Background and Aim:
To determine efficacy safety and the cost effectiveness, of the four most commonly prescribed statins (rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin) in the treatment of dyslipidemia among diabetic patients.
Materials and Methods:
This is a cohort, observational, population-based study conducted at diabetic clinics of the Hamad Medical Hospital and Primary Health Care Centers (PHCC) over a period from January 2007 to September 2012. The study included 1,542 consecutive diabetes patients above 18 years of age diagnosed with dyslipidemia and prescribed any of the indicated statins. Laboratory investigations were taken from the Electronic Medical Records Database (EMR-viewer). The sociodemographic, height, weight, and physical activities were collected from Patient's Medical Records. Information about statin was extracted from the pharmacy drug database. The effective reductions in total cholesterol using rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin in achieving cholesterol goals and improving plasma lipids in dyslipidemic diabetic patients were measured. Serum lipid levels measured a 1 week before the treatment and at the end 2nd year.
Rosuvastatin (10 mg) was the most effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; 28.59%), followed by simvastatin 20 mg (16.7%), atorvastatin 20 mg (15.9%), and pravastatin 20 mg (11.59.3%). All statins were safe with respect to muscular and hepatic functions. Atorvastatin was the safest statin as it resulted in the least number of patients with microalbuminuria (10.92%) as compared to other statins. Treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg was more effective in allowing patients to reach European and Adult Treatment Plan (ATP) III LDL-C goals as compared to other statins (P < 0.0001) and produced greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, and non-HDL-C, produced similar or greater reductions in triglycerides (TGs) and increased in HDL-C.
Rosuvastatin 10 mg was the most effective statin in reducing serum lipids and total cholesterol in dyslipidemic diabetic patients.
Atorvastatin; cost effective; dyslipidemic diabetic patients; efficacy; pravastatin; rosuvastatin; safety of statin use in dyslipidemic diabetic patients; safety; simvastatin
To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with generic simvastatin and generic atorvastatin in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular events and mortality in a Swedish population with Framingham risk ≥20%.
A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model based on data from JUPITER (the Justification for the Use of statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) was used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg daily versus simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular death and morbidity. The three- stage model included cardiovascular event prevention simulating the 4 years of JUPITER, initial prevention beyond the trial, and subsequent cardiovascular event prevention. A Swedish health care payer perspective (direct costs only) was modeled for a lifetime horizon, with 2008/2009 as the costing period. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.
The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with rosuvastatin 20 mg over simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg ranged from SEK88,113 (rosuvastatin 20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg; Framingham risk ≥30%; net avoidance of 34 events/1000 patients) to SEK497,542 (versus atorvastatin 40 mg: Framingham risk ≥20%; net avoidance of 11 events/1000 patients) over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK500,000/QALY, rosuvastatin 20 mg would be cost-effective for approximately 75%–85% of simulations relative to atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg. Sensitivity analyses indicated the findings to be robust.
Rosuvastatin 20 mg is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared with generic simvastatin or atorvastatin 40 mg in patients at high cardiovascular risk in Sweden.
cardiovascular disease; cost-benefit analysis; cost-effectiveness; rosuvastatin; simvastatin; atorvastatin; generic; high risk
Many patients treated for dyslipidemia do not achieve recommended cholesterol goals despite the widespread availability of effective statins. Pharmaceutical claims show a strong tendency for patients to remain on their initially assigned treatment. With computer simulations, the impact of initial statin treatment decisions on medium- and long-term cardiovascular outcomes were examined.
Patients and methods
Using the Archimedes Model, three treatment scenarios were simulated. Patients initiated treatment with simvastatin (20, 40, or 80 mg), atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg), or rosuvastatin (10, 20, or 40 mg), and periodically intensified treatment. The simulated population consisted of 50,025 patients, aged 45–70 years, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol exceeding goal. The proportion of patients initiating each dose was calibrated to United States pharmacy claims. Patients not reaching goal intensified the dose of their current statin or switched to an appropriate dose of rosuvastatin at rates matching pharmacy claims. Biomarkers and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were tracked for 10 years and several high-risk subpopulations were analyzed. Statin models used biomarker effects from the STELLAR (Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels Compared Across Doses to Rosuvastatin) trial and outcomes data from various trials.
Initiating therapy with rosuvastatin reduced MACE more than simvastatin or atorvastatin. The 5- year relative risk of MACE was 0.906 (95% confidence interval: 0.888–0.923; P < 0.001) for initial treatment with atorvastatin rather than simvastatin, 0.831 (0.812–0.850; P < 0.001) for rosuvastatin rather than simvastatin, and 0.918 (0.898–0.938; P < 0.001) for rosuvastatin rather than atorvastatin. Subgroups with higher MACE incidence experienced greater absolute benefit.
Considering observed rates of treatment intensification, initial treatment choices appear to significantly impact medium- and long-term cardiovascular risk. Patients at high cardiovascular risk are good candidates for aggressive initial therapy.
rosuvastatin; atorvastatin; simvastatin; simulation; modeling
Many high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) patients on statin monotherapy do not achieve guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and combination lipid-lowering therapy may be considered for these individuals. The effect of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy versus titrating these statins on LDL-C changes and goal attainment in CHD or CHD risk-equivalent patients was assessed in a large, managed-care database in the US.
Eligible patients (n = 17,830), initially on statin monotherapy who were ≥18 years with baseline and follow-up LDL-C values, no concomitant use of other lipid-lowering therapy, and on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥42 days, were identified between November 1, 2002 and September 30, 2009. The percent change from baseline in LDL-C levels and the odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) were estimated using an analysis of covariance and logistic regression, respectively, adjusted for various baseline factors.
LDL-C reductions from baseline and goal attainment improved substantially in patients treated with ezetimibe added onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy (n = 2,312) versus those (n = 13,053) who titrated these statins. In multivariable models, percent change from baseline in LDL-C was −13.1% to −14.8% greater for those who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus those who titrated. The odds of attaining LDL-C <1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) increased by 2.6–3.2-fold and 2.5–3.1-fold, respectively, in patients who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus titrating statins.
CHD/CHD risk-equivalent patients in a large US managed-care database, who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin, had greater LDL-C reductions and goal attainment than those who uptitrated these statin therapies. Our study suggests that high-risk CHD patients in need of more intensive LDL-C lowering therapy may benefit by adding ezetimibe onto statin therapy.
low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal; ezetimibe; atorvastatin; rosuvastatin
Although statins have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients at low cardiovascular risk, their absolute benefit is small in the short term, which may adversely affect cost-effectiveness. We sought to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness (beyond the duration of clinical trials) of low- and high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk and to estimate the impact on Canada’s publicly funded health care system.
Using Markov modelling, we performed a cost-utility analysis in which we compared low-potency statins (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin and simvastatin) and high-potency statins (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) with no statins in a simulated cohort of low-risk patients over a lifetime horizon. Model outcomes included costs (in 2010 Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and the cost per QALY gained.
Over a lifetime horizon, the cost of managing a patient at low cardiovascular risk was estimated to be about $10 100 without statins, $15 200 with low-potency statins and $16 400 with high-potency statins. The cost per QALY gained with high-potency statins (v. no statins) was $21 300; the use of low-potency statins was not considered economically attractive. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, although their use became economically unattractive when the duration of benefit from statin use was assumed to be less than 10 years.
Use of high-potency statins in patients at low cardiovascular risk was associated with a cost per QALY gained that was economically attractive by current standards, assuming that the benefit from statin use would continue for at least 10 years. However, the overall expenditure on statins would be substantial, and the ramifications of this practice should be carefully considered by policy-makers.
Coadministration of 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHP-CCBs) with statins (or 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A [HMG-CoA] reductase inhibitors) is common for patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertension. To reduce the risk of myopathy, in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Safety Communication set a new dose limitation for simvastatin, for patients taking simvastatin concomitantly with amlodipine. However, there is no such dose limitation for atorvastatin for patients receiving amlodipine. The combination pill formulation of amlodipine/atorvastatin is available on the market. There been no systematic review of the pharmacokinetic drug–drug interaction (DDI) profile of DHP-CCBs with statins, the underlying mechanisms for DDIs of different degree, or the corresponding management of clinical risk.
The relevant literature was identified by performing a PubMed search, covering the period from January 1987 to September 2013. Studies in the field of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics that described DDIs between DHP-CCB and statin or that directly compared the degree of DDIs associated with cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4-metabolized statins or DHP-CCBs were included. The full text of each article was critically reviewed, and data interpretation was performed.
There were three circumstances related to pharmacokinetic DDIs in the combined use of DHP-CCB and statin: 1) statin is comedicated as the precipitant drug (pravastatin–nimodipine and lovastatin–nicardipine); 2) statin is comedicated as the object drug (isradipine–lovastatin, lacidipine–simvastatin, amlodipine–simvastatin, benidipine-simvastatin, azelnidipine– simvastatin, lercanidipine–simvastatin, and amlodipine–atorvastatin); and 3) mutual interactions (lercanidipine–fluvastatin). Simvastatin has an extensive first-pass effect in the intestinal wall, whereas atorvastatin has a smaller intestinal first-pass effect. The interaction with simvastatin seems mainly driven by CYP3A4 inhibition at the intestinal level, whereas the interaction with atorvastatin is more due to hepatic CYP3A4 inhibition. The interaction of CYP3A4 inhibitor with simvastatin has been more pronounced compared with atorvastatin. From the current data, atorvastatin seems to be a safer CYP3A4-statin for comedication with DHP-CCB. There is no convincing evidence that amlodipine is an unusual DHP-CCB, either as a precipitant drug or as an object drug, from the perspective of CYP3A4-mediated drug metabolism. Amlodipine may have interactions with CYP3A5 in addition to CYP3A4, which may explain its particular characteristics in comparison with other DHP-CCBs. The degree of DDIs between the DHP-CCB and statin and the clinical outcome depends on many factors, such as the kind of statin, physicochemical proprieties of the DHP-CCB, the dose of either the precipitant drug or the object drug, the sex of the patient (eg, isradipine–lovastatin), route of drug administration (eg, oral versus intravenous nicardipine–lovastatin), the administration schedule (eg, nonconcurrent dosing method versus concurrent dosing method), and the pharmacogenetic status (eg, CYP3A5-nonexpressers versus CYP3A5-expressers).
Clinical professionals should enhance risk management regarding the combination use of two classes of drugs by increasing their awareness of the potential changes in therapeutic efficacy and adverse drug reactions, by rationally prescribing alternatives, by paying attention to dose adjustment and the administration schedule, and by review of the appropriateness of physician orders. Further study is needed – the DDIs between DHP-CCBs and statins have not all been studied in humans, from either a pharmacokinetic or a clinical perspective; also, the strength of the different pharmacokinetic interactions of DHP-CCBs with statins should be addressed by systematic investigations.
CYP3A4; 1,4-dihydropyridine; drug–drug interactions; HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors; myopathy; polypharmacy; physicochemical phenomena; prescription auditing
This post hoc analysis assessed switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subgroups of obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m2) diabetic subjects.
This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of adults 18–79 years with cardiovascular disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 and ≤160 mg/dl. Percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was estimated.
In obese subjects (n = 466), percent changes in LDL-C and most other lipids were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin. In non-obese subjects (n = 342), percent changes in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, Apo B and Apo A-I were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin; and treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in greater changes in triglycerides vs rosuvastatin and HDL-C vs doubling the baseline statin dose. The safety profiles were generally similar.
Regardless of baseline obesity status, switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective at reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and Apo B vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg.
Atorvastatin; Ezetimibe; Diabetes; Obesity; Rosuvastatin; Statin
The majority of clinical trials investigating the clinical benefits of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) have focused on North American or western and nothern European populations. Therefore, it is timely to confirm the efficacy of these agents in other patient populations in routine clinical practice.
The aim of the Direct Statin COmparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY) Alpha study was to compare the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg with those of atorvastatin 10 mg in achieving LDL-C goals in the Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice guidelines.
This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was conducted at 93 centers in eastern Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Russia, Slovenia), Central and South America (Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama), and the Middle East (Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates). Male and female patients aged ≥18 years with primary hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C level, >135 mg/dL if LLT-naive or ≥120 mg/dL if switching statins; triglyceride [TG] level, <400 mg/dL) and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk >20% or a history of CHD or other established atherosclerotic disease were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive rosuvastatin 10-mg or atorvastatin 10-mg tablets QD for 12 weeks. No formal statistical analyses or comparisons were performed on lipid changes between switched and LLT-naive patients because of the different lipid inclusion criteria for these patients. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving 1998 European LDL-C goals after 12 weeks of treatment. A subanalysis was performed to assess the effects of statins in patients who had received previous statin treatment versus those who were LLT-naive. Tolerability was assessed using laboratory analysis and direct questioning of the patients.
A total of 1506 patients (52.1% women, 47.9% men; mean [SD] age, 58.2 [10.8] years) participated in the study (rosuvastatin, 1002 patients; atorvastatin, 504 patients; previous LLT, 567 patients). A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved 1998 European LDL-C goals after 12 weeks with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (72.5% vs 56.6%; P < 0.001). Similarly, more patients achieved the 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg (57.5% vs 39.2%). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was associated with a significantly greater change in LDL-C levels compared with atorvastatin 10 mg, in patients who were LLT-naive (LDL-C: −44.7% vs −33.9%; P < 0.001) and in patients who had received previous LLT (LDL-C: −32.0% vs −26.5%; P = 0.006). TG levels were also decreased with rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg, although there was no significant difference between treatments. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels between treatments. The most common adverse events overall were headache 16/1497 (1.1%), myalgia 10/1497 (0.7%), and nausea 10/1497 (0.7%).
In this study in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia in clinical practice, greater reductions in LDL-C levels were achieved with a starting dose (10 mg) of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin 10 mg, with more patients achieving European LDL-C goals. Both treatments were well tolerated
hypercholesterolemia; statin; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; rosuvastatin; atorvastatin
Mutations of the tumor suppressor genes tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)1 and TSC2 cause pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) and tuberous sclerosis (TS). Current rapamycin-based therapies for TS and LAM have a predominantly cytostatic effect, and disease progression resumes with therapy cessation. Evidence of RhoA GTPase activation in LAM-derived and human TSC2-null cells suggests that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor statins can be used as potential adjuvant agents. The goal of this study was to determine which statin (simvastatin or atorvastatin) is more effective in suppressing TSC2-null cell growth and signaling. Simvastatin, but not atorvastatin, showed a concentration-dependent (0.5–10 μM) inhibitory effect on mouse TSC2-null and human LAM–derived cell growth. Treatment with 10 μM simvastatin induced dramatic disruption of TSC2-null cell monolayer and cell rounding; in contrast, few changes were observed in cells treated with the same concentration of atorvastatin. Combined treatment of rapamycin with simvastatin but not with atorvastatin showed a synergistic growth-inhibitory effect on TSC2-null cells. Simvastatin, but not atorvastatin, inhibited the activity of prosurvival serine-threonine kinase Akt and induced marked up-regulation of cleaved caspase-3, a marker of cell apoptosis. Simvastatin, but not atorvastatin, also induced concentration-dependent inhibition of p42/p44 Erk and mTORC1. Thus, our data show growth-inhibitory and proapoptotic effects of simvastatin on TSC2-null cells compared with atorvastatin. These findings have translational significance for combinatorial therapeutic strategies of simvastatin to inhibit TSC2-null cell survival in TS and LAM.
TSC; LAM; apoptosis; TSC2; mTOR
Objective To examine the risk of new onset diabetes among patients treated with different HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins).
Design Population based cohort study with time to event analyses to estimate the relation between use of particular statins and incident diabetes. Hazard ratios were calculated to determine the effect of dose and type of statin on the risk of incident diabetes.
Setting Ontario, Canada.
Participants All patients aged 66 or older without diabetes who started treatment with statins from 1 August 1997 to 31 March 2010. The analysis was restricted to new users who had not been prescribed a statin in at least the preceding year. Patients with established diabetes before the start of treatment were excluded.
Interventions Treatment with statins.
Main outcome measure Incident diabetes.
Results Compared with pravastatin (the reference drug in all analyses), there was an increased risk of incident diabetes with atorvastatin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.29), rosuvastatin (1.18, 1.10 to 1.26), and simvastatin (1.10, 1.04 to 1.17). There was no significantly increased risk among people who received fluvastatin (0.95, 0.81 to 1.11) or lovastatin (0.99, 0.86 to 1.14). The absolute risk for incident diabetes was about 31 and 34 events per 1000 person years for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, respectively. There was a slightly lower absolute risk with simvastatin (26 outcomes per 1000 person years) compared with pravastatin (23 outcomes per 1000 person years). Our findings were consistent regardless of whether statins were used for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Although similar results were observed when statins were grouped by potency, the risk of incident diabetes associated with use of rosuvastatin became non-significant (adjusted hazard ratio 1.01, 0.94 to 1.09) when dose was taken into account.
Conclusions Compared with pravastatin, treatment with higher potency statins, especially atorvastatin and simvastatin, might be associated with an increased risk of new onset diabetes.
Statins alter lipid concentrations. This systematic review determined the efficacy of particular statins, in terms of their ability to alter cholesterol.
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, references lists of reports, and reviews were searched (September 2001) for randomised, double blind trials of statins for cholesterol in trials of 12 weeks or longer. Mean change in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides was calculated using pooled data for particular statins, and for particular doses of a statin. Pre-planned sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effects of initial concentration of total cholesterol, study duration, the effects of major trials, and effects in placebo versus active controlled trials. Information was not collected on adverse events.
Different statins at a range of doses reduced total cholesterol by 17–35% and LDL-cholesterol by 24–49% from baseline. Lower doses of statins generally produced less cholesterol lowering, though for most statins in trials of 12 weeks or longer there was at best only a weak relationship between dose and cholesterol reduction. Duration of treatment and baseline total cholesterol concentration did not alter the amount of the benefit attained.
Statins are effective medicines and confer benefit to patients in terms of primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Reductions in total cholesterol of 25% or more and LDL cholesterol of more than 30% were recorded for fixed doses of simvastatin 40 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, and rosuvastatin 5 mg and 10 mg.
To investigate the extent to which clinicians avoid well-established drug-drug interactions that cause statin-induced myopathy. We hypothesised that clinicians would avoid combining erythromycin or verapamil/diltiazem respectively with atorvastatin or simvastatin. In patients with statin-fibrate combination therapy, we hypothesised that gemfibrozil was avoided to the preference of bezafibrate or fenofibrate. When combined with verapamil/diltiazem or fibrates, we hypothesized that the dispensed doses of atorvastatin/simvastatin would be decreased.
Cross-sectional analysis of nationwide dispensing data. Odds ratios of interacting erythromycin, verapamil/diltiazem versus respective prevalence of comparator drugs doxycycline, amlodipine/felodipine in patients co-dispensed interacting statins simvastatin/atorvastatin versus patients unexposed (pravastatin/fluvastatin/rosuvastatin) was calculated. For fibrates, OR of gemfibrozil versus fenofibrate/bezafibrate in patients co-dispensed any statin was assessed.
OR of interacting erythromycin versus comparator doxycycline did not differ between patients on interacting and comparator statins either in patients dispensed high or low statin doses (adjusted OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.60–1.25 and 0.92; 95% CI 0.69–1.23). Interacting statins were less common among patients dispensed verapamil/diltiazem as compared to patients on amlodipine/felodipine (OR high dose 0.62; CI 0.56–0.68 and low dose 0.63; CI 0.58–0.68). Patients on any statin were to a lesser extent dispensed gemfibrozil compared to patients not dispensed a statin (OR high dose 0.65; CI 0.55–0.76 and low dose 0.70; CI 0.63–0.78). Mean DDD (SD) for any statin was substantially higher in patients co-dispensed gemfibrozil 178 (149) compared to patients on statin monotherapy 127 (93), (p<0.001).
Prescribers may to some extent avoid co-prescription of statins with calcium blockers and fibrates with an increased risk of myopathy. We found no evidence for avoiding co-prescriptions of statins and antibiotics with an increased risk of statin-induced adverse drug reactions. Co-prescription of statins and gemfibrozil is paradoxically associated with a marked increased statin dose, further aggravating the risk for severe myopathy.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the analgesic and anti-inflammatory activities of atorvastatin and simvastatin in different experimental models in mice and rats.
Materials and Methods:
Analgesic activity of simvastatin and atorvastatin was assessed in tail flick model in rats (n = 6), where it was compared with aspirin and tramadol and in acetic acid induced writhing in mice (n = 6), where it was compared with aspirin. Anti-inflammatory activity of statins was evaluated using carrageenin induced paw edema and formalin induced arthritis in rats.
In the tail flick method, analgesic effect of tramadol was significantly more than the other drugs except at two observation times, when it was comparable to simvastatin and atorvastatin. Effect of simvastatin was found to be comparable to aspirin. In acetic acid induced writhing method, analgesic activity of simvastatin was comparable to that of aspirin while that of atorvastatin was significantly less. In carrageenin induced paw edema in rats, both simvastatin and atorvastatin showed anti-inflammatory activity which was comparable to aspirin. Both the statins exhibited significant anti-inflammatory activity (P < 0.01) in formalin induced arthritis model though less than aspirin (P < 0.05).
The results of this study if substantiated by further experimental and clinical research suggest that simvastatin and atorvastatin may play an adjuvant role, which may be particularly beneficial in the treatment of inflammatory disorders, especially when there is coexisting dyslipidemia.
Formalin induced arthritis; paw edema; statins; tail-flick method; writhing
The objective was to systematically review clinical trial data on the effects of statins on high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and to examine the possibility that this provides cardiovascular benefits in addition to those derived from reductions in low-density lipoproteins (LDL).
The PubMed database was searched for publications describing clinical trials of atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin. On the basis of predefined criteria, 103 were selected for review.
Compared with placebo, statins raise HDL, measured as HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I); these elevations are maintained in the long-term. In hypercholesterolemia, HDL-C is raised by approximately 4% to 10%. The percentage changes are greater in patients with low baseline levels, including those with the common combination of high triglycerides (TG) and low HDL-C. These effects do not appear to be dose-related although there is evidence that, with the exception of atorvastatin, the changes in HDL-C are proportional to reductions in apo B-containing lipoproteins. The most likely explanation is a reduced rate of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP)-mediated flow of cholesterol from HDL. There is some evidence that the statin effects on HDL reduce progression of atherosclerosis and risk of cardiovascular disease independently of reductions in LDL.
Statins cause modest increases in HDL-C and apo A-I probably mediated by reductions in CETP activity. It is plausible that such changes independently contribute to the cardiovascular benefits of the statin class but more studies are needed to further explore this possibility.
Atherosclerosis; Cardiovascular disease; Cholesterol; High-density lipoprotein; Lipid-lowering therapy; Statin
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, statin adherence, and direct (medical and drug) and indirect (disability and medically related absenteeism) costs in US employees in whom atorvastatin or simvastatin was newly prescribed.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Active employees aged 18 to 64 years with a new atorvastatin or simvastatin prescription were identified from a deidentified claims database for 23 privately insured US companies from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2006. Employees given atorvastatin were matched to those given simvastatin according to propensity scores based on patient characteristics, index statin dose, preindex cardiovascular events, and wage. Outcomes were compared between matched cohorts during the 2-year postindex period, including the risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, adherence to the index statin, use of other lipid-lowering drugs, direct medical costs for third-party payers, and indirect costs to employers. Indirect costs were computed as follows: Disability Payments + Daily Wage × Days of Medically Related Absenteeism. Atorvastatin and simvastatin drug costs were imputed using recent pricing to account for the availability of lower-cost generic simvastatin after the study period.
RESULTS: Among 13,584 matched pairs, treatment with atorvastatin vs simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, higher adherence, and less use of other lipid-lowering drugs. The increase in statin costs associated with atorvastatin vs simvastatin therapy was almost completely offset by reductions in medical service and indirect costs.
CONCLUSION: In this study, treatment with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, reduced indirect costs, and a minimal difference in total costs to employers.
Among 13,584 matched pairs in this study, treatment with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin was associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular-related hospitalization, higher adherence, reduced indirect costs, and a minimal difference in total costs to employers.
To evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with dyslipidemia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
This open-label, randomized, parallel group, comparative, prospective study of 12-weeks duration included 60 patients of type-2 diabetes with dyslipidemia having good glycemic control with fixed dose combination of tablet glimepiride + metformin and divided into three groups of twenty each. Group-1 patients have received tablet rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily, group-2 received tablet atorvastatin 10 mg once daily, and group-3 received tablet simvastatin 10 mg once daily for 12 weeks each. The levels of serum cholesterol, serum triglyceride, LDL, VLDL, and HDL were assessed at baseline and at the end of 12 weeks.
The mean serum cholesterol, serum triglyceride, LDLc, and VLDLc levels were significantly reduced on therapy (P<0.001). Simultaneously, the mean levels of HDL were highly significantly increased (P<0.001) after therapy for 12 weeks with rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin. Reduction of LDL levels in rosuvastatin group was statistically significant when compared with those of simvastatin group (P< 0.05) but was statistically nonsignificant when compared with atorvastatin group (P> 0.05). Conclusion: 10 mg of rosuvastatin was comparable to 10 mg of atorvastatin and more efficacious than 10 mg simvastatin in reducing LDL levels after 12 weeks of therapy in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with dyslipidemia.
Aatorvastatin; dyslipidemia; rosuvastatin; simvastatin; type-2 diabetes mellitus
Statin adherence is often limited by side effects. The SLCO1B1*5 variant is a risk factor for statin side effects and exhibits statin-specific effects: highest with simvastatin/atorvastatin and lowest with pravastatin/rosuvastatin. The effects of SLCO1B1*5 genotype guided statin therapy (GGST) are unknown. Primary care patients (n = 58) who were nonadherent to statins and their providers received SLCO1B1*5 genotyping and guided recommendations via the electronic medical record (EMR). The primary outcome was the change in Beliefs about Medications Questionnaire, which measured patients’ perceived needs for statins and concerns about adverse effects, measured before and after SLCO1B1*5 results. Concurrent controls (n = 59) were identified through the EMR to compare secondary outcomes: new statin prescriptions, statin utilization, and change in LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c). GGST patients had trends (p = 0.2) towards improved statin necessity and concerns. The largest changes were the “need for statin to prevent sickness” (p < 0.001) and “concern for statin to disrupt life” (p = 0.006). GGST patients had more statin prescriptions (p < 0.001), higher statin use (p < 0.001), and greater decrease in LDL-c (p = 0.059) during follow-up. EMR delivery of SLCO1B1*5 results and recommendations is feasible in the primary care setting. This novel intervention may improve patients’ perceptions of statins and physician behaviors that promote higher statin adherence and lower LDL-c.
pharmacogenetics; personalized medicine; medication adherence; risk assessment; health behavior; hyperlipidemia
To date, malignant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PHEOs/PGLs) cannot be effectively cured and thus novel treatment strategies are urgently needed. Lovastatin has been shown to effectively induce apoptosis in mouse PHEO cells (MPC) and the more aggressive mouse tumor tissue-derived cells (MTT), which was accompanied by decreased phosphorylation of mitogen-activated kinase (MAPK) pathway players. The MAPK pathway plays a role in numerous aggressive tumors and has been associated with a subgroup of PHEOs/PGLs, including K-RAS-, RET-, and NF1-mutated tumors. Our aim was to establish whether MAPK signaling may also play a role in aggressive, succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) B mutation-derived PHEOs/PGLs. Expression profiling and western blot analysis indicated that specific aspects of MAPK-signaling are active in SDHB PHEOs/PGLs, suggesting that inhibition by statin treatment could be beneficial. Moreover, we aimed to assess whether the anti-proliferative effect of lovastatin on MPC and MTT differed from that exerted by fluvastatin, simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, or rosuvastatin. Simvastatin and fluvastatin decreased cell proliferation most effectively and the more aggressive MTT cells appeared more sensitive in this respect. Inhibition of MAPK1 and 3 phosphorylation following treatment with fluvastatin, simvastatin, and lovastatin was confirmed by western blot. Increased levels of CASP-3 and PARP cleavage confirmed induction of apoptosis following the treatment. At a concentration low enough not to affect cell proliferation, spontaneous migration of MPC and MTT was significantly inhibited within 24 hours of treatment. In conclusion, lipophilic statins may present a promising therapeutic option for treatment of aggressive human paragangliomas by inducing apoptosis and inhibiting tumor spread.
Cholesterol management drugs known as statins are widely used and often well tolerated; however, a variety of muscle-related side effects can arise. These adverse events (AEs) can have serious impact, and form a significant barrier to therapy adherence. Surveillance of post-marketing AEs is of vital importance to understand real-world AEs and reporting differences between individual statin drugs. We conducted a review of post-approval muscle and tendon AE reports in association with statin use, to assess differences within the drug class.
We analyzed all case reports from the FDA AE Reporting System (AERS) database linking muscle-related AEs to statin use (07/01/2005–03/31/2011). Drugs examined were: atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and fluvastatin.
Relative risk rates for rosuvastatin were consistently higher than other statins. Atorvastatin and simvastatin showed intermediate risks, while pravastatin and lovastatin appeared to have the lowest risk rates. Relative risk of muscle-related AEs, therefore, approximately tracked with per milligram LDL-lowering potency, with fluvastatin an apparent exception. Incorporating all muscle categories, rates for atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, and lovastatin were, respectively, 55%, 26%, 17%, and 7.5% as high, as rosuvastatin, approximately tracking per milligram potency (Rosuvastatin>Atorvastatin>Simvastatin>Pravastatin≈Lovastatin) and comporting with findings of other studies. Relative potency, therefore, appears to be a fundamental predictor of muscle-related AE risk, with fluvastatin, the least potent statin, an apparent exception (risk 74% vs rosuvastatin).
AE reporting rates differed strikingly for drugs within the statin class, with relative reporting aligning substantially with potency. The data presented in this report offer important reference points for the selection of statins for cholesterol management in general and, especially, for the rechallenge of patients who have experienced muscle-related AEs (for whom agents of lower expected potency should be preferred).
Rosuvastatin represents the latest inhibitor of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase introduced in clinical practice for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. In comparative trials, across dose ranges this statin reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and total cholesterol significantly more than atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin, and triglycerides significantly more than simvastatin and pravastatin. In healthy subjects with normal LDL cholesterol and elevated C-reactive protein, rosuvastatin treatment significantly decreased the incidence of cardiovascular events. Its chemical and pharmacokinetic properties (with a low lipophilicity and poor capacity to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes) suggest a very limited penetration in extrahepatic tissues with a lower risk of muscle toxicity and unlike metabolically mediated drug–drug interactions. This article reviews the most recent data on the pharmacologic and clinical properties of rosuvastatin, in order to enable the correct use of this statin for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.
statin; HMG-CoA reductase; LDL cholesterol; pharmacokinetics; safety
Statins reduce cardiovascular risks but increase the risk of new-onset diabetes (NOD). The aim of this study is to determine what effect, if any, statins have on the risk of NOD events in a population-based case-control study. An evaluation of the relationship between age and statin-exposure on NOD risks was further examined in a female Asian population.
In a nationwide case-controlled study, the authors assessed 1065 female NOD patients and 10650 controls with matching ages, genders and physician visit dates. The impact of statin-exposure on NOD was examined through multiple logistic regression models. Subgroup analysis for exploring the risk of NOD and statin-exposure in different age groups was performed.
Statin-exposure was statistically significantly associated with increased new-onset diabetes risks using multivariate analysis. Interaction effect between age and statin-exposure on NOD risk was noted. For atorvastatin, the risk of cDDDs>60 was highest among the 55–64 year-olds (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 8.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.57–24.90). For rosuvastatin, the risk of cDDDs>60 was highest among the 40–54 year-olds (adjusted OR, 14.8; 95% CI, 2.27–96.15). For simvastatin, the risk of cDDDs>60 was highest among the 55–64 year-olds (adjusted OR, 15.8; 95% CI, 5.77–43.26). For pravastatin, the risk of cDDDs>60 was highest among the 55–64 year-olds (adjusted OR, 14.0; 95% CI, 1.56–125.18).
This population-based study found that statin use is associated with an increased risk of NOD in women. The risk of statin-related NOD was more evident for women aged 40–64 years compared to women aged 65 or more, and was cumulative-dose dependent. The use of statins should always be determined by weighing the clinical benefits and potential risks for NOD, and the patients should be continuously monitored for adverse effects.
This study compared the effectiveness and toxicity of different statins among 700 HIV-infected patients in routine clinical care. Findings suggest that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are preferable to pravastatin leading to greater declines in lipid levels with similar low rates of toxicity.
Background. Dyslipidemia is common and is often treated with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins). Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of statins among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected patients. This study compared the effectiveness and toxicity of statins among HIV-infected patients in clinical care.
Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients starting their initial statin medications at 2 large HIV clinics (N = 700). The primary observation was change in lipid levels during statin therapy. Secondary observations included whether individualized National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non–high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels were reached, and toxicity rates. We used linear regression to examine change in lipid levels, controlling for baseline lipid values and demographic and clinical characteristics. We conducted secondary analyses using propensity scores to address confounding by indication.
Results. The most commonly prescribed statins were atorvastatin (N = 303), pravastatin (N = 280), and rosuvastatin (N = 95). One year after starting a statin therapy, patients who received atorvastatin or rosuvastatin had significantly greater decreases in total cholesterol, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C than patients on pravastatin. The likelihood of reaching NCEP goals for LDL-C levels was higher with the use of rosuvastatin (OR 2.1; P = .03) and atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; P = .001) compared with that of pravastatin. The likelihood of reaching NCEP goals for non-HDL-C levels was higher for rosuvastatin (OR 2.3; P = .045) but not atorvastatin (OR, 1.5; P = .1) compared with pravastatin. Toxicity rates were similar for all 3 statins: 7.3% for atorvastatin, 6.1% for pravastatin, and 5.3% for rosuvastatin.
Conclusions. Our findings suggest that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin are preferable to pravastatin for treatment of HIV-infected patients with dyslipidemia, due to greater declines in total cholesterol, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C, with similar lower toxicity rates.
To describe the use and evaluate the effectiveness of different lipid
lowering therapies in unselected patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in
Observational population-based study using the personal identification number
to link information from the National Diabetes Register, the Prescribed Drug
Register and the Patient register in Sweden. All patients in the NDR aged
18–75 years with diabetes more than one year were eligible, but only
patients starting any lipid lowering treatment with at least three
prescriptions 1 July 2006–30 June 2007 were included
(n = 37182). The mean blood lipid levels in 2008 and
reductions in LDL cholesterol were examined.
Blood lipid levels were similar in patients treated with simvastatin,
atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, showing similar lipid lowering effect as
currently used. Users of pravastatin, fluvastatin, ezetimib and fibrate more
seldom reach treatment goals. Moderate daily doses of the statins were used,
with 76% of simvastatin users taking 20 mg or less, 48% of
atorvastatin users taking 10 mg, 55% of pravastatin users taking 20
mg, and 76% of rosuvastatin users taking 5 or 10 mg.
This observational study shows that the LDL-C levels in patients taking
simvastatin, atorvastatin or rosuvastatin are very similar as currently
used, as well as their LDL-C lowering abilities. There is potential to
intensify lipid lowering treatment to reduce the remaining high residual
risk and achieve better fulfilment of treatment goals, since the commonly
used doses are only low to moderate.
In addition to inhibiting cholesterol biosynthesis, statins also inhibit the formation of isoprenoid intermediates, which are required for the activation of the Rho/Rho kinase (ROCK) pathway. Increased ROCK activity has been implicated in causing endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis. However, it is not known whether statins, at doses used to lower cholesterol levels, inhibit ROCK activity in humans with atherosclerosis. Furthermore, it is not known whether lipophilic and hydrophilic statins differ in their ability to inhibit ROCK activity. Accordingly, we enrolled 30 male subjects with stable atherosclerosis (low-density lipoprotein (LDL) ≥ 100 mg/dL) in a randomized, double-blind study comparing equivalent LDL-lowering doses of a hydrophilic statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg daily) to a lipophilic statin (atorvastatin 40 mg daily) for 28 days. We assessed the change in lipids, ROCK activity, and flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery (FMD) before, and after statin therapy. Both treatment groups exhibited comparable 30–32% and 42–45% reductions in total and LDL cholesterol, respectively. Only atorvastatin reduced triglycerides and neither statin altered high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. While both statins inhibited ROCK activity (p<0.0001), the extent of inhibition was greater with rosuvastatin (18±2% vs. 8±2%, p=0.0006). Statins also improved FMD from 7.4±0.6 to 9.3±0.4 (p=0.003) with rosuvastatin being slightly better than atorvastatin. The inhibition of ROCK activity by statins did not correlate with reductions in LDL (p=0.57), but was associated with improvement in FMD. These findings provide direct clinical evidence that statins, at clinically relevant doses, could differentially inhibit ROCK activity and improve endothelial function by cholesterol-independent mechanism.
atherosclerosis; hypercholesterolemia; endothelial function; statins; Rho kinase
The objective of the study is to determine the proportion of patients within the subsample reaching the target lipid levels defined in the European guidelines, stratified according to type and dose of statin used.
Many factors affect the attainment of lipid level targets including gender, age, compliance, statin type, and dosage. This study aimed to determine the percentage of post-interventional coronary heart disease (CHD) patients who met the lipid level targets recommended by the Joint European Societies Guidelines, the medications used, and their doses.
A post-hoc analysis of a subsample of 2,000 patients from EUROASPIRE III database was selected randomly from patients who attended the interviews (between six months to three years after event). Further stratification according to type and dose of statin was performed.
The sample comprised 74.5% males, and two thirds (63.8%) of the entire sample were over 60 years of age. More women than men showed elevated total cholesterol (>4.5 mmol/l and >4.0 mmol/l), LDL-cholesterol (>2.5 mmol/l and >2.0 mmol/l), and triglycerides (>1.7 mmol/l). Atorvastatin was the most widely used at both discharge and interview (47.1% and 45.4%) than simvastatin (37.7% and 39.4%). A dose of 20 mg atorvastatin was used by 44.10% of patients, while those on fluvastatin used a higher dose: ⩾40 mg in 88.31%. Patients who achieved targeted total cholesterol levels for atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin showed a trend in dose increase. Pravastatin users who achieved the target were taking a dose of 10 mg (75%) and less were in the 20 mg group (33.33%). Rosuvastatin users who consumed 10 mg and ⩾40 mg dose achieved the lipid level targets by 61.82% and 66.67%, respectively.
Compliance with medications was high after a CHD incident in this European sample and the increase of the atorvastatin and simvastatin doses enabled the attainment of the target levels recommended.
CHD, Coronary Heart Disease; CK, Creatine Kinase concentration; CABG, Coronary Artery Bypass Graft; PTCA, Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty; AMI, Acute Myocardial Infarction; CVD, Cardiovascular Diseases; Preventive cardiology; Statin dose; Coronary heart diseases; Lipid level; EUROASPIRE III