Muscle and statins: from toxicity to the nocebo effect

Introduction: Although statins have a satisfactory safety profile and are well tolerated, many statin-treated patients report muscle symptoms in clinical practice which contribute to drug discontinuation and, consequently, adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Areas covered: This narrative review will cover the definition and prevalence of statin intolerance, the clinical spectrum of statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) with special focus on patients with only mild myalgias, the complexity of statin muscle intolerance diagnosis and provide an overview on the nocebo effect of particular importance for physicians.

Expert opinion: Many patients are unable to tolerate statin therapy, with SAMS being the most common cause of statin intolerance. The reported incidence of SAMS was consistently lower in randomized placebo-controlled trials than in observational studies. These results strongly suggested that SAMS were not always due to by the pharmacologic effects of statin therapy. Convincing patients that their muscle symptoms might be due to causes other than statin treatment is sometimes difficult. Furthermore, clinicians should not prematurely discontinue statin therapy before considering other possible causes, including the nocebo effect.     

Statins and muscle pain

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Statins remain among the most frequently prescribed drugs and constitute a cornerstone in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, muscle symptoms are often reported from patients on statins. Muscle symptoms are frequently reported as adverse events associated with statin therapy.

Areas covered: In the present narrative review, statin-associated muscle pain is discussed. It elucidates potential mechanisms and possible targets for management.

Expert opinion: In general, the evidence in support of muscle pain caused by statins is in some cases equivocal and not particularly strong. Reported symptoms are difficult to quantify. Rarely is it possible to establish a causal link between statins and muscle pain. In randomized controlled trials, statins are well tolerated, and muscle-pain related side-effects is similar to placebo. There are also nocebo effects of statins. Exchange of statin may be beneficial although all statins have been associated with muscle pain. In some patients reduction of dose is worth trying, especially in primary prevention Although the benefits of statins outweigh potential risks in the vast majority of cases, careful clinical judgment may be necessary in certain cases to manage potential side effects on an individual basis.     

Statin intolerance – an attempt at a unified definition. Position paper from an International Lipid Expert Panel

Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in clinical practice. They are usually well tolerated and effectively prevent cardiovascular events. Most adverse effects associated with statin therapy are muscle-related. The recent statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) has focused on statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), and avoided the use of the term ‘statin intolerance’. Although muscle syndromes are the most common adverse effects observed after statin therapy, excluding other side effects might underestimate the number of patients with statin intolerance, which might be observed in 10 – 15% of patients.

In clinical practice, statin intolerance limits effective treatment of patients at risk of, or with, cardiovascular disease. Knowledge of the most common adverse effects of statin therapy that might cause statin intolerance and the clear definition of this phenomenon is crucial to effectively treat patients with lipid disorders. Therefore, the aim of this position paper was to suggest a unified definition of statin intolerance, and to complement the recent EAS statement on SAMS, where the pathophysiology, diagnosis and the management were comprehensively presented.     

Statin intolerance – a question of definition

Introduction: Statin therapy is the backbone of pharmacologic therapy for low-density lipoproteins cholesterol lowering and plays a pivotal role in cardiovascular disease prevention. Statin intolerance is understood as the inability to continue using a statin to reduce individual cardiovascular risk sufficiently, due to the development of symptoms or laboratory abnormalities attributable to the initiation or dose escalation of a statin. Muscle symptoms are the most common side effects observed.

Areas covered: The main aim of this article is to present a review on published definitions of statin intolerance. In addition, a brief review on clinical aspects and risk factors of statin intolerance is provided and features for a common definition for statin intolerance are suggested.

Expert opinion: A definition of statin intolerance by major drug regulatory agencies is not available. In clinical studies, different definitions are chosen and results are not comparable; different medical associations do not agree on one common definition. There is an unmet need to establish a common definition of statin intolerance to ensure an appropriate clinical use of this important drug class. Further work is required to develop a consensus definition on statin intolerance that could have significant positive impact on both research and clinical management.     

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of dual therapy with fenofibrate or fenofibric acid and a statin versus a double or equivalent dose of statin monotherapy

Objective:

To assess the efficacy of fenofibrate and statin dual therapy versus a double or equivalent dose of statin monotherapy.

Methods:

A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was performed for publications before 1 January 2014 in MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS Previews, among others.

Results:

The difference in percentage change from baseline was in favor of dual therapy versus a double dose of statin monotherapy for triglycerides (difference ?20%; standard error [SE] 2.6%) and HDL-C (8.7%; SE 1.2%), but not for LDL-C (8.4%; SE 1.5%), non-HDL-C (2.8%; SE 1.1%), total cholesterol (4.5%; SE 1.0%) and apolipoprotein B (2.6%; SE 1.1%). For high intensity statins, the difference in percentage change from baseline was in favor of dual therapy versus equivalent statin monotherapy for triglycerides (?17%; SE 2.6%) and for HDL-C (8.7%; SE 1.9%). The difference in percentage change from baseline for LDL-C was 6% (SE 1.7%), implying a greater reduction in LDL-C with statin monotherapy. For moderate intensity statins, the difference in percentage change from baseline was in favor of dual therapy versus equivalent statin monotherapy for triglycerides (?24.2%; SE 1.2%) and HDL-C (8.2%; SE 0.9%). LDL-C decreased 2.2% (SE 1.4%) more with dual therapy.

Conclusions and implications of key findings:

When aiming to change HDL-C or triglycerides, dual therapy is to be preferred to doubling the statin dose; conversely, doubling the statin dose is to be preferred when aiming to reduce LDL-C. If the aim is both to change HDL-C or triglycerides and to reduce LDL-C, the importance of the three outcomes may need to be weighed depending on the intensity of the statin. Combining high intensity statin therapy with fenofibrate improves the effect on HDL-C and triglycerides, but lowers the effect on LDL-C. Combining a moderate intensity statin with fenofibrate improves the effect on HDL-C and triglycerides without reducing the effect on LDL-C. There is a need for long-term randomized clinical trials to compare dual therapy versus doubling the statin dose to assess the importance of improvement in HDL-C and triglycerides versus improvement in LDL-C in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Further, the addition of ezetimibe to statin/fenofibrate therapy may be of interest.     

Statins in patients with chronic kidney disease: why,who and when?

Importance of the field: Patients with end-stage renal disease are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, which is characterized by early onset and rapid progression of atherosclerosis. Some analyses of large clinical trials have revealed that statins might reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Preliminary studies have also suggested that they can reduce contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and the rate of loss of kidney function. However, the results concerning the efficacy and safety of statin therapy in patients with CKD, especially in those on renal replacement therapy, are still controversial.

Areas covered in this review: This review contains data on the atherosclerotic risk in patients with CKD; the role of statins in the reduction of CV risk in patients with CKD; the role of CIN; the effects of statins on retarding the progression of CKD; and the efficacy of statin therapy in CKD, dialysis and renal-transplant patients. We searched using the electronic databases [MEDLINE (1966 – June 2010), EMBASE and SCOPUS (1965 – June 2010), DARE (1966 – June 2010)]. Additionally, abstracts from national and international cardiovascular meetings were studied. Where necessary, the relevant authors of these studies were contacted to obtain further data. The main data search terms were: ‘statin/statins’, ‘dialysis’, ‘dyslipidemia’, ‘hemodialysis’, ‘kidney disease’, ‘microalbuminuria’, ‘clinical trials’, and ‘renal impairment’.

What the reader will gain: Readers will be acquainted with results of clinical trials, including the most recent ones (e.g., PLANETE I and II), and will be able to draw their own conclusions concerning the use of statins in CKD patients on the basis of the results of the studies presented and to compare them with the authors' suggestions presented in this review.

Take home message: Although the results of trials are conflicting, it is suggested that the benefits of statin use outweigh the drawbacks in patients with early-stage CKD, when the benefits can be effectively predicted. However, available large randomized clinical trials suggest a lack of efficacy in patients on renal replacement therapy.     

Perioperative statin therapy

Introduction: The lipid lowering class of drugs known as “Statins” are being increasing recognized for their pleiotropic effects which include anti-inflammation, antioxidant, vasodilatation, improved endothelial function and stabilization of atherosclerotic plaques. These effects may counteract, to some extent, the deleterious impact of surgical stress on various organ systems during the perioperative period.

Areas covered: A literature review was undertaken to examine current evidence for the effect of perioperative statin use on postoperative morbidity and mortality. A search of PubMed, Medline and Scopus databases was performed using a combination of search terms including statins and perioperative risk reduction, outcomes, morbidity and mortality. Further searches were made on specific areas such as statins and thrombosis, kidney injury, renal protection, cancer, cost and safety.

Expert opinion: Current evidence supports a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with perioperative statin use in high risk patients undergoing non cardiac surgery and this represents a very cost effective application of statin therapy with few adverse events reported. Data is emerging that point to other benefits such as renal protection but this requires further confirmation from prospective studies. Future research needs to address the questions of the optimal type, timing and dosage of statin therapy as well as whether there are problems associated with abrupt withdrawal and adverse effects associated with long term use.     

Statins worsen glycemic control of T2DM in target LDL-c level and LDL-c reduction dependent manners: a meta-analysis

Objective: Recent studies demonstrated that a low target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) level, high LDL-c reduction and high dose of statin therapy increased incident diabetes. This study aimed to explore how statin therapy influences glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized control trials inT2DM. Trials with target LDL-c levels of ≤2.6 mmol/L or LDL-c reduction of ≥30% were analyzed. Then, we calculated mean differences in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose via stratified LDL-c level, relative LDL-c reduction and statin dose.

Results: In total, trials involving 6,875 participants (3,619 statins, 3,256 controls) were included. Meta-analysis showed that detrimental effect of intensive LDL-c lowering statin therapy on HbA1c (SMD 0.10%; 95% CI 0.05, 0.15; p = 0.000) was more severe than all statin trials analyzed together (SMD 0.07%; 95% CI 0.02, 0.12; p = 0.005). Stratified analyses revealed that the effects on HbA1c became increasingly significant as target LDL-c level decreased and LDL-c reduction increased. Low baseline LDL-c and endpoint LDL-c levels were risk factors involved in increasing HbA1c level during statin therapy.

Conclusions: Statin therapy worsens the glycemic control of T2DM in target LDL-c level and LDL-c reduction dependent manners.     

LDL-C reductions and goal attainment among naive statin users in the Netherlands: real life results*

ABSTRACT

Objective: The effectiveness of statin therapy in a real life setting may differ from that in clinical trials, as physicians make non-randomised treatment decisions for patients with less uniform and possibly different characteristics. We therefore performed a study to compare the effectiveness of different statins and doses in routine clinical practice with respect to total serum cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction and goal attainment according to European guidelines on the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Research design and methods: Naive statin users starting treatment in 2003 and 2004 with LDL-C measurements at baseline and between 30 and 365 days after start of treatment were extracted from the PHARMO database. During treatment with their initial statin dose LDL-C reduction and attainment of cholesterol goals were compared between different statins and doses.

Results: Of 2303 identified naive patients, approximately 30% were allocated to the high CVD-risk group. Average LDL-C reductions were 48%, 42%, 39%, and 32% at mean doses of 11 mg rosuvastatin, 17 mg atorvastatin, 22 mg simvastatin and 35 mg pravastatin, respectively. The proportion of patients attaining cholesterol goals was 75% for rosuvastatin, 68% for atorvastatin, 56% for simvastatin, and 42% for pravastatin. Dose comparisons showed greater LDL-C reduction and increased goal attainment for rosuvastatin 10 mg compared to other statins at most doses (adjusted p < 0.05).

Conclusions: In a real life setting, both LDL-C reduction and the proportion of patients attaining cholesterol goals appear to be significantly increased among users of rosuvastatin compared to other statins. These results confirm and extend reported clinical trial results to a real world setting.     

ETC-1002 (Bempedoic acid) for the management of hyperlipidemia: from preclinical studies to phase 3 trials

Introduction: Tolerability problems in treating hypercholesterolemic patients undergoing statin treatment are of growing concern to physicians and patients, thus underlining the need for an agent with a similar mechanism but minimal side effects. A drug with a somewhat similar mechanism to statins but free of muscular side effects is ETC-1002 (bempedoic acid). It inhibits cholesterol biosynthesis at a step preceding HMG-CoA reductase, i.e. ATP citrate lyase (ACLY). A prodrug, ETC-1002 is converted to the active agent only in liver, not in skeletal muscle, and this may prevent any myotoxic activity.

Area covered: The mechanism of ETC-1002 activity is described in detail, considering that ACLY inhibition markedly attenuated atherosclerosis in animal models. Clinical studies are also reported. Expert opinion: Present day LDL-C lowering treatments lead to significant reductions of cardiovascular (CV) events but, at times, the need to interrupt statin treatment appears to be dangerous due to a rapid rise in CV risk. The excellent tolerability of ETC-1002 makes it a useful alternative, either alone or as an adjunct to ezetimibe, for patients with statin intolerance needing to achieve significant CV risk reduction. ETC-1002 is also associated with a marked fall in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.     

Effect of ezetimibe in patients who cannot tolerate statins or cannot get to the low density lipoprotein cholesterol target despite taking a statin

ABSTRACT

Background: Recent guidelines underline the need for high-risk patients to reach strict low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL?C) targets (1.8–2.6?mmol/L; 70–100?mg/dL), and specifically mention the possible use of combination therapy (e.g. statin + ezetimibe) to achieve these goals.

Methods: A retrospective case-note audit was carried out to assess the response to administering ezetimibe in patients unable to tolerate statins (Group 1), or high dose of statins (Group 2) and patients who cannot achieve the LDL?C target (2.6?mmol/L; 100?mg/dL) despite taking a statin (Group 3).

Results: Ezetimibe lowered LDL?C levels by 20–29% across the 3 patient groups after 2–3 months of treatment. High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL?C) levels tended to remain unchanged, although there was a consistent trend for a fall if baseline values were ‘high’. However, the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio changed significantly and favourably in all groups. The fall in fasting triglyceride levels in all groups was greater (reaching 19–25%) when baseline levels were ≥ 1.5 or 1.7?mmol/L (136–150?mg/dL). There were no marked abnormalities in liver function tests or creatine kinase activity. In Group 3 there was a significant trend for a fall in serum creatinine levels across the tertiles of baseline creatinine values.

Limitations of the present study include the small sample size (especially in Groups 1 and 2), its short-term duration and the absence of event-based end-points. Therefore, the results are hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive.

Conclusions: When used alone or added to a statin, ezetimibe favourably altered the LDL?C/HDL?C ratio and lowered triglyceride levels. Ezetimibe was well tolerated in patients with statin intolerance and was associated with a 26% fall in LDL?C. An additional action may be some degree of improved renal function. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.     

Lipid-lowering agents for concurrent cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) frequently co-exists with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with concomitant CVD and CKD are at very high risk of CVD events.

Areas covered: This narrative review discusses the use of hypolipidaemic drugs in patients with both CVD and CKD. Current guidelines are considered together with the evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials.

Expert opinion: Statins are the first-line lipid-lowering therapy in patients with CVD and CKD. Some statins require dose adjustments based on renal function, whereas atorvastatin does not. Ezetimibe can be prescribed in patients with CVD and CKD, usually combined with a statin. According to current guidelines, statin±ezetimibe therapy should not be initiated, but should be continued, in dialysis-treated CKD patients. Fenofibrate (dose adjusted or contra-indicated according to renal function) and omega 3 fatty acids lower triglyceride levels; whether they also exert cardiorenal benefits in patients with CVD and CKD remains to be established. The use of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, cholesterol-reducing nutraceuticals, bempedoic acid and apabetalone in such patients should be investigated. Patients with concomitant CVD and CKD should be treated, in terms of lipid-lowering therapy, early and intensively to minimize their very high risk and possibly, progression of CKD.     

Early vascular benefits of statin therapy

SUMMARY

Large-scale trials established that statin administration in hypercholesterolaemic individuals and patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) significantly reduces the risk of vascular events and death. This benefit was primarily attributed to their actions on lipids. This review focuses on the benefits (clinical and experimental) of statins observed soon (approximately 12 weeks) after their administration.

Statins rapidly increase nitric oxide production and improve endothelial function (e.g. increased flow-mediated dilatation). Similarly, antioxidant properties decrease the susceptibility of low density lipoprotein cholesterol to oxidation. Statins inhibit the migration of macrophages and smooth muscle cell proliferation leading to an antiproliferative effect and the stabilisation of atherosclerotic plaques. Anti-inflammatory effects include a reduction in serum C-reactive protein levels, inflammatory and proinflammatory cytokines (e.g. IL-6, IL-8), adhesion molecules (e.g. ICAM-1, VCAM-1) and other acute phase proteins. Statins influence the haemostatic system. They reduce tissue factor expression and platelet activity, whereas fibrinolysis can be enhanced. Statins improve microalbuminuria, renal function, hypertension and arterial wall stiffness. A significant reduction of the carotid intima media thickness (IMT) was also reported early after statin treatment.

These early effects of statins probably contribute to the significant reduction in vascular events seen in some 'short-term' studies. There is a need to further elucidate the rapid and non-lipid-lowering properties of statins.     

Effects of statins on all-cause mortality at different low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol levels in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To investigate the effects of statins on all-cause mortality risk at different low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, and to compare the mortality risk between statin users and non-users with identical LDL-C levels in a type 2 diabetes cohort.

Methods: In total, 10,582 outpatients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) between 2009 and 2012 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study in central Taiwan. All-cause mortality events were followed up until the end of 2014. According to the medical records during the follow-up period, the patients were classified into statin (+) and statin (?) groups. Patients were categorized into different LDL-C segments based on their mean LDL-C levels during the 2.8-year follow-up.

Results: Non-cardiovascular mortality accounted for more than half the deaths. Overall, statin therapy significantly reduced the all-cause mortality risk in both univariable and multivariable models (hazard ratios?=?0.39 and 0.38, respectively). Sub-group analyses showed that the lowest mortality risk occurred in the 80–89?mg/dL segment in the statin (?) group and in the 90–99?mg/dL segment in the statin (+) group. Statin therapy significantly reduced the mortality risk at all LDL-C levels except for low LDL-C (<60?mg/dL).

Conclusions: In addition to reducing LDL-C levels, statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality risk in Taiwanese patients with T2DM. Statins further reduced the mortality risk at most LDL levels. However, at low LDL-C levels, the positive effects of statins may have been nullified.