瑞舒伐他汀和阿托伐他汀对氯吡格雷抗血小板活性的影响

目的观察瑞舒伐他汀和阿托伐他汀对氯吡格雷抗血小板活性的影响。方法选择60例冠心病患者接受阿司匹林100mg/d、氯吡格雷75 mg/d及低分子肝素5000 U/12 h治疗,5 d后随机分为阿托伐他汀20mg/d(阿托伐他汀组,30例)和瑞舒伐他汀10 mg/d(瑞舒伐他汀组,30例)。在服用氯吡格雷之前(基线值)、加用他汀类药物之前及服用他汀类药物3d后,用全血阻抗法分别测定不同浓度二磷酸腺苷(5、10、20μmol/L)诱导的血小板聚集率。结果与基线值比较,服用氯吡格雷5 d后和加服他汀类药物治疗3 d后,2组患者血小板聚集率明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);与治疗前比较,阿托伐他汀组患者血小板聚集率有所升高,而瑞舒伐他汀组患者血小板聚集率有所下降,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论经细胞色素3A4途径代谢的阿托伐他汀及不经细胞色素3A4代谢的瑞舒伐他汀,短期内对氯吡格雷抗血小板活性无影响。     

Effects of different statin types and dosages on systolic/diastolic blood pressure: Retrospective analysis of 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure database

We previously demonstrated lower diastolic blood pressure (BP) levels under statin therapy in adult individuals who consecutively underwent 24‐hour ambulatory BP monitoring and compared their levels to untreated outpatients. Here we evaluated systolic/diastolic BP levels according to different statin types and dosages. 987 patients (47.5% female, age 66.0 ± 10.1 years, BMI 27.7 ± 4.6 kg/m², clinic BP 146.9 ± 19.4/86.1 ± 12.1 mm Hg, 24‐hour BP 129.2 ± 14.4/74.9 ± 9.2 mm Hg) were stratified into 4 groups: 291 (29.5%) on simvastatin 10‐80 mg/d, 341 (34.5%) on atorvastatin 10‐80 mg/d, 187 (18.9%) on rosuvastatin 5‐40 mg/d, and 168 (17.0%) on other statins. There were no significant BP differences among patients treated by various statin types and dosages, except in lower clinic (P = .007) and daytime (P = .013) diastolic BP in patients treated with simvastatin and atorvastatin compared to other statins. Favorable effects of statins on systolic/diastolic BP levels seem to be independent of types or dosages, thus suggesting a potential class effect of these drugs.     

Lack of evidence of a clopidogrel-statin interaction in the CHARISMA trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of clopidogrel and statin interaction in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with long-term follow-up. BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding whether statins predominantly metabolized by CYP3A4 reduce the metabolism of clopidogrel to its active metabolite and diminish its clinical efficacy. METHODS: The CHARISMA trial was a randomized trial comparing long-term 75 mg/day clopidogrel versus placebo in patients with cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors on aspirin. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death at median follow-up of 28 months. We performed a secondary analysis evaluating the interaction of clopidogrel versus placebo with statin administration, categorizing baseline statin use to those predominantly CYP3A4 metabolized (atorvastatin, lovastatin, simvastatin; CYP3A4-MET) or others (pravastatin, fluvastatin; non-CYP3A4-MET). RESULTS: Of 15,603 patients enrolled, 10,078 received a statin at baseline (8,245 CYP3A4-MET, 1,748 non-CYP3A4-MET) and 5,496 did not. For the overall population, the primary end point was 6.8% with clopidogrel and 7.3% with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; p = 0.22). This was similar among patients on CYP3A4-MET (5.9% clopidogrel, 6.6% placebo, HR 0.89; p = 0.18) or non-CYP3A4-MET statin (5.7% clopidogrel, 7.2% placebo, HR 0.78; p = 0.19). There was no interaction between statin types and randomized treatment (p = 0.69). Patients on atorvastatin (n = 4,127) (5.7% clopidogrel, 7.1% placebo, HR 0.80; p = 0.06) or pravastatin (n = 1,440) (5.1% clopidogrel, 7.0% placebo, HR 0.72; p = 0.13) had similar event rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite theoretic concerns and ex vivo testing suggesting a potential negative interaction with concomitant clopidogrel and CYP3A4-MET statin administration, there was no evidence of an interaction clinically in a large placebo-controlled trial with long-term follow-up.     

Effect of atorvastatin and pravastatin on platelet inhibition by aspirin and clopidogrel treatment in patients with coronary stent thrombosis

We sought to determine a potential interaction between statins and antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. Previous laboratory studies have shown a possible drug-drug interaction of statins metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 and clopidogrel (prodrug metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4), resulting in an impaired inhibitory effect of clopidogrel on platelet aggregation. However, conclusive prospective data assessing this potentially relevant interaction are lacking. In 73 patients, 23 with previous coronary stent thrombosis (ST) (ST group) and 50 without coronary ST (control group), platelet aggregation was measured 3 times in monthly intervals using light transmission aggregometry (adenosine diphosphate [ADP] and arachidonic acid induction). Measurements were carried out with aspirin monotherapy (100 mg/day), dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus clopidogrel (75 mg/day), and additional treatment of 20 mg/day of atorvastatin or 40 mg/day of pravastatin. ADP (5 and 20 micromol)-induced platelet aggregation was significantly decreased with clopidogrel (p <0.001) but remained stable under additional treatment with atorvastatin or pravastatin in the 2 groups. Patients with previous ST showed a higher ADP-induced aggregation level than control subjects. This difference was not influenced by clopidogrel or statin treatment. In conclusion, patients with previous ST show a higher aggregation level than control subjects independent of statin treatment. Atorvastatin and pravastatin do not interfere with the antiaggregatory effect of aspirin and clopidogrel. In conclusion, drug-drug interaction between dual antiplatelet therapy and atorvastatin or pravastatin seems not to be associated with ST.     

Impact of statin therapy on LDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels in subjects with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia

Background and aimsCardiovascular risk in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) is driven by LDL cholesterol levels. Since lipid response to statin therapy presents individual variation, this study aimed to compare mean LDL and non-HDL cholesterol reductions and their variability achieved with different types and doses of the most frequently prescribed statins.Methods and resultsAmong primary hypercholesterolaemia cases on the Spanish Arteriosclerosis Society registry, 2894 with probable/definite HeFH and complete information on drug therapy and lipid profile were included.LDL cholesterol reduction ranged from 30.2 ± 17.0% with simvastatin 10 mg to 48.2 ± 14.7% with rosuvastatin 40 mg. After the addition of ezetimibe, an additional 26, 24, 21 and 24% reduction in LDL cholesterol levels was obtained for rosuvastatin, 5, 10, 20 and 40 mg, respectively. Subjects with definite HeFH and a confirmed genetic mutation had a more discrete LDL cholesterol reduction compared to definite HeFH subjects with no genetic mutation. A suboptimal response (<15% or <30% reduction in LDL cholesterol levels, respectively with low-/moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy) was observed in 13.5% and, respectively, 20.3% of the subjects.ConclusionAccording to the LDL cholesterol reduction in HeFH patients, the ranking for more to less potent statins was rosuvastatin, atorvastatin and simvastatin; however, at maximum dosage, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were nearly equivalent. HeFH subjects with positive genetic diagnosis had a lower lipid-lowering response. Approximately 1 in 5 patients on high-intensity statin therapy presented a suboptimal response.     

Accelerated platelet inhibition by switching from atorvastatin to a non-CYP3A4-metabolized statin in patients with high platelet reactivity (ACCEL-STATIN) study

Aims CYP3A4-metabolized statins can influence the pharmacodynamic effect of clopidogrel. We sought to assess the impact of switching to a non-CYP3A4-metabolized statin on platelet function among patients receiving clopidogrel and atorvastatin with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR). Methods and results Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-treated patients (n= 50) with HPR [20 μM adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced maximal platelet aggregation (MPA) >50%] were enrolled during chronic administration of atorvastatin (10 mg/day) and clopidogrel (75 mg/day) (≥6 months). They were randomly assigned to a 15-day therapy with either rosuvastatin 10 mg/day (n= 25) or pravastatin 20 mg/day (n= 25). Platelet function was assessed before and after switching by conventional aggregometry and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. Genotyping was performed for CYP2C19*2/*3, CYP3A5*3, and ABCB1 C3435T alleles. The primary endpoint was the absolute change in 20 μM ADP-induced MPA. After switching, MPAs after stimuli with 20 and 5 μM ADP were decreased by 6.6% (95% confidence interval: 3.2-10.1%; P < 0.001), and 6.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.5-10.2%; P = 0.002), respectively. Fifty-two P2Y12 reaction units fell (95% confidence interval: 35-70; P < 0.001) and the prevalence of HPR decreased (24%; P < 0.001). Pharmacodynamic effects were similar after rosuvastatin and pravastatin therapy. In addition to smoking status, the combination of calcium channel blocker usage and ABCB1 C3435T genotype significantly affected the change of 20 μM ADP-induced MPA. Conclusions Among PCI-treated patients with HPR during co-administration of clopidogrel and atorvastatin, switching to a non-CYP3A4-metabolized statin can significantly decrease platelet reactivity and the prevalence of HPR. This switching effect appears similar irrespective of the type of non-CYP3A4-metabolized statin.     

Pharmacodynamic effects of adjunctive high dose atorvastatin on double dose clopidogrel in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity depending on diabetes mellitus status

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with impaired platelet response to clopidogrel. In patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) while on standard-dose clopidogrel, high-dose atorvastatin enhances the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of double-dose clopidogrel. It is unknown if similar effects are achieved in patients with DM. This study compare the PD effects of high-dose atorvastatin associated with double dose clopidogrel in HTPR patients with and without DM undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This is a post hoc analysis of a prospective randomized PD study that compared double-dose (150 mg) clopidogrel associated with high-dose (80 mg) atorvastatin to double-dose clopidogrel alone in statin naïve patients with HTPR undergoing elective PCI. In this analysis, patients were divided in two groups according to DM (n = 27) and non-DM (n = 49) status. Platelet reactivity was evaluated immediately before PCI and at 30 days using the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. HTPR was defined as P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) ≥235. Administering high-dose atorvastatin in addition to high-dose clipodogrel, the 30 days absolute PRU changes (106 ± 75 vs 100 ± 42, p = 0.7) and optimal response rates (83 vs 84 %; p = 0.9) were similar in DM and non-DM patients. The baseline variables significantly associated with 30-day optimal response to high-dose clopidogrel were: atorvastatin treatment (OR = 7.5 [95 % CI 1.19–47]; p = 0.032) in DM patients; PRU values (OR = 0.9 [95 % CI 0.95–0.99]; p = 0.031) and creatinine clearance (OR = 1.07 [95 % CI 1.008–1.13]; p = 0.025) in non-DM patients. High-dose atorvastatin significantly improved the PD effects of double-dose clopidogrel in DM patients with HTPR undergoing elective PCI.     

Effects of switching statins on achievement of lipid goals: measuring effective reductions in cholesterol using rosuvastatin therapy (MERCURY I) study

Background

In a multinational trial (4522IL/0081), we assessed the effects of switching to low doses of rosuvastatin from commonly used doses of atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement in high-risk patients.

Methods

Hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 3140) with coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, or type 2 diabetes were randomized to open-label rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks. Patients either remained on these treatments for another 8 weeks or switched treatments from atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg to rosuvastatin 10 mg or from atorvastatin 20 mg to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients reaching the Joint European Societies' LDL-C goal (<116 mg/dL) at week 16. For measures of cholesterol goal achievement, treatment arms were compared using logistic-regression analysis.

Results

Significant improvement in LDL-C goal achievement was found for patients who switched to rosuvastatin 10 mg, compared with patients who remained on atorvastatin 10 mg (86% vs 80%, P < .05), simvastatin 20 mg (86% vs 72%, P < .0001), and pravastatin 40 mg (88% vs 66%, P < .0001), and between patients switched to rosuvastatin 20 mg and those who remained on atorvastatin 20 mg (90% vs 84%, P < .01). Similar results were found for achievement of the European combined LDL-C and total cholesterol goals and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C goals. All statins were well tolerated over 16 weeks.

Conclusions

We demonstrated that switching to a more efficacious statin is an effective strategy to improve lipid goal achievement in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy.     

Low density lipoprotein‐cholesterol variability in patients with type 2 diabetes taking atorvastatin compared to simvastatin: justification for direct measurement?

Aim: The benefit of direct, as opposed to calculated, low density lipoprotein ‐cholesterol (LDL‐C) measurement remains unclear. This study compared the biological variability of direct LDL in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on equivalent doses of the short half‐life statin, simvastatin or the longer half‐life statin, atorvastatin. Methods: A cross‐over study of biological variation of lipids in 26 patients with T2DM taking either simvastatin 40 mg (n = 10) or atorvastatin 10 mg. After 3 months on one statin, fasting lipids were measured on 10 occasions over a 5‐week period. The same procedure was then followed on the other statin. The variability of LDL‐C was established using a Beckman direct assay. Results: As a group, mean LDL was no different between statins (mean ± s.d.) (1.69 ± 0.60 mmol/l simvastatin vs. 1.67 ± 0.60 mmol/l atorvastatin, p = 0.19). However, in all patients, the intraindividual biological variability of LDL while taking simvastatin was markedly higher than with atorvastatin (average s.d. = 0.17 mmol /l simvastatin vs. 0.01 mmol/l, p < 0.0001). Friedewald calculated LDL variability was no different between statins (average s.d. = 0.34 mmol /l simvastatin vs. 0.21 mmol/l atorvastatin, p = 0.19). Conclusions: In contrast to calculated values, direct measurement revealed LDL to be much more stable (the s.d. being an order of magnitude) in T2DM patients taking atorvastatin rather than simvastatin. This means LDL targets can be consistently met with less lipid monitoring using atorvastatin rather than simvastatin. Direct LDL measurement may therefore have a particular role in monitoring patients on statin treatment.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin,simvastatin, and pravastatin across doses (STELLAR* Trial)

The primary objective of this 6-week, parallel-group, open-label, randomized, multicenter trial was to compare rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin across dose ranges for reduction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Secondary objectives included comparing rosuvastatin with comparators for other lipid modifications and achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and Joint European Task Force LDL cholesterol goals. After a dietary lead-in period, 2,431 adults with hypercholesterolemia (LDL cholesterol > or =160 and <250 mg/dl; triglycerides <400 mg/dl) were randomized to treatment with rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. At 6 weeks, across-dose analyses showed that rosuvastatin 10 to 80 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by a mean of 8.2% more than atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg, 26% more than pravastatin 10 to 40 mg, and 12% to 18% more than simvastatin 10 to 80 mg (all p <0.001). Mean percent changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the rosuvastatin groups were +7.7% to +9.6% compared with +2.1% to +6.8% in all other groups. Across dose ranges, rosuvastatin reduced total cholesterol significantly more (p <0.001) than all comparators and triglycerides significantly more (p <0.001) than simvastatin and pravastatin. Adult Treatment Panel III LDL cholesterol goals were achieved by 82% to 89% of patients treated with rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg compared with 69% to 85% of patients treated with atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg; the European LDL cholesterol goal of <3.0 mmol/L was achieved by 79% to 92% in rosuvastatin groups compared with 52% to 81% in atorvastatin groups. Drug tolerability was similar across treatments.     

Antiplatelet effects of a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel are not attenuated in patients receiving atorvastatin or simvastatin for at least 4 weeks prior to coronary artery stenting.

AIMS: To test prospectively whether the antiplatelet effect of a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel is attenuated in patients receiving atorvastatin and simvastatin for at least 4 weeks prior to coronary artery stenting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Blood samples were obtained at least 2 h after receiving 100 mg aspirin and 600 mg clopidogrel and prior to coronary stenting from 90 patients without statin therapy and 90 patients with statin (atorvastatin and simvastatin) therapy for at least 4 weeks. Maximal and residual platelet aggregation was evaluated with optical aggregometry in response to ADP (5 and 20 micromol/l). Surface expression of IIb/IIIa (CD61) and P-selectin (CD62) was assessed with whole blood flow-cytometry at baseline and following stimulation (5 and 20 micromol/l ADP). Inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation was not impaired in the presence of concomitant statin therapy. Moreover, patients with and without statin therapy did not differ in respect to all flow-cytometric parameters obtained. CONCLUSION: The antiplatelet effect of a high, 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel is not diminished in patients receiving atorvastatin and simvastatin for at least 4 weeks prior to coronary stenting.     

Comparison of atorvastatin alone versus simvastatin ± cholestyramine in the management of severe primary hypercholesterolemia (The Six Cities Study)

Background: Atorvastatin is a new member of the class of drugs which inhibit the enzyme Hydroxy-Methylglutaryl Co-A reductase, the rate limiting step in cholesterol biosynthesis. Aim: To compare the effects of atorvastatin alone versus simvastatin±low dose resin (i.e. versus standard care) on low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in severe primary hypercholesterolaemia. Methods: An open, multi-centre, randomised study in patients previously stabilised on a cholesterol-lowering diet and simvastatin 40 mg daily, having LDL cholesterol ≥5.0 mmol/L and triglycerides <4.0 mmol/L. After five weeks washout, 92 were randomised to receive atorvastatin 10 mg and 44 to receive simvastatin 10 mg. The dose was doubled every six weeks if LDL cholesterol remained ≥3.5 mmol/L. In accordance with manufacturers' recommendations, maximum dosage was atorvastatin 80 mg daily or simvastatin 40 mg daily (+cholestyramine 4 g daily in 84% of cases). Treatment was continued over 30 weeks. Lipids, lipoproteins, haematological and biochemical safety parameters were measured at regular intervals. Adverse events were monitored. Results: Baseline LDL cholesterol was ～9 ±2 mmol/L (SD). After 30 weeks treatment serum cholesterol reduction was 42±10% on atorvastatin versus 32±13% on simvas-tatin±resin (p<0.001), LDL cholesterol reduction 49±12%versus 38±14% (plt;0.001), and triglyceride reduction 33±20%versus 25±22% (p<0.02). High density lipoprotein cholesterol increased by 7–10% on both treatments. The proportion of subjects achieving goal LDL cholesterol <3.5 mmol/L was two to three times greater in those on atorvastatin compared with those on simvastatin± resin at each titration point. Six patients on simvastatin and one on atorvastatin were withdrawn. The drugs were generally well tolerated and the pattern of adverse events was similar with either treatment. Conclusions: Atorvastatin up to 80 mg daily appears to be an effective new treatment for the management of primary hypercholesterolaemia. It shows greater efficacy than simvastatin up to 40 mg daily±resin and has a similar safety profile.     

Effects of switching statins on lipid and apolipoprotein ratios in the MERCURY I study

BACKGROUND: Lipid ratios are clinically useful markers of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. The effects of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on lipid ratios were investigated in the Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin TherapY (MERCURY) I trial. METHODS: This trial was conducted in 3140 hypercholesterolemic patients with CAD, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or a 20% 10-year risk for CAD. Patients were randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks; all patients except those receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg either were switched to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg or remained on initial treatment for 8 more weeks. RESULTS: At 8 weeks, reductions in total cholesterol (TC):high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol:HDL-C, non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and apolipoprotein (apo) B:apo A-I ratios with rosuvastatin 10 mg were significantly greater than those with atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg (P<0.0001 for all). At week 16, switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg from atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg and to rosuvastatin 20 mg from atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in all lipid ratios (P< or =0.0001 for all). Switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg from atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in TC:HDL-C (P<0.025) and apo B:apo A-I (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduces lipid ratios more than equivalent and higher doses of other statins; switching to equal or lower doses of rosuvastatin produces significantly improved reductions in lipid ratios.     

Generic Atorvastatin, the Belgian Statin Market and the Cost-Effectiveness of Statin Therapy

Purpose

This study examines how the market entry of generic atorvastatin influences the Belgian statin market and the cost-effectiveness of statin therapy.

Methods

Using IMS Health data, the Belgian 2000–2011 statin market was analyzed in terms of total expenditure, annual price of statin treatment, and patient numbers. A simulation analysis projected statin market shares from 2012 to 2015 following market entry of generic atorvastatin. This analysis was based on three scenarios regarding the number of patients taking specific statins. Savings associated with an atorvastatin price reduction of 50–70 % were calculated. A literature review of economic evaluations assessed the cost-effectiveness of generic atorvastatin.

Results

Statin expenditure increased from €113 million in 2000 to €285 million in 2011 due to higher expenditure on atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Although the number of patients treated with simvastatin increased by nearly 800 %, the resulting increase in expenditure was partially offset by price reductions. Atorvastatin is projected to become the dominant product in the Belgian statin market (market share of 47–66 % by 2015). Annual savings would attain €108.6–€153.7 million for a 50 % reduction in the atorvastatin price and €152.0–€215.2 million for a 70 % price reduction. The literature suggests that generic atorvastatin is cost-effective as compared to simvastatin. The limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin as compared with generic atorvastatin is inconclusive.

Conclusions

Generic atorvastatin is cost-effective as compared to simvastatin, is projected to become the dominant product in the Belgian statin market and is expected to generate substantial savings to health care payers.     

The Risk of Muscular Events Among New Users of Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Statins: an Observational Cohort Study

BackgroundStatins are effective lipid-lowering drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, but muscular adverse events can limit their use. Hydrophilic statins (pravastatin, rosuvastatin) may cause less muscular events than lipophilic statins (e.g. simvastatin, atorvastatin) due to lower passive diffusion into muscle cells.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of muscular events between statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses and to evaluate if hydrophilic statins are associated with a lower muscular risk than lipophilic statins.Design/SettingPropensity score-matched cohort study using data from the United Kingdom-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD.PatientsNew statin users. Cohort 1: pravastatin 20-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs simvastatin 10-20 mg (lipophilic), cohort 2: rosuvastatin 5-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs atorvastatin 10-80 mg (lipophilic), and cohort 3: simvastatin 40-80 mg vs atorvastatin 10-20 mg.Main MeasuresThe outcome was a first record of a muscular event (myopathy, myalgia, myositis, rhabdomyolysis) during a maximum follow-up of 1 year.Key ResultsThe propensity score-matched cohorts consisted of 1) 9,703, 2) 7,032, and 3) 37,743 pairs of statin users. Comparing the risk of muscular events between low-intensity pravastatin vs low-intensity simvastatin yielded a HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.16). In the comparison of moderate- to high-intensity rosuvastatin vs equivalent doses of atorvastatin, we observed a HR of 1.17 (95% CI 0.88-1.56). Moderate- to high-intensity simvastatin was associated with a HR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.16-1.53), when compared with atorvastatin at equivalent doses.LimitationsWe could not conduct other pairwise comparisons of statins due to small sample size. In the absence of a uniform definition on the comparability of statin doses, the applied dose ratios may not fully match with all literature sources.ConclusionsOur results do not suggest a systematically lower risk of muscular events for hydrophilic statins when compared to lipophilic statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06651-6.KEY WORDS: statin, myopathy, myalgia, adverse events, CPRD     

Achieving LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B target levels in high-risk patients: Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin therapY (MERCURY) II

Background

National Cholestesrol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines for patients at a high risk of coronary heart disease set a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target of <100 mg/dL. This target can be difficult to attain with diet and current therapy.

Methods

In a 16-week multinational trial, 1993 high-risk patients were randomized to rosuvastatin 20 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or simvastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks. Patients either remained on starting treatment or switched to lower or milligram-equivalent doses of rosuvastatin for 8 more weeks.

Results

At 16 weeks, more patients achieved their LDL-C target by switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg than staying on atorvastatin 10 mg (66% vs 42%, P < .001) or simvastatin 20 mg (73% vs 32%, P < .001). Changing to rosuvastatin 20 mg brought more patients to their LDL-C target than staying on atorvastatin 20 mg (79% vs 64%, P < .001) or simvastatin 40 mg (84% vs 56%, P < .001). More very high risk patients achieved an LDL-C target of <70 mg/dL when changed to rosuvastatin from atorvastatin or simvastatin (within-arm comparisons P < .01). More hypertriglyceridemic patients (triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL) met LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B targets by changing to rosuvastatin. Switching to rosuvastatin produced greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and lipid ratios. All treatments were well tolerated, with no differences among treatment groups in skeletal muscle, hepatic, or renal toxicity.

Conclusion

Rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg is an effective and safe therapeutic option for high-risk patients to achieve their lipid and apolipoprotein targets.     

Efficacy of Clopidogrel and Clinical Outcome When Clopidogrel Is Coadministered With Atorvastatin and Lansoprazole: A Prospective,Randomized, Controlled Trial

This prospective, randomized, nonblind, controlled trial evaluated the effects of clopidogrel on platelet function upon coadministration with atorvastatin and lansoprazole.One hundred four adult patients with non-ST-segment elevated acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent implantation were included. All patients were treated with standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) plus rosuvastatin 10 mg daily after the operation. On the sixth day after PCI, patients were randomly divided into 4 groups, Group A: DAPT + atorvastatin 20 mg daily (a change from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin) + lansoprazole 30 mg daily, Group B: DAPT + atorvastatin 20 mg daily (a change from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin), Group C: DAPT + lansoprazole 30 mg daily (continuing to take rosuvastatin), Group D is the control group. Additional drugs were used according to the situation of patients. Platelet function and concentrations of platelet activation markers (granular membrane protein 140 (P-selectin), thromboxane B2 (TXB2), and human soluble cluster of differentiation 40 ligand (sCD40L)) were assessed before randomization and at 15- and 30-day follow-up visits. All patients were maintained on treatment for 6 months and observed for bleeding and ischemic events.A total of 104 patients were enrolled, 27 patients in group A, 26 patients in Group B/C, 25 patients in Group D separately, and all the patients were analyzed. There were no differences in platelet function and the levels of platelet activation markers (P-selectin, TXB₂, and sCD40L) among or within the 4 groups at the 3 time points of interest (P > 0.05). In the subsequent 6 months, no significant bleeding events occurred, and 12 patients experienced ischemic events, these results were also not significantly different among the groups (P > 0.05).In patients diagnosed with NSTE-ACS who have had drug-eluting stent implantation, simultaneously administering clopidogrel, atorvastatin, and lansoprazole did not decrease the antiplatelet efficacy of clopidogrel or increase adverse event frequency over 6 months.     

Multiple antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel are not modulated by statin type in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

We investigated whether statin type or dose influenced the inhibition of platelet function induced by clopidogrel in a prospective, open, parallel group study in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were taking CYP3A4 metabolised atorvastatin (n = 20) or simvastatin (n = 21), non-CYP3A4 metabolised pravastatin (n = 11) or fluvastatin (n = 2), or no statin therapy (n = 5). ADP and TRAP-induced platelet aggregation were measured using optical aggregometry, whole-blood single-platelet counting, and the Ultegra and Plateletworks point-of-care systems. Platelet pro-coagulant activity (annexin V binding and microparticle formation), P-selectin expression and platelet-leukocyte conjugate formation were assessed by flow cytometry. Platelet responses were measured at baseline, 4 h post clopidogrel 300 mg, and after 10 and 28 days with clopidogrel 75 mg daily. Clopidogrel significantly inhibited both ADP and TRAP-induced platelet responses over time, with steady state inhibition achieved by day 10. This was demonstrated by all techniques used. There was no significant effect of statin type or dose on platelet responses by any method at any time-point. In conclusion, statins do not influence the inhibitory effects of clopidogrel on multiple platelet responses, including aggregation, P-selectin expression, platelet-leucocyte conjugate formation and pro-coagulant responses, in patients undergoing elective PCI.     

Short‐Term Effect of Atorvastatin on Endothelial Function in Healthy Offspring of Parents with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Endothelial function is impaired in healthy subjects at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). We investigated whether endothelial dysfunction can be normalized by statin therapy in this potentially predisposed population. Flow‐mediated dilation (FMD) was measured in 56 first‐degree relatives (FDRs) (normotensive, normal glucose tolerance) and 20 age‐, sex‐, and BMI‐matched controls with no family history of DM. Other measurements included insulin resistance index using the homeostasis model of insulin resistance (HOMA_IR), plasma lipids, and markers of inflammation. The FDRs were then randomized and treated with atorvastatin (80 mg) or placebo daily in a 4‐week double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. The FDRs had significantly impaired FMD (4.4 ± 8.1% vs. 13.0 ± 4.2%; P < 0.001), higher HOMA_IR (1.72 ± 1.45 vs. 1.25 ± 0.43; P= 0.002), and elevated levels of plasma markers of inflammation—highly sensitive C‐reactive protein (hsCRP) (2.6 ± 3.8 mg/L vs. 0.7 ± 1.0 mg/L; P= 0.06), interleukin (IL)‐6 (0.07 ± 0.13 ng/mL vs. 0.03 ± 0.01 ng/mL; P < 0.001), and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule (sICAM) (267.7 ± 30.7 ng/mL vs. 238.2 ± 20.4 ng/mL; P < 0.001). FMD improved in the atorvastatin‐treated subjects when compared with the placebo‐treated subjects (atorvastatin, from 3.7 ± 8.5% to 9.8 ± 7.3%; placebo, from 3.9 ± 5.6% to 4.7 ± 4.2%; P= 0.001). There were also reductions in the levels of IL‐6 (0.08 ± 0.02 ng/mL vs. 0.04 ± 0.01 ng/mL; P < 0.001) and hsCRP (3.0 ± 3.9 mg/L vs. 1.0 ± 1.3 mg/L; P= 0.006). Our study suggests that treatment with atorvastatin may improve endothelial function and decrease levels of inflammatory markers in FDRs of type 2 DM patients.