Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Low-Dose Statin to High-Intensity Statin for Primary Prevention in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Low-to-moderate dose statins improve the functional outcome of acute ischemic stroke with conventional medication treatment

Background

Low-to-moderate dose statins (LMDSs) are more commonly used among Asian acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients in clinical practice. However, the correlation between the LMDS use and prognosis has not been evaluated in AIS patients with conventional medication treatment alone. This study aimed to investigate the influence of LMDS on the prognosis of AIS patients and how prognosis and potential prognostic factors interact with different statin doses.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included AIS patients who were admitted within 7 days after symptom onset and received conventional medication treatment alone from November 2019 to November 2020 in the Neurology, Department of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. From a total of 782 initial patients, a final cohort of 327 patients was included in the study. These patients were divided into three groups based on statin doses: non-statin (48 patients), LMDS (152 patients), and high-dose statin (HDS) (127 patients). The follow-up period was 3 months after the onset of stroke and the primary outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 at 3 months, secondary outcomes were hemorrhagic transformation (HT) and death within 3 months. Stratified analysis was also conducted to test the robustness of the relationship between the use of different statin doses and functional outcomes in various subgroups.

Results

Compared with non-statin therapy, both LMDS therapy and HDS therapy were associated with good functional outcomes [odds ratio (OR) =3.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-12.01, P=0.0309; OR =3.45, 95% CI: 1.06-11.26, P=0.0402, respectively] and a lower risk of HT (OR =0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.86, P=0.0253; OR =0.36, 95% CI: 0.13-0.99, P=0.0488, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in all-cause death within 3 months among the three groups (OR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.29-2.46, P=0.7468; OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.26-2.22, P=0.6104). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between LMDS therapy and HDS therapy regarding good functional outcomes at 3 months (OR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.50-1.77, P=0.8411) and the occurrence of HT (OR =1.19, 95% CI: 0.47-3.02, P=0.7093). The results of the relationship between different statin doses and 3-month good functional outcome were consistent after interaction tests.

Conclusions

Our findings provide evidence for the benefit and safety of LMDS therapy in AIS patients with medication treatment alone. LMDS therapy is associated with favorable impacts on 3-month functional outcomes and a reduced risk of HT compared to non-statin therapy. There were no significant differences in achieving 3-month good functional outcome, the risk of HT or death within 3 months were observed between LMDS and HDS therapy in our study. Further studies with prospective design and larger sample sizes are necessary to validate our results.

Health Disparities: Statin Prescribing Patterns Among Patients with Diabetes in a Family Medicine Clinic

Purpose:

To analyze the impact of gender and race on statin prescribing patterns in patients with diabetes in a family medicine clinic.

Methods:

This study (n=192) was a single-center, cross-sectional study that examined statin prescribing patterns at a family medicine clinic. Patients were obtained from January 2015 to November 2018, who were considered eligible for statin therapy based on a documented diagnosis of diabetes. The patients were divided into four subgroups for analysis (white males, non-white males, white females, and non-white females).

Results:

Females were found to have higher rates of prescribed statin therapy and appropriate statin intensity therapy when compared to males (p>0.05). When evaluating gender and race, white females were more likely to be prescribed an appropriate statin when compared to non-white females (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

The study shows that although males had a significantly higher mean 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score, they were less likely than females to receive the appropriate intensity statin. Previous studies have shown race and gender disparities exist in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. A more collective, unified approach to improve prescribing patterns for statin therapy can eliminate these disparities.

Comparative effectiveness of statins on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol in people with diabetes and at risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to 1 December 2021.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials comparing different types and intensities of statins, including placebo, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was changes in levels of non-HDL-C, calculated from measures of total cholesterol and HDL-C. Secondary outcomes were changes in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol, three point major cardiovascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death related to cardiovascular disease), and discontinuations because of adverse events. A bayesian network meta-analysis of statin intensity (low, moderate, or high) with random effects evaluated the treatment effect on non-HDL-C by mean differences and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analysis of patients at greater risk of major cardiovascular events was compared with patients at low or moderate risk. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework was applied to determine the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

In 42 randomised controlled trials involving 20 193 adults, 11 698 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the greatest reductions in levels of non-HDL-C were seen with rosuvastatin at high (-2.31 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -3.39 to -1.21) and moderate (-2.27, -3.00 to -1.49) intensities, and simvastatin (-2.26, -2.99 to -1.51) and atorvastatin (-2.20, -2.69 to -1.70) at high intensity. Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C. In 4670 patients at greater risk of a major cardiovascular events, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (-1.98, -4.16 to 0.26, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 64%). Simvastatin (-1.93, -2.63 to -1.21) and rosuvastatin (-1.76, -2.37 to -1.15) at high intensity were the most effective treatment options for reducing LDL-C. Significant reductions in non-fatal myocardial infarction were found for atorvastatin at moderate intensity compared with placebo (relative risk=0.57, confidence interval 0.43 to 0.76, n=4 studies). No significant differences were found for discontinuations, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis indicated that rosuvastatin, at moderate and high intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin, at high intensity doses, were most effective at moderately reducing levels of non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. Given the potential improvement in accuracy in predicting cardiovascular disease when reduction in levels of non-HDL-C is used as the primary target, these findings provide guidance on which statin types and intensities are most effective by reducing non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021258819.

Associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E_max model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.

RESULTS

62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E_max dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020169955.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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