Effectiveness and tolerability of every-other-day rosuvastatin dosing in patients with prior statin intolerance

Comprehensive review of statin-intolerance and the practical application of Bempedoic Acid

Statin-intolerance (SI) has prevalence between 8.0 % and 10 %, and muscular complaints are the most common reason for discontinuation. Bempedoic acid (BA), an ATP citrate lyase inhibitor, decreases hepatic generation of cholesterol, upregulates low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor expression in the liver, and eventually clears circulating LDL-cholesterol from the blood. Multiple randomized clinical trials studying BA demonstrate a reduction in LDL levels by 17-28 % in SI. The CLEAR OUTCOME trial established significant cardiovascular benefits with BA. A dose of 180 mg/day of BA showed promising results. BA alone or in combination with ezetimibe is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for use in adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and/or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. BA reduced HbA1c by 0.12 % (p < 0.0001) in patients with diabetes. Adverse events of BA include myalgia (4.7 %), anemia (3.4 %), and increased aminotransferases (0.3 %). BA can cause up to four times higher risk of gout in those with a previous gout diagnosis or high serum uric acid levels. Reports of increased blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine were noted. Current evidence does not demonstrate a reduction in deaths from cardiovascular causes. More studies that include a diverse population and patients with both high and low LDL levels should be conducted. We recommend that providers consider BA as an adjunct to statin therapy in patients with a maximally tolerated dosage to specifically target LDL levels.

Management of patients with statin intolerance

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and statins have become a cornerstone in its treatment and prevention. Despite the well-documented benefits of statins, many patients stop taking them, with adverse muscle symptoms being a commonly cited reason. Although some statin-associated adverse muscle effects are real, some can be attributed to the nocebo effect, which is the patient's perception of harm. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on statin safety, particularly that related to muscle, to analyze adverse effects, and to propose various treatment strategies for the statin intolerant patient.

Correlates of Myopathy in Diabetic Patients Taking Statins

Diabetes is one of the most common chronic ailments; its incidence has reached epidemic proportions in the 21st century. Diabetes significantly increases micro and macrovascular complications, which are effectively managed with statins. Therefore, statins' pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics have been extensively studied. Although statins act as a keystone in preventing cardiovascular complications, at the same time, they pose a threat to the quality of life of diabetics due to the resulting muscular side effects. This article summarizes the prevalence, clinical manifestations, pathophysiology, and risk factors of statin-induced myopathy in diabetic patients. Among the diverse predisposing risk factors, the primary variables identified for causing myopathy in diabetic patients include age, gender, ethnicity, duration and severity of illness, comorbid conditions, level of physical activity, alcohol use, cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) levels, type and dose of statins, and anti-diabetic drugs or other drugs used concomitantly. In addition, cardiovascular risk quotients also potentially impact diabetic patients making them more vulnerable to developing myopathy from statins. Therefore, this study highlights the importance of managing statin-associated myopathic side effects by providing consensus guidelines on diagnostic, monitoring, and treatment strategies. We also discussed statins' prognostic value in reducing cardiovascular events in diabetic individuals.

Statin-related adverse drug reactions in UK primary care consultations: A retrospective cohort study to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality

AIMS

To investigate the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality in patients with statin-related adverse drug reaction (ADR) consultation in primary care and examine whether different treatments following the ADR affect subsequent outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of statin users between 2004 and 2019 using IQVIA Medical Research Data (formally known as the THIN database). Patients with statin-related ADR consultation were matched by propensity score (1:1) to statin users without ADR consultation based on demographics, comorbidities and concomitant medication. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to compare the risk of subsequent CVD event and all-cause mortality, stratified by history of CVD. In the secondary analysis among patients with statin-related ADR, treatment changes within a 1-year period following the ADR were examined and the outcomes were compared between different treatment groups.

RESULTS

Among 1 564 687 statin users, 19 035 (1.22%) had a statin-related ADR consultation in primary care. The mean (standard deviation) follow-up time was 6.32 (3.74) years and 5.31 (3.83) years for CVD primary and secondary prevention cohorts, respectively. Statin-related ADR consultation was associated with subsequent CVD events in both cohorts (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 1.39 [95% CI 1.23, 1.57] and 1.34 [95% CI 1.25,1.42], respectively). In the secondary analysis among patients with statin-related ADR consultation, we found that (i) continued statin prescription or combination of any statin with additional lipid-lowering treatment (LLT) and (ii) other LLT only were associated with lower risks of CVD event (adjusted HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.64, 0.78] and 0.75 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], respectively) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.46 [95% CI 0.42, 0.50] and 0.52 [95% CI, 0.43, 0.64], respectively), compared to discontinuation of all LLT.

CONCLUSION

Statin-related ADR was associated with an increased risk of subsequent CVD event, indicating that these patients should be monitored more closely. Continued lipid-lowering medication is of importance to protect against CVD events and mortality.

Statin-associated muscle symptoms-A review: Individualizing the approach to optimize care

The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, also known as "statins" are considered first-line pharmacologic therapy for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). They have been demonstrated efficacy in a variety of patients populations to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Like any pharmacologic therapy, however, they are not without possible adverse effects that can lead to discontinuation, thus leading to a loss of benefit. The most common side effect related to statin therapy impacting compliance is musculoskeletal related, commonly referred to as statin-associated muscle systems (SAMS). While the overall incidence is relatively low, the consequences of nonadherence to statin therapy can have a negative impact on patient care. Therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to understand risk factors, how to diagnose, and how to manage this unfortunate adverse effect in order to optimize care.

Rationale and design of the CLEAR-outcomes trial: Evaluating the effect of bempedoic acid on cardiovascular events in patients with statin intolerance

Although statins play a pivotal role in the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, many patients fail to achieve recommended lipid levels due to statin-associated muscle symptoms. Bempedoic acid is an oral pro-drug that is activated in the liver and inhibits cholesterol synthesis in hepatocytes, but is not activated in skeletal muscle which has the potential to avoid muscle-related adverse events. Accordingly, this agent effectively lowers atherogenic lipoproteins in patients who experience statin-associated muscle symptoms. However, the effects of bempedoic acid on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality have not been studied. STUDY DESIGN: Cholesterol Lowering via Bempedoic acid, an ACL-Inhibiting Regimen (CLEAR) Outcomes is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Included patients must have all of the following: (i) established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or have a high risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, (ii) documented statin intolerance, and (iii) an LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL on maximally-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy. The study randomized 14,014 patients to treatment with bempedoic acid 180 mg daily or matching placebo on a background of guideline-directed medical therapy. The primary outcome is a composite of the time to first cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or coronary revascularization. The trial will continue until 1620 patients experience a primary endpoint, with a minimum of 810 hard ischemic events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke) and minimum treatment duration of 36 months and a projected median treatment exposure of 42 months. CONCLUSIONS: CLEAR Outcomes will determine whether bempedoic acid 180 mg daily reduces the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in high vascular risk patients with documented statin intolerance and elevated LDL-C levels.

Is Real-World Evidence Used in P&T Monographs and Therapeutic Class Reviews?

BACKGROUND

Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies.

METHODS

A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist.

RESULTS

Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3%, 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1%, 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8% (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [10], long-term safety [8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions.

DISCLOSURES

This project was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Hurwitz, Brown, Peters, and Malone have nothing to disclose. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council Part of this study was presented as a poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone and Graff, along with Hurwitz and Brown. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Malone, Hurwitz, and Graff, with assistance from Brown and Peters. The manuscript was written primarily by Hurwitz and Malone, along with Graff, Brown, and Peters, and revised by Malone, Brown, Peters, Hurwitz, and Graff.

Tolerability and effectiveness of every-other-day atorvastatin compared to daily atorvastatin in patients with muscle symptoms: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Despite limited evidence, non-daily dosing of statins is recommended for managing muscle symptoms associated with statin therapy. We assessed the tolerability and effectiveness of every-other-day atorvastatin compared to daily atorvastatin in patients having muscle symptoms associated with atorvastatin therapy. A parallel-group, outcome-assessment-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at Colombo South Teaching Hospital, Sri Lanka. Patients with muscle pain, tenderness or cramps alone or in combination for ≥2 weeks while on daily atorvastatin for ≥1 month, with no alternative cause, were recruited. Patient's regular atorvastatin dose was given every-other-day to those in intervention group (IG) and daily to those in control group (CG). Primary outcomes were assessed at 24 weeks and included composite of myalgia and myositis, LDL-cholesterol level and percentage reduction of LDL-cholesterol from baseline. Number recruited was 49 to IG (women:79.6%; mean-age:60.6 ± 8.7years) and 52 to CG (women:73.1%; mean-age:61.7 ± 9.8years). Mean atorvastatin dose per day was 8.6 mg (SD = 4 mg) and 17.6 mg (SD = 8.4 mg) in IG and CG, respectively. Composite of myalgia and myositis at 24 weeks was 79.6% in IG and 69.2% in CG (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 0.7-4.3; p = 0.234). IG failed to show noninferiority for mean LDL-cholesterol (difference:0.31 mmol/L; upper limit 97.5% CI:0.61 mmol/L; p for noninferiority = 0.989) and for mean percentage reduction of LDL-cholesterol from baseline (difference:3.13%; upper limit 97.5% CI:15.5%; p for noninferiority = 0.718). At 24 weeks, mean creatine kinase and discomfort due to muscle symptoms (assessed with Visual Analogue Scale) were not different between the two groups. Findings of this study do not favor every-other-day atorvastatin as an option for managing patients with muscle symptoms associated with atorvastatin therapy.

Statins, LDL Cholesterol Control, Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, and Atherosclerosis Progression: A Clinical Perspective

Despite the longstanding and widespread use of statins, they are used quite inefficiently in everyday clinical practice. This might be because of a lack of robust evidence or the wide variety of different guidelines that are frequently changed. Using data from clinical trials and some simple mathematical modeling, we sought to expand upon the relation between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control and cardiovascular risk to offer a firm basis for independent decision making in everyday clinical practice. Analysis of the dose-response curves of different statins indicated that doubling the dose will provide a < 5% extra LDL-C gradient and that the relationship among different statin dose equipotencies is fourfold in the lower range and threefold in the higher range. Thus, the use of potent statins at very low doses might overcome patient statin reluctance. Moreover, whereas statins lower LDL-C percentwise, the prevention of atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular events (ARCVEs) depends on the absolute LDL-C gradient produced and the level of risk. Consequently, and counterintuitively, the lower the baseline LDL-C and/or ARCVE risk, the higher the statin therapy strength required, and approach that is also cost effective. We discuss the issue of threshold versus gradient in terms of clinical trials on plaque regression and speculate on the relationship between LDL-C and atherosclerosis.

Statins and muscle pain

Introduction: Statins remain among the most frequently prescribed drugs and constitute a cornerstone in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, muscle symptoms are often reported from patients on statins. Muscle symptoms are frequently reported as adverse events associated with statin therapy.Areas covered: In the present narrative review, statin-associated muscle pain is discussed. It elucidates potential mechanisms and possible targets for management.Expert opinion: In general, the evidence in support of muscle pain caused by statins is in some cases equivocal and not particularly strong. Reported symptoms are difficult to quantify. Rarely is it possible to establish a causal link between statins and muscle pain. In randomized controlled trials, statins are well tolerated, and muscle-pain related side-effects is similar to placebo. There are also nocebo effects of statins. Exchange of statin may be beneficial although all statins have been associated with muscle pain. In some patients reduction of dose is worth trying, especially in primary prevention Although the benefits of statins outweigh potential risks in the vast majority of cases, careful clinical judgment may be necessary in certain cases to manage potential side effects on an individual basis.

Clinician's Guide to the Updated ABCs of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A Review Part 2

Efforts to better control risk factors for cardiovascular disease and prevent the development of subsequent cardiovascular events are crucial to maintaining healthy populations. In today's busy practice environment and with the overwhelming pace of new research findings, ensuring appropriate emphasis and implementation of evidence-based preventive cardiovascular care can be challenging. The ABCDEF approach to cardiovascular disease prevention is intended to improve dissemination of contemporary best practices and ease the implementation of comprehensive preventive strategies for clinicians. This review serves as a succinct yet authoritative overview for interested internists as well as for cardiologists not otherwise focused on cardiovascular disease prevention. The goal of this 2-part series is to compile a state-of-the-art list of elements central to primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, using an ABCDEF checklist. In Part 2, we review new recommendations about lipid-modifying strategies, contemporary best practice for tobacco cessation, new evidence related to cardiovascular risk reduction in diabetes using novel therapies, ways to implement a heart-healthy diet, modern interventions to improve physical exercise, and how best to prevent the onset of heart failure.

GREATER LOW-DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL VARIABILITY INCREASES THE RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS

Objective: Variability in lipid levels has been associated with poor cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. The aim of this study was to investigate whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) variability can be used to predict cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods: A total of 5,354 patients with type 2 DM were enrolled in this study. Cardiovascular events including peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, stroke, and cardiovascular death were defined as the study endpoints, and standard deviations of lipid levels were used to define intra-individual lipid variability. Results: Univariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that LDL-C standard deviation (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.016; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.006 to 1.022; P<.001) was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular events. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that an increase in LDL-C standard deviation significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular events (HR = 1.063; 95% CI = 1.025 to 1.102; P = .01). Kaplan-Meier analysis of cardiovascular event-free survival showed that the patients in tertiles 2 and 3 of the standard deviation of LDL-C had worse cardiovascular event-free survival compared to those in tertile 1. Conclusion: Variability in LDL-C could predict cardiovascular events in the patients with type 2 DM in this study. Abbreviations: CAD = coronary artery disease; CI = confidence interval; CVD = cardiovascular disease; DM = diabetes mellitus; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; HbA1c = glycosylated hemoglobin; HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HR = hazard ratio; KMUHRD = Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital Research Database; LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; SD = standard deviation; UACR = urine albumin to creatinine ratio.

Diagnosis and Management of Statin Intolerance

Statins are the main treatment for hypercholesterolemia and the cornerstone of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention. Many patients taking statins report muscle-related symptoms, one of the most important causes of statin treatment discontinuation, which is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Therefore, it is important to identify patients who are truly statin intolerant to avoid unnecessary discontinuation of this beneficial treatment. Some studies indicate that not all muscle complaints are caused by statins, and most patients can tolerate a statin upon re-challenge, down-titration of dose, or switching to another statin. In this paper, we review the definitions of statin intolerance and approaches to reducing cardiovascular risk among individuals reporting statin-associated muscle symptoms.

Adaptation of 2016 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guideline for lipid management to Indian patients - A consensus document

In the year 2016, European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines provided recommendations on dyslipidemia management. The recommendation from these guidelines are restricted to European subcontinent. To adapt the updated recommendations for Indian subset of dyslipidemia, a panel of experts in management of dyslipidemia provided their expert opinions. This document provides expert consensus on adapting 2016 ESC dyslipidemia guidelines recommendations in Indian setting. The document also discussed India-specific relevant literature to support the consensus opinions provided in management of dyslipidemia.

Willingness to be Reinitiated on a Statin (from the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke Study)

Guidelines recommend attempting to reinitiate statins in patients who discontinue treatment. Previous experiences while taking a statin, including side effects, may reduce a patient's willingness to reinitiate treatment. We determined the percentage of adults who are willing to reinitiate statin therapy after treatment discontinuation. Factors associated with willingness to reinitiate a statin were also examined. A statin questionnaire was administered and study examination conducted in black and white US adults enrolled in the nationwide REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke study from 2013 to 2017. In participants who self-reported ever having taken a statin (n = 7,216, mean age 72 years, 53% women, 34% black), 1,081 (15%) reported having discontinued treatment. Among those who discontinued treatment, statin side effects, perceived lack of need for a statin, and cost were reported by 66%, 31%, and 3% of participants, respectively. Overall, 37% of participants who had discontinued treatment were willing to reinitiate statin therapy. Participants who discontinued treatment due to cost (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01, 2.57) were more likely to report a willingness to reinitiate therapy. Participants with a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol ≥130 mg/dl versus <100 mg/dl (PR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53, 0. 88) and who discontinued treatment due to side effects (PR 0.51; 95% CI 0.41, 0.64) were less likely to report willingness to reinitiate statin therapy. In conclusion, a substantial proportion of participants who discontinued statin therapy were willing to reinitiate treatment. Healthcare providers should discuss reinitiation of statin therapy with their patients who have discontinued treatment.

Statins everyday versus alternate days: Is there a difference in myalgia rates?

OBJECTIVE

Statins are widely used drugs, known to cause myalgia, leading to high discontinuation rates. The objective of our study was to determine the frequency of myalgia in patients on everyday-dose (EDD) regimen with those on alternate-day dose (ADD) regimen.

METHODS

This cross sectional study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. A sample size of 400 patients between the age of 40-70 years, taking simvastatin 40mg for at least 6 months or more were selected. Patients with prior musculoskeletal or neuromuscular complains, and family history of muscular disorders were excluded. Subjects were evaluated for myalgia via a self-administered questionnaire, and those complaining of myalgia were then evaluated for serum vitamin D levels. Data was analyzed through SPSS 16.0 and compared using chi square test.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of myalgia was 7% (28/400). Frequency of myalgia in patients taking simvastatin everyday (n=20, 10%) was significantly higher compared to those taking it every alternate day (n=8, 4%) (p=0.02). There was no significant difference between the time of onset, nature, severity, type, or location of myalgia between the 2 groups. The most common cited triggering factor for pain was physical exercise. Of the patients experiencing myalgia, 13 (6.5%) from the EDD group and 6 (3%) from the ADD group had low levels of vitamin D.

CONCLUSIONS

ADD regime was better tolerated by the patients than EDD regime. Alternate day therapy, with or without vitamin D supplementation, may be used by the physicians for troublesome muscular complains.

Personalized rosuvastatin therapy in problem patients with partial statin intolerance

Introduction

The aim was to study the pharmacogenetic determinants of switching simvastatin-intolerant ethnic Uzbek patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) to rosuvastatin treatment.

Material and methods

The study included 50 patients with CAD, who demonstrated statin-induced adverse liver symptoms, accompanied by an elevation in transaminase level (3-fold or more in 37 cases) or statin-induced adverse muscle symptoms, accompanied by elevations in serum (CK > 3 times above the upper limit of normal (ULN)) in simvastatin treatment with a dose of 10-20 mg/day. The control group consisted of 50 patients without side effects. Patients were genotyped for polymorphisms in the genes coding for the cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolic enzymes CYP3A5(6986A>G), CYP2C9(430C>T), CYP2C9(1075A>C), and hepatic influx and efflux transporters SLCO1B1(521T>C) and BCRP(ABCG2, 421C>A) by means of the PCR-RFLP method.

Results

When the 50 patients of the case group were switched to the starting rosuvastatin dose of 5 mg, intolerance symptoms were not observed in 29 (58%) versus 21 with adverse symptoms. In this case-control study, the groups differed significantly only in the prevalence of the *3/*3 genotype CYP3A5 (OR = 5.25; 95% CI: 1.6-17.8; p = 0.014).

Conclusions

In a considerable proportion of ethnic Uzbek patients with CAD and simvastatin intolerance symptoms, serious side effects when switching to a starting dose of rosuvastatin were not observed, and it should be noted that in most cases (72.4%) this phenomenon was observed among the carriers of *3/*3 genotype of the CYP3A5 (6986A> G) gene.

Pharmacogenomics of Rosuvastatin: A Glocal (Global+Local) African Perspective and Expert Review on a Statin Drug

The incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) in African populations residing in the African continent is on the rise fueled by both a steady increase in CVD risk factors and comorbidities such as human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), tuberculosis, and parasitic diseases such as bilharzia. Statins are recommended together with lifestyle changes in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia and overall reduction of cardiovascular events. Rosuvastatin in particular is an attractive candidate in the management of CVDs in African populations often plagued with multimorbidities owing to both its potency and low drug-to-drug interaction potential. In this expert review, we describe the pharmacogenetics of rosuvastatin and how it may instrumentally affect the African populations. We describe polymorphisms in the candidate genes, ABCG2, SLCO1B1, CYP2C9, APOE, PCSK9, LDLR, LPA, and HMGCR, and their role in the potency and safety of rosuvastatin therapy. We report on qualitative and quantitative differences in the distribution of genetic variants that affect efficacy and toxicity of rosuvastatin. These differences are observed across world populations (Caucasian, European, and Asian) as well as within African populations. Finally, we advocate for extensive pharmacogenetic studies in African populations that take into account the genetic diversity of intra-African ethnic groups and the genetic differences between African populations and other global populations, with a collaborative and collective aim to provide effective and safe use of rosuvastatin in management of CVD in Africa. Our key thesis presented in this innovation field analysis is that rosuvastatin precision medicine can serve as a veritable Glocal (Global and Local) model to offer pharmacogenetic-guided optimal therapeutics for the public in both developing and developed regions of the world.

Practical aspects in the management of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) frequently cause statin non-adherence, switching and discontinuation, contributing to adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Therefore, the management of SAMS is key in the effective treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), through achievement of maximum-tolerated statin dosing and other practical aspects. The aim of this article is to provide practical, focused advice for healthcare professionals on the management of patients with SAMS.

METHODS

An expert working group combined current evidence, published guidelines and experiences surrounding a number of topics concerning SAMS to provide recommendations on how to best assess and manage this condition and reach the highest tolerated dose of statin for each individual patient.

RESULTS

The group collaborated to provide guidance on definitions in the SAMS field, psychological issues, re-challenging and switching treatments, as well as interpretation of current guidelines and optimal treatment of SAMS in different patient populations. An algorithm was developed to guide the management of patients with SAMS. In addition, the expert working group considered some of the more complex scenarios in a series of frequently asked questions and suggested answers.

CONCLUSIONS

The expert working group gave recommendations for healthcare professionals on the management of SAMS but highlighted the importance of tailoring the treatment approach to each individual patient. Evidence supporting the role of nutraceuticals and complementary therapies, such as vitamin D, was lacking, however the majority of the group favoured combination therapy with ezetimibe and the addition of PCSK9 inhibitors in high-risk patients.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Dyslipidemia in Diabetes: A Case for Therapies in Addition to Statins

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to review the use of statins and the role of both non-statin lipid-lowering agents and diabetes-specific medications in the treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia.

RECENT FINDINGS

Statins have a primary role in the treatment of dyslipidemia in people with type 2 diabetes, defined as triglyceride levels >200 mg/dl and HDL cholesterol levels <40 mg/dL. A number of clinical trials suggest that treatment with a fibrate may reduce cardiovascular events. However, the results of these trials are inconsistent, probably because many of their participants did not have dyslipidemia. The choice of medications used to treat diabetes can have major implications regarding management of dyslipidemia; metformin, GLP-1 agonists, and pioglitazone all have favorable lipid effects. These agents, as well as the new SGLT2 inhibitors, may reduce cardiovascular events. Management of dyslipidemia in people with type 2 diabetes should start with statin therapy and optimal glycemic control with agents that have favorable lipid and cardiovascular effects. We believe that there is a role for adding fenofibrate to moderate-intensity statins in selected patients with true dyslipidemia. We propose an algorithm for selecting add-on medications for diabetes (after metformin) based on lipid status.

Is Real-World Evidence Used in P&T Monographs and Therapeutic Class Reviews?

BACKGROUND

Payers are faced with making coverage and reimbursement decisions based on the best available evidence. Often these decisions apply to patient populations, provider networks, and care settings not typically studied in clinical trials. Treatment effectiveness evidence is increasingly available from electronic health records, registries, and administrative claims. However, little is known about when and what types of real-world evidence (RWE) studies inform pharmacy and therapeutic (P&T) committee decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence sources cited in P&T committee monographs and therapeutic class reviews and assess the design features and quality of cited RWE studies.

METHODS

A convenience sample of representatives from pharmacy benefit management, health system, and health plan organizations provided recent P&T monographs and therapeutic class reviews (or references from such documents). Two investigators examined and grouped references into major categories (published studies, unpublished studies, and other/unknown) and multiple subcategories (e.g., product label, clinical trials, RWE, systematic reviews). Cited comparative RWE was reviewed to assess design features (e.g., population, data source, comparators) and quality using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) Checklist.

RESULTS

Investigators evaluated 565 references cited in 27 monographs/therapeutic class reviews from 6 managed care organizations. Therapeutic class reviews mostly cited published clinical trials (35.3%, 155/439), while single-product monographs relied most on manufacturer-supplied information (42.1%, 53/126). Published RWE comprised 4.8% (21/439) of therapeutic class review references, and none (0/126) of the monograph references. Of the 21 RWE studies, 12 were comparative and assessed patient care settings and outcomes typically not included in clinical trials (community ambulatory settings [10], long-term safety [8]). RWE studies most frequently were based on registry data (6), conducted in the United States (6), and funded by the pharmaceutical industry (5). GRACE Checklist ratings suggested the data and methods of these comparative RWE studies were of high quality.

CONCLUSIONS

RWE was infrequently cited in P&T materials, even among therapeutic class reviews where RWE is more readily available. Although few P&T materials cited RWE, the comparative RWE studies were generally high quality. More research is needed to understand when and what types of real-world studies can more routinely inform coverage and reimbursement decisions.

DISCLOSURES

This project was funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Hurwitz, Brown, Peters, and Malone have nothing to disclose. Graff is employed by the National Pharmaceutical Council Part of this study was presented as a poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy 2016 Annual Meeting; April 19-22, 2016; San Francisco, CA. Study concept and design were primarily contributed by Malone and Graff, along with Hurwitz and Brown. All authors participated in data collection, and data interpretation was performed by Malone, Hurwitz, and Graff, with assistance from Brown and Peters. The manuscript was written primarily by Hurwitz and Malone, along with Graff, Brown, and Peters, and revised by Malone, Brown, Peters, Hurwitz, and Graff.

Intermittent Nondaily Dosing Strategies in Patients with Previous Statin-Induced Myopathy

OBJECTIVE

To review the safety and efficacy of alternative intermittent statin dosing regimens in patients with previous intolerance due to myopathy.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was accessed through MEDLINE (1946 -December 2012) and EMBASE (1966-December 2012) using relevant MeSH and Emtree search terms, including statins, HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors, simvastatin, atorvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, myopathy, and myalgias. Web of Science (1955-December 2012) and the aforementioned databases were additionally searched using combinations of the following text words: statin intolerance, alternate dosing, nondaily dosing, weekly dosing, statin-induced myopathy, and intermittent statin dosing. References of identified articles were reviewed for additional citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All identified English-language peer-reviewed publications were evaluated. Articles (excluding meeting abstracts) specifically addressing nondaily statin use in patients with previous statin-induced myopathy were reviewed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Although statins have achieved significant reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as many as 10% of patients prescribed these therapies experience myopathies. Intermittent statin regimens ranging from every-other-day to once- weekly dosing have emerged in an attempt to maintain efficacy while moderating the incidence of adverse effects. The results reported in 10 publications investigating varying regimens with atorvastatin and/or rosuvastatin revealed that at least 70% of patients were able to tolerate an intermittent dosing strategy without a recurrence of previous treatment-limiting adverse effects. Although the degree of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol–lowering varied appreciably among studies (12–38%), the addition of a nondaily statin regimen facilitated attainment of National Cholesterol Education Program goals for some.

CONCLUSIONS

Although areas of uncertainty remain, intermittent dosing (particularly with rosuvastatin and atorvastatin) in previously intolerant patients is a useful strategy to capitalize on the benefits of this therapy. Larger scale randomized trials are necessary to more clearly define the role of this strategy and the optimal choice of regimen.

Clinical and economic consequences of statin intolerance in the United States: Results from an integrated health system

BACKGROUND

Although statins are considered safe and effective, they have been associated with statin intolerance (SI) in clinical and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the clinical and economic consequences of SI through comparison of an SI cohort of patients with matched controls.

METHODS

This study used data extracted from an integrated health system's electronic health records from 2008 to 2014. Adults with SI were matched to controls using a propensity score. Patients were hierarchically classified into 6 mutually exclusive cardiovascular (CV)-risk categories: recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS; ≤12 months preindex), coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, or primary prevention. The study endpoints, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment, medical costs, and time to first CV event were compared using conditional logistic regression, generalized linear, and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients with SI (n = 5190) were matched with controls (n = 15,570). Patients with SI incurred higher medical costs and were less likely to reach LDL-C goals than controls. Patients with SI were at higher risk for revascularization procedures in all CV risk categories except ACS, and those in the diabetes risk category were at higher risk for any CV event. There was a lower risk of all-cause death among patients with SI.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with SI were less likely to reach LDL-C goals, incurred higher health care costs, and experienced a higher risk for nonfatal CV events than patients without SI. Alternative management strategies are needed to better treat high CV risk patients.

Comparison of PCSK9 Inhibitor Evolocumab vs Ezetimibe in Statin-Intolerant Patients: Design of the Goal Achievement After Utilizing an Anti-PCSK9 Antibody in Statin-Intolerant Subjects 3 (GAUSS-3) Trial

Statins are the accepted standard for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, 5% to 10% of statin-treated patients report intolerance, mostly due to muscle-related adverse effects. Challenges exist to objective identification of statin-intolerant patients. Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), resulting in marked LDL-C reduction. We report the design of Goal Achievement After Utilizing an Anti-PCSK9 Antibody in Statin-Intolerant Subjects 3 (GAUSS-3), a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, ezetimibe-controlled study to compare effectiveness of 24 weeks of evolocumab 420 mg monthly vs ezetimibe 10 mg daily in hypercholesterolemic patients unable to tolerate an effective statin dose. The study incorporates a novel atorvastatin-controlled, double-blind, crossover phase to objectively identify statin intolerance. Eligible patients had LDL-C above the National Cholesterol Education Project Adult Treatment Panel III target level for the appropriate coronary heart disease risk category and were unable to tolerate ≥3 statins or 2 statins (one of which was atorvastatin ≤10 mg/d) or had a history of marked creatine kinase elevation accompanied by muscle symptoms while on 1 statin. This trial has 2 co-primary endpoints: mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C at weeks 22 and 24 and percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 24. Key secondary efficacy endpoints include change from baseline in LDL-C, percent of patients attaining LDL-C <70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L), and percent change from baseline in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. Recruitment of 511 patients was completed on November 28, 2014.

Statin intolerance: diagnosis and remedies

Despite the efficacy of statins in reducing cardiovascular events in both primary and secondary prevention, the adherence to statin therapy is not optimal, mainly due to the occurrence of muscular adverse effects. Several risk factors may concur to the development of statin-induced myotoxicity, including patient-related factors (age, sex, and race), statin properties (dose, lipophilicity, and type of metabolism), and the concomitant administration of other drugs. Thus, the management of patients intolerant to statins, particularly those at high or very high cardiovascular risk, involves alternative therapies, including the switch to another statin or the use of intermittent dosage statin regimens, as well as nonstatin lipid lowering drugs (ezetimibe and fibrates) or new hypolipidemic drugs such as PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, the antisense oligonucleotide against the coding region of human apolipoprotein B mRNA (mipomersen), and microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor lomitapide. Ongoing clinical trials will reveal whether the lipid-lowering effects of alternative therapies to statins can also translate into a cardiovascular benefit.

Current and emerging treatments for hypercholesterolemia: A focus on statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin Type 9 inhibitors for perioperative clinicians

Statins are a mainstay of hyperlipidemia treatment. These drugs inhibit the enzyme 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase and have beneficial effects on atherosclerosis including plaque stabilization, reduction of platelet activation, and reduction of plaque proliferation and inflammation. Statins also have a benefit beyond atherosclerotic plaque, including anticoagulation, vasodilatation, antioxidant effects, and reduction of mediators of inflammation. In the perioperative period, statins appear to contribute to improved outcomes via these mechanisms. Both vascular and nonvascular surgery patients have been shown in prospective studies to have lower risk of adverse cardiac outcomes when initiated on statins preoperatively. However, not all patients can tolerate statins; the search for novel lipid-lowering therapies led to the discovery of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. These drugs are fully-humanized, injectable monoclonal antibodies. With lower PCSK9 activity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) receptors are more likely to be recycled to the hepatocyte surface, where they serve to clear plasma LDL-C. Evidence from several prospective studies shows that these new agents can significantly lower LDL-C levels. While PCSK9 inhibitors offer hope of effective therapy for patients with familial hyperlipidemia or intolerance of statins, several important questions remain, including the results of long term cardiovascular outcome studies. The perioperative effects of new LDL-C-lowering drugs are unknown at present but are likely to be similar to the older agents.

Strategies for improving cardiovascular health in women with diabetes mellitus: a review of the evidence

Knowledge about cardiovascular (CV) disease in women with diabetes mellitus (DM) has changed substantially over the past 20 years. Coronary artery disease, strokes, and peripheral vascular disease affect women with DM at higher rates than the general population of women. Lifestyle therapies, such as dietary changes, physical activity, and smoking cessation, offer substantial benefits to women with DM. Of the pharmacotherapies, statins offer the most significant benefits but may not be well tolerated in some women. Aspirin may also benefit high-risk women. Other pharmacotherapies, such as fibrates, ezetimibe, niacin, fish oil, and hormone replacement therapy, remain unproven and, in some cases, potentially dangerous to women with DM. To reduce CV events, risks to women with DM must be better publicized and additional research must be done. Finally, advancements in health care delivery must target high-risk women with DM to lower risk factors and effectively improve cardiovascular health.

Visit-to-visit low-density lipoprotein cholesterol variability and risk of cardiovascular outcomes: insights from the TNT trial

BACKGROUND

Studies demonstrate that lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) using a statin is associated with significant reduction in cardiovascular events. Whether visit-to-visit variability in LDL-C levels affects cardiovascular outcomes is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate the role of visit-to-visit variability in LDL-C levels on cardiovascular outcomes.

METHODS

We evaluated patients with coronary artery disease and LDL-C <130 mg/dl enrolled in the TNT (Treating to New Targets) trial, randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 80 mg/day versus 10 mg/day and with at least one post-baseline measurement of LDL-C. Visit-to-visit LDL-C variability was evaluated from 3 months into random assignment through the use of various measurements of LDL-C variability: SD, average successive variability (ASV), coefficient of variation, and variation independent of mean, with the first 2 measurements used as the primary measurements. Primary outcome was any coronary event, and secondary outcomes were any cardiovascular event, death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

RESULTS

Among 9,572 patients, SD and ASV were significantly lower with atorvastatin 80 mg/day versus 10 mg/day (SD: 12.03 ± 9.70 vs. 12.52 ± 7.43; p = 0.005; ASV: 12.84 ± 10.48 vs. 13.76 ± 8.69; p < 0.0001). In the adjusted model, each 1-SD increase in LDL-C variability (by ASV) increased the risk of any coronary event by 16% (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10 to 1.23; p < 0.0001), any cardiovascular event by 11% (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.15; p < 0.0001), death by 23% (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.34; p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction by 10% (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19; p = 0.02), and stroke by 17% (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.31; p = 0.01), independent of treatment effect and achieved LDL-C levels. Results were largely consistent when adjusted for medication adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with coronary artery disease, visit-to-visit LDL-C variability is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events.

Statins and the neuromuscular system: a neurologist's perspective

Statins intolerance is mainly due to their side effects on the neuromuscular system (primarily muscle). It has become an important issue because of the major cardiovascular risk reduction of this class of drugs. However, the facts related to these side effects are sometimes under-recognized or controversial. A literature review of the recent developments in the field is given. The clinical definition of statin myopathy and its presentation are not suitable for the myology field. Management and prevention are not validated. More genetic risk factors need to be established. Neurologists should become more involved in statin intolerance evaluation and management.

Genetic and immunologic susceptibility to statin-related myopathy

Statin-related myopathy (SRM) undermines drug adherence that is critical for achieving the benefits of lipid-lowering therapy. While the exact mechanism of SRM remains largely unknown, recent evidence supports specific genetic and immunologic influence on the development of intolerance. Genes of interest include those involved in the pharmacokinetics of statin response (i.e. drug metabolism, uptake transporters, and efflux transporters), pharmacodynamics (i.e. drug toxicity and immune-mediated myopathy), and gene expression. We examine the influence of genetic and immunologic variation on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and gene expression of SRM.

An assessment by the Statin Muscle Safety Task Force: 2014 update

The National Lipid Association's Muscle Safety Expert Panel was charged with the duty of examining the definitions for statin-associated muscle adverse events, development of a clinical index to assess myalgia, and the use of diagnostic neuromuscular studies to investigate muscle adverse events. We provide guidance as to when a patient should be considered for referral to neuromuscular specialists and indications for the performance of a skeletal muscle biopsy. Based on this review of evidence, we developed an algorithm for the evaluation and treatment of patients who may be intolerant to statins as the result of adverse muscle events. The panel was composed of clinical cardiologists, clinical lipidologists, an exercise physiologist, and a neuromuscular specialist.

A summary and critical assessment of the 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults: filling the gaps

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines has recently released the new cholesterol treatment guideline. This update was based on a systematic review of the evidence and replaces the previous guidelines from 2002 that were widely accepted and implemented in clinical practice. The new cholesterol treatment guideline emphasizes matching the intensity of statin treatment to the level of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and replaces the old paradigm of pursuing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets. The new guideline also emphasizes the primacy of the evidence base for statin therapy for ASCVD risk reduction and lists several patient groups that will not benefit from statin treatment despite their high cardiovascular risk, such as those with heart failure (New York Heart Association class II-IV) and patients undergoing hemodialysis. The guideline has been received with mixed reviews and significant controversy. Because of the evidence-based nature of the guideline, there is room for several questions and uncertainties on when and how to use lipid-lowering therapy in clinical practice. The goal of the Mayo Clinic Task Force in the assessment, interpretation, and expansion of the ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guideline is to address gaps in information and some of the controversial aspects of the newly released cholesterol management guideline using additional sources of evidence and expert opinion as needed to guide clinicians on key aspects of ASCVD risk reduction.

Overcoming toxicity and side-effects of lipid-lowering therapies

Lowering serum lipid levels is part of the foundation of treating and preventing clinically significant cardiovascular disease. Recently, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology released cholesterol guidelines which advocate for high efficacy statins rather than LDL-c goals for five patient subgroups at high risk for cardiovascular disease. Therefore, it is critical that clinicians have an approach for managing side-effects of statin therapy. Statins are associated with myopathy, transaminase elevations, and an increased risk of incident diabetes mellitus among some patients; connections between statins and other processes, such as renal and neurologic function, have also been studied with mixed results. Statin-related adverse effects might be minimized by careful assessment of patient risk factors. Strategies to continue statin therapy despite adverse effects include switching to another statin at a lower dose and titrating up, giving intermittent doses of statins, and adding non-statin agents. Non-statin lipid-lowering drugs have their own unique limitations. Management strategies and algorithms for statin-associated toxicities are available to help guide clinicians. Clinical practice should emphasize tailoring therapy to address each individual's cholesterol goals and risk of developing adverse effects on lipid-lowering drugs.

Statins: Practical Considerations - A Review

Statins are currently the most efficacious and widely prescribed lipid-lowering medications. The 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines provide a dramatic shift in treatment approach with a focus on fixed-dose statins matched to individual risk scores. Statin intolerance is not uncommon and can be challenging to diagnose and manage; however, several therapeutic strategies have been successful in achieving statin tolerance. Statin use is also associated with liver enzyme elevations and increased risk of incident diabetes, but studies show these individuals benefit from statins. Several guidelines exist and statin use is expected to increase with the new cholesterol guidelines bringing along new challenges for prescribers. This review article will provide practical considerations for statin use and management of statin intolerance.

Toxic myopathies

PURPOSE

This article reviews the most important muscle toxins, many of which are widely prescribed medications. Particular emphasis is placed on statins, which cause muscle symptoms in a relatively large proportion of the patients who take them.

RECENT FINDINGS

As with other toxic myopathies, most cases of statin-associated myotoxicity are self-limited and subside with discontinuation of the offending agent. Importantly, about 2% of the population is homozygous for a single nucleotide polymorphism, and these individuals have a dramatically increased risk of self-limited statin myopathy. Much more rarely, statins trigger a progressive autoimmune myopathy characterized by a necrotizing muscle biopsy and autoantibodies recognizing hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, the pharmacologic target of statins.

SUMMARY

In most cases, toxic myopathies resolve after the toxic agent is stopped. Recognizing that statins can cause an autoimmune necrotizing myopathy is important because patients with this form of statin-triggered muscle disease usually require immunosuppressive therapy.

Management of statin intolerance

Statins are the revolutionary drugs in the cardiovascular pharmacotherapy. But they also possess several adverse effects like myopathy with elevation of hepatic transaminases (>3 times the upper limit of normal) or creatine kinase (>10 times the upper limit of normal) and some rare side-effects, including peripheral neuropathy, memory loss, sleep disturbances, and erectile dysfunction. Due to these adverse effects, patients abruptly withdrew statins without consulting physicians. This abrupt discontinuation of statins is termed as statin intolerance. Statin-induced myopathy constitutes two third of all side-effects from statins and is the primary reason for statin intolerance. Though statin intolerance has considerably impacted cardiovascular outcomes in the high-risk patients, it has been well effectively managed by prescribing statins either as alternate-day or once weekly dosage regimen, as combination therapy with a non-statin therapy or and by dietary intervention. The present article reviews the causes, clinical implications of statin withdrawal and management of statin intolerance.

A Clinical Review of Statin-Associated Myopathy

Objective: To review the epidemiology, clinical features, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, and management of statin-associated myopathy. Data Sources: Literature searches were conducted in PubMed (1948 to April 2013), TOXLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to April 2013), and Google Scholar using the terms statin, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, myopathy, myalgia, safety, and rhabdomyolysis. Results were limited to English publications. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All relevant original studies, guidelines, meta-analyses, and reviews of statin-associated myopathy and safety of statins were assessed for inclusion. References from selected articles were reviewed to identify additional citations. Data Synthesis: The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors remain one of the most effective medications for reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins are well tolerated by most patients; however, it is estimated that 10% to 15% of patients develop statin-related muscle adverse effects known as statin-associated myopathy. Although clinicians may be aware of statin-associated myopathy, they may not be aware of its clinical presentation. Providers should assess individual patient risk factors before choosing the appropriate statin. A variety of skeletal muscle aches that may not present as a danger to the patient, may affect patient adherence and quality of life. There are several steps that providers can take to properly treat and manage patients with myalgia complaints. Conclusions: Statin-associated myopathy is a clinical problem that contributes to statin therapy discontinuation. Patients who are statin intolerant may be treated with alternative treatment options such as low-dose statins, switching statins, using alternative dosing strategies in statins with longer half-lives, non-statin lipid-lowering agents, and complementary therapies.

Treatment strategies in patients with statin intolerance: the Cleveland Clinic experience

BACKGROUND

Statin therapy is a proven effective treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, a significant number of patients cannot tolerate statins. This study was conducted to review treatment strategies for patients intolerant to statin therapy with a focus on intermittent statin dosing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of 1,605 patients referred to the Cleveland Clinic Preventive Cardiology Section for statin intolerance between January 1995 and March 2010 with at least a 6-month follow-up. The changes in lipid profile, achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and statin tolerance rate were analyzed. Most (72.5%) of patients with prior statin intolerance were able to tolerate a statin for the median follow-up time of 31 months. Patients on intermittent statin dosing (n = 149) had significantly lower LDL-C reduction compared with daily dosing group (n = 1,014; 21.3% ± 4.0% vs 27.7% ± 1.4%, P < .04). However, compared with the statin discontinued group (n = 442), they had a significantly higher LDL-C reduction (21.3% ± 4.0% vs 8.3 ± 2.2%, P < .001), and a significantly higher portion achieved their Adult Treatment Panel III goal of LDL-C (61% vs 44%, P < .05). There was a trend toward a decrease in all-cause mortality at 8 years for patients on daily and intermittent statin dosing compared with those who discontinued statin (P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with previous statin intolerance can tolerate subsequent trial of statin. A strategy of intermittent statin dosing can be an effective therapeutic option in some patients and may result in reduction in LDL-C and achievement of LDL-C goals.