveness of lipophilic atorvastatin and hydrophilic pravastatin in secondary prevention after AMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of 500 patients with AMI. Patients that have undergone successful percutaneous coronary intervention will be randomly allocated to receive either atorvastatin or pravastatin with the treatment goal of lowering their low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level below 100 mg/dl for 2 years. The primary endpoint will be death due to any cause, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure requiring hospital admission, or any type of coronary revascularization.

CONCLUSION

This is the first multicenter trial to compare the effects and safety of lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy in Japanese patients with AMI. It addresses an important issue and could influence the use of statin treatment in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

Comparison of the effect of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on serum adiponectin levels in patients with mild hypertension and dyslipidemia: Kinki Adiponectin Interventional (KAI) Study

The plasma level of adiponectin, which is known as an anti-atherogenic adipocytokine, correlates inversely with the progression of atherosclerosis. An increase in the serum adiponectin level has been reported after the administration of hydrophilic pravastatin, but not after the administration of lipophilic statins thus far. We investigated whether hydrophilic pravastatin acts distinctly from simvastatin, which has the highest lipophilicity, on the favorable effect on adiponectin in dyslipidemic patients. A total of 27 dyslipidemic patients with mild hypertension were enrolled in this study. The patients were initially treated with simvastatin 10 mg/day for six months or more (mean 7.1 months), and then were switched to pravastatin 20 mg/day. The serum adiponectin, cholesterol fractionated components, and C-reactive protein (CRP) were evaluated after six-month intervals. Switching from simvastatin to pravastatin caused little change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (103 mg/dl to 104 mg/dl, p = 0.782) and blood pressure (133/70 mmHg to 132/69 mmHg), while the serum adiponectin level significantly increased (11.9 mug/ml to 13.1 mug/ml, p = 0.009, respectively), and the serum CRP significantly decreased (0.078 mg/dl to 0.062 mg/dl, p = 0.040, respectively). Hydrophilic pravastatin increased the serum adiponectin level and decreased the CRP after switching from lipophilic simvastatin in the absence of any difference in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and blood pressure. It remains possible, however, that this difference was due not only to pharmacologic lipophilicity, but also to some other specific characteristics such as the formula of statins, the subject characteristics, race, body size, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, etc.

Importance of Rac1 signaling pathway inhibition in the pleiotropic effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The pleiotropic effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are thought to be mediated through inhibition of small GTP-binding proteins; however, it remains to be examined whether clinical concentrations/doses of statins actually exert them.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In vitro studies with cultured human umbilical venous endothelial cells found that statins (atorvastatin, pitavastatin and pravastatin at 10 micromol/L) had no inhibitory effects on RhoA/Rho-kinase or Ras, but atorvastatin and pitavastatin inhibited membrane Rac1 expression. In animal studies of angiotensin II (AngII)-infused rats, atorvastatin showed only mild inhibitory effects on AngII-induced cardiovascular hypertrophy, whereas fasudil, a selective Rho-kinase inhibitor, significantly suppressed it. Statins had no inhibitory effects on RhoA/Rho-kinase, but inhibited both membrane and GTP-bound Rac1 in the heart, whereas fasudil only inhibited Rho-kinase activity. Furthermore, the combination of atorvastatin and fasudil showed more effective inhibitory effects than fasudil alone. Finally, in studies of normal healthy volunteers, clinical doses of pravastatin or atorvastatin (20 mg/day for 1 week) significantly inhibited Rac1, but not RhoA/Rho-kinase activity, in circulating leukocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

The pleiotropic effects of statins, if any, at their clinical doses are mediated predominantly through inhibition of the Rac1 signaling pathway.

Modulation of human T cells signaling transduction by lovastatin

Statins are applied clinically to treat hypercholesterolemia and proposed to have some kinds of anti-inflammatory properties for reducing the incidence of atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events. However, it was rarely known about statins on the signal transduction on human primary T cells. To gain insight into the mechanism of statins on human T cells, we investigated the effects of both lovastatin and atorvastatin on activated human primary T cells. The human primary T cells from the blood of normal human beings were isolated. We found that lovastatin, but not atorvastatin, can dose-dependently inhibit cytokine production such as interleukin-2, interleukin-4, and interferon-gamma from activated human T cells. Neither lovastatin nor atorvastatin can regulate the TNF-alpha production on both activated human T cells and monocytes. Molecular investigation was performed that lovastatin, but not atorvastatin, could down-regulate both activator protein-1 and NF-kappaB DNA binding activities, assessed by electrophoretic mobility shift assay. Our observations may extend potential and differential therapeutic mechanisms of lovastatin with cell-mediated capacity to prevent or treat some of inflammation related diseases.