Assessing the effect of high-dose rosuvastatin in elderly patients over 75 with acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUNDS AND OBJECTIVE: Statins, inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, are pivotal in managing hypercholesterolemia and reducing cardiovascular risk. While rosuvastatin demonstrates superior efficacy and tolerability compared to other statins, its safety profile in elderly patients older than 75 years old with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains underexplored. So, the objective of this study is to evaluate the frequency of adverse reactions and investigate the efficacy of high-dose rosuvastatin on lipid profiles in elderly patients aged over 75 with ACS. METHODS: In this observational study, 110 consecutive elderly ACS patients attending Modarres Hospital in Tehran, Iran, in 2019 were enrolled. The effects of high-dose rosuvastatin were assessed in elderly patients older than 75 years old by comparison of the adverse effects, lipid profile, cardiac function, and other biomarkers at the baseline and after 6 weeks of rosuvastatin therapy with a dose of 40 mg. RESULTS: Following 6 weeks of treatment, there was a significant reduction in total cholesterol (136.2 ± 24.3 to 115.5 ± 24.0, p = 0.001) and LDL levels (72.6 ± 17.5 to 50.9 ± 18.9, p = 0.001), accompanied by a notable increase in HDL levels (38.3 ± 7.1 to 47.2 ± 7.4, p = 0.001). Cardiac function, as measured by ejection fraction (EF), significantly improved from 43.4 ± 8.8 to 48.5 ± 8.5 (p = 0.001). Adverse effects such as cramps (N = 12, p = 0.001), weakness (N = 28, p = 0.001), and anorexia (N = 12, p = 0.001) were reported but did not warrant discontinuation of therapy. Notably, no cases of jaundice were observed. Two deaths occurred due to major adverse cardiac events (MACE) during the study period, unrelated to stroke or recurrent myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: Totally, high-dose rosuvastatin therapy effectively improved lipid profiles, cardiac function, and liver enzyme levels in elderly ACS patients, with manageable adverse effects. These findings underscore the importance of rosuvastatin in optimizing cardiovascular health in this vulnerable population.

Different diabetogenic effect of statins according to intensity and dose in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a nationwide cohort study.

Statin is crucial for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. However, the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) associated with statin is a concern. This study aimed to determine the incremental diabetogenic effects of statins according to their intensity and dose in AMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Among 13,104 patients enrolled in the Korea AMI Registry between 2011 and 2015, 6152 patients without diabetes mellitus (DM) who underwent PCI and received moderate-to-high-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were selected for the study. The endpoints were NODM and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and revascularization up to 3 years. Among the participants, 3747 and 2405 received moderate- and high-intensity statins, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a higher incidence of NODM in patients with high-intensity statins than those with moderate-intensity. High-intensity statin was a significant predictor of NODM after adjusting for other co-variables (HR = 1.316, 95% CI 1.024-1.692; P < 0.032). Higher dose of rosuvastatin was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of NODM, but this dose-dependency was not apparent with atorvastatin. Cumulative incidence of MACE decreased dose-dependently only with atorvastatin. High-intensity statin was associated with a higher cumulative incidence of NODM in AMI patients, and this association was more evident in rosuvastatin. The different diabetogenic effects of the two statins provide supporting evidence for understanding the nuanced nature of statin treatment in relation to NODM.

Effect of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus in patients treated with high-intensity statin therapy for coronary artery disease: a post-hoc analysis from the LODESTAR randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) among patients treated with high-intensity statin therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) remains to be clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of NODM in patients with CAD treated with rosuvastatin compared to atorvastatin in the randomized LODESTAR trial. METHODS: In the LODESTAR trial, patients with CAD were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin or atorvastatin using a 2-by-2 factorial randomization. In this post-hoc analysis, the 3-year incidence of NODM was compared between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin treatment in the as-treated population with high-intensity statin therapy as the principal population of interest. RESULTS: Among 2932 patients without diabetes mellitus at baseline, 2377 were included in the as-treated population analysis. In the as-treated population with high-intensity statin therapy, the incidence of NODM was not significantly different between the rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups (11.4% [106/948] versus 8.8% [73/856], hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98 to 1.77, P = 0.071). When the risk of NODM with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin was assessed according to the achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level, the risk of NODM began to increase at a LDL-C level below 70 mg/dL. The incidence of NODM was significantly greater in the rosuvastatin group than it was in the atorvastatin group when the achieved LDL-C level was < 70 mg/dL (13.9% versus 8.0%; HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.73, P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among CAD patients receiving high-intensity statin therapy, the incidence of NODM was not significantly different between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. However, a drug effect of the statin type on NODM was observed when the achieved LDL-C level was < 70 mg/dL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02579499.

Efficacy and safety of topical rosuvastatin & melatonin vs. placebo in patients with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis: A preliminary randomized double-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Considering the pathogenesis of psoriasis and also the anti-oxidant, immunomodulatory, and anti-inflammatory properties of rosuvastatin and melatonin, the current clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of topical rosuvastatin and melatonin in patients with mild to moderate psoriasis. METHODS: The current randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted using a 3-arm parallel group included 77 adult patients (≥18 years old) with mild to moderate plaque psoriasis. Patients were randomized into a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups to receive one of the three interventions: melatonin cream, 5.0% (w/w), rosuvastatin cream, 5.0% (w/w), or placebo cream with a similar transparent appearance twice a day for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was severity of the disease using Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI). The secondary outcomes included the Dermatological Sum Score (DSS) to assess the erythema, scaling, and plaque elevation and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). Photographs of the lesions were also taken at the baseline and at different periodic intervals thereafter. RESULTS: Among 77 randomized patients, 52 (mean (SD) age, 40.67 (10.85) years; 22 (42.30%) men) completed the study. A significant reduction of 45% (mean (SD) of 2.67 (0.98) to 1.74 (1.12)) and 70% (mean (SD) of 2.67 (0.98) to 1.31 (1.13)) in PASI score, and 46% (mean (SD) of 2.91(1.85) to 1.57 (1.11)) and 77% (mean (SD) of 2.91 (1.85) to 0.87 (0.67)) in DSS score on days 30 and 60 with rosuvastatin cream, 5% w/w (P < 0.001) compared with baseline was observed, respectively. Also a significant decrease of 35% (mean (SD) of 2.67 (0.98) to 1.74 (1.12)) and 51% (mean (SD) of 2.67 (0.98) to 1.31 (1.13)) in PASI score, and 40% (mean (SD) of 5.00 (1.58) to 3.00 (1.76))and 61% (mean (SD) of 5.00 (1.58) to 1.92 (1.71)) in DSS score on days 30 and 60 with melatonin cream, 5% w/w (P < 0.001) compared with baseline were observed, respectively. In each of the melatonin or rosuvastatin groups, DLQI improved significantly on days 30 (P < 0.0001) and 60 (P < 0.001) while the changes in the control group were not significant. CONCLUSION: The results of this clinical trial demonstrated that topical melatonin and rosuvastatin diminished the severity of mild to moderate plaque psoriasis with a satisfactory safety profile. Future clinical trials should assess both the long-term efficacy and safety of melatonin and rosuvastatin creams in larger study populations.

Comparative effects of pravastatin and rosuvastatin on carbohydrate metabolism in an experimental diabetic rat model.

Statin treatment may increase the risk of diabetes; there is insufficient data on how statins affect glucose regulation and glycemic control and the effects of statins on liver enzymes related to carbohydrate metabolism have not been fully studied. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of the statin derivatives, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin, on carbohydrate metabolism in an experimental diabetic rat model. Female Wistar albino rats were used and diabetes was induced by intraperitoneal injection of streptozotocin. Thereafter, 10 and 20 mg kg-1 day-1 doses of both pravastatin and rosuvastatin were administered by oral gavage to the diabetic rats for 8 weeks. At the end of the experiment, body masses, the levels of fasting blood glucose, serum insulin, insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), liver glycogen, and liver enzymes related to carbohydrate metabolism were measured. Both doses of pravastatin significantly in creased the body mass in diabetic rats, however, rosuvastatin, especially at the dose of 20 mg kg-1 day-1 reduced the body mass signi ficantly. Pravastatin, especially at a dose of 20 mg kg-1 day-1, caused significant increases in liver glycogen synthase and glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase levels but significant decreases in the levels of glycogen phosphorylase, lactate dehydrogenase, and glucose-6-phosphatase. Hence, pravastatin partially ameliorated the adverse changes in liver enzymes caused by diabetes and, especially at the dose of 20 mg kg-1 day-1, reduced the fasting blood glucose level and increased the liver glycogen content. However, rosuvastatin, especially at the dose of 20 mg kg-1 day-1, significantly reduced the liver glycogen synthase and pyruvate kinase levels, but increased the glycogen phosphorylase level in diabetic rats. Rosuvastatin, 20 mg kg-1 day-1 dose, caused significant decreases in the body mass and the liver glycogen content of diabetic rats. It can be concluded that pravastatin, especially at the dose of 20 mg kg-1 day-1 is more effective in ameliorating the negative effects of diabetes by modulating carbohydrate metabolism.

Pharmacokinetic and Safety Comparison of Fixed-Dose Combination of Cilostazol/Rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg) Versus Concurrent Administration of the Separate Components in Healthy Adults.

The combined cilostazol and rosuvastatin therapy is frequently used for coronary artery disease treatment. This open-label, 3 × 3 crossover clinical trial evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of cilostazol/rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg) versus a concurrent administration of the separate components (SCs) under both fasted and fed conditions. Among 48 enrolled healthy adults, 38 completed the study. Participants were administered a single oral dose of cilostazol/rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg), either as an FDC or SCs in a fasted state, or FDC in a fed state, in each period of the trial. Blood samples were taken up to 48 hours after dosing, and plasma concentrations were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The geometric mean ratios of FDC to SCs for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were 0.94/1.05 and 1.06/1.15 for cilostazol and rosuvastatin, respectively (AUClast/Cmax). Compared with that during fasting, fed-state administration increased the AUClast and Cmax for cilostazol by approximately 72% and 160% and decreased these parameters for rosuvastatin by approximately 39% and 43%, respectively. To conclude, the FDC is bioequivalent to the SCs, with notable differences in pharmacokinetics when administered in a fed state. No significant safety differences were observed between the treatments.

Statin-related neurocognitive disorder: a real-world pharmacovigilance study based on the FDA adverse event reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding statin-related neurocognitive disorders have emerged in recent years. However, previous studies have reported inconsistent results. We evaluated the association between statins and neurocognitive disorders using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 2004 to 2022 were obtained from the FAERS database. After deduplication and standardization of drug names, we extracted neurocognitive disorder event (NCDE) cases reported with statins as the suspected drugs. The significant association between statins and NCDE was evaluated using the reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component. RESULTS: In total, 6,959 NCDE cases with statins as the primary suspected drugs were identified. Signals were detected in pravastatin (ROR, 1.49; 95% CI: 1.32-1.67), atorvastatin (ROR, 1.39; 95% CI: 1.34-1.44), and simvastatin (ROR, 1.31; 95% CI: 1.25-1.38). Age-stratified analysis showed that (1) in the population aged 65 years and older, signals were detected for atorvastatin, simvastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, and pitavastatin; and (2) in populations under 65 years of age, signals were detected for atorvastatin, simvastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, and lovastatin. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a significant association between the NCDE and statins, including atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin. The intensity of the association increased with age.

With the extensive use of statins worldwide in recent years, some patients have reported that statins lead to cognitive impairment. Researchers have conducted studies on this issue; however, the results have been inconsistent. Some believe that statins have no impact on cognitive function, while others believe they are beneficial, and others believe they have negative effects.To further investigate this issue, we analyzed data from the FDA adverse event reporting system, which collects adverse drug reactions reported by people worldwide, to evaluate the association between statins and cognitive impairment. Our findings suggest that some statins are associated with cognitive impairment. Therefore, when cognitive changes occur in patients taking statins, they should be taken seriously.

Rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury potentiated by a drug-drug interaction between cyclosporine, leflunomide, and rosuvastatin in a kidney transplant recipient: A missed opportunity for pharmacist involvement.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe a case of rhabdomyolysis and acute kidney injury potentiated by a drug-drug interaction (DDI) between cyclosporine, leflunomide, and rosuvastatin in a kidney transplant recipient. CASE SUMMARY: A 74-year-old male with end-stage kidney disease secondary to type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension received a deceased by cardiac death kidney transplant. The patient's medical history included coronary artery disease and hyperlipidemia for which he was receiving rosuvastatin 40 mg daily. Five months after transplant, the patient developed BK viremia, which required multiple changes in immunosuppression and resulted in the initiation of leflunomide and cyclosporine modified. The patient used multiple pharmacies and coupon cards that delayed the identification of the DDIs between leflunomide, cyclosporine, and rosuvastatin. Approximately, 13 months after transplant, the biopsy report of the patient's allograft kidney showed acute cellular rejection Banff IB, hypertensive changes, and transplant glomerulopathy. This prompted the patient to receive a 3-day course of methylprednisolone 250 mg intravenous at the outpatient infusion center. Two weeks later, the patient presented to the transplant clinic with lightheadedness, dizziness, weakness, fatigue, bilateral eye drainage, and a decrease in appetite and was admitted to the hospital for further workup. On admission, creatine kinase was 2080 IU/L with myoglobin of 7601 ng/mL. The patient's diagnosis was statin myopathy with possible rhabdomyolysis acute kidney injury. Likely contributing factors included cyclosporine, leflunomide, and rosuvastatin DDI and administration of high-dose methylprednisolone. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This case demonstrates the importance of pharmacist involvement throughout all phases of care in a kidney transplant recipient.

The Efficacy and Safety of Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin with Ezetimibe versus High-Intensity Rosuvastatin in High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open, Parallel, Phase 4 Study.

BACKGRUOUND: To investigate the efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination compared to highintensity rosuvastatin in high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This study was a randomized, multicenter, open, parallel phase 4 study, and enrolled T2DM subjects with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. The primary endpoint was the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) change rate after 24-week rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg treatment was non-inferior to that of rosuvastatin 20 mg. The achievement proportion of 10-year ASCVD risk <7.5% or comprehensive lipid target (LDL-C <70 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and apolipoprotein B <80 mg/dL) without discontinuation, and several metabolic parameters were explored as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A hundred and six participants were assigned to each group. Both groups showed significant reduction in % change of LDL-C from baseline at week 24 (-63.90±6.89 vs. -55.44±6.85, combination vs. monotherapy, p=0.0378; respectively), but the combination treatment was superior to high-intensity monotherapy in LDL-C change (%) from baseline (least square [LS] mean difference, -8.47; 95% confidence interval, -16.44 to -0.49; p=0.0378). The combination treatment showed a higher proportion of achieved comprehensive lipid targets rather than monotherapy (85.36% vs. 62.22% in monotherapy, p=0.015). The ezetimibe combination significantly improved homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function even without A1c changes (LS mean difference, 17.13; p=0.0185). CONCLUSION: In high ASCVD risk patients with T2DM, the combination of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was not only non-inferior but also superior to improving dyslipidemia with additional benefits compared to high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe vs high-intensity statin according to baseline LDL-C in the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A post-hoc analysis of the RACING randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whether the effect of a combination strategy rather than increasing doses of one drug to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels is consistent across baseline LDL-C levels remains uncertain. METHODS: In the RACING trial, which showed a non-inferiority of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) to high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) for the primary outcome (3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular event, or stroke), the heterogeneity in treatment effect according to baseline LDL-C levels was assessed for the primary and secondary outcomes (clinical efficacy and safety). RESULTS: Of 3780 participants, 2817 participants (74.5%) had LDL-C <100 mg/dL, and 963 participants (25.5%) had LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. The treatment effect of combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy was similar among the lower LDL-C subset (8.8% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.08, p = 0.19) and the higher LDL-C subset (10.8% vs. 9.6 %; HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.7, p = 0.53) without a significant interaction (interaction p = 0.22). Of the secondary outcomes, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL was greater in the combination therapy group regardless of baseline LDL-C levels. CONCLUSIONS: Among ASCVD patients, there was no heterogeneity in the effect of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy in the higher and lower baseline LDL-C levels for the 3-year composite of cardiovascular outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety of a Single-Pill Triple Combination of Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Rosuvastatin in Hypertensive Patients with Low-to-Moderate Cardiovascular Risk: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Active-Control, Phase IV Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single-pill triple-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin (Olme/Amlo/Rosu) in comparison with a single-pill dual-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine (Olme/Amlo) in hypertensive patients with low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This multicenter, active-control, randomized study included 106 hypertensive patients at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk who were randomly assigned to receive either Olme/Amlo/Rosu 20/5/5 mg (Treatment 1), Olme/Amlo/Rosu 20/5/10 mg (Treatment 2), or Amlo/Olme 20/5 mg (Control) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference of the percent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at 8 weeks from baseline in the 3 groups. RESULTS: The difference in the least square mean percent change (standard deviation) of LDL-C in the Treatment 1 and 2 groups compared with the Control group at 8 weeks was -32.6 (3.7) % and -45.9 (3.3) %, respectively (P < .001). The achievement rates of LDL-C level <100 mg/dL at 8 weeks were significantly different between the 3 groups (65.8%, 86.7%, and 6.3% for Treatment 1, 2, and Control groups, respectively, P < .001). The results of total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 were superior in the Treatment 1 and 2 groups compared with the Control group. Serious adverse drug reaction did not occur in the 3 groups. Medication adherence rates were excellent in the 3 groups (98.0% for Treatment 1 group, 99.7% for Treatment 2 group, and 96.3% for the Control group, P > .05). CONCLUSION: Single-pill triple-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin was superior to the single-pill dual-combination of amlodipine/olmesartan in LDLC-lowering effects, with excellent safety profiles and adherence rates, in hypertensive patients at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk.Trial Registration: CLinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04120753.

Rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the randomised LODESTAR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long term efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin treatment in adults with coronary artery disease. DESIGN: Randomised, open label, multicentre trial. SETTING: 12 hospitals in South Korea, September 2016 to November 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 4400 adults (age ≥19 years) with coronary artery disease. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were assigned to receive either rosuvastatin (n=2204) or atorvastatin (n=2196) using 2×2 factorial randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a three year composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularisation. Secondary outcomes were safety endpoints: new onset diabetes mellitus; hospital admissions due to heart failure; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary thromboembolism; endovascular revascularisation for peripheral artery disease; aortic intervention or surgery; end stage kidney disease; discontinuation of study drugs owing to intolerance; cataract surgery; and a composite of laboratory detected abnormalities. RESULTS: 4341 of the 4400 participants (98.7%) completed the trial. Mean daily dose of study drugs was 17.1 mg (standard deviation (SD) 5.2 mg) in the rosuvastatin group and 36.0 (12.8) mg in the atorvastatin group at three years (P<0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 189 participants (8.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and 178 (8.2%) in the atorvastatin group (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.30; P=0.58). The mean low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level during treatment was 1.8 mmol/L (SD 0.5 mmol/L) in the rosuvastatin group and 1.9 (0.5) mmol/L in the atorvastatin group (P<0.001). The rosuvastatin group had a higher incidence of new onset diabetes mellitus requiring initiation of antidiabetics (7.2% v 5.3%; hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.87; P=0.03) and cataract surgery (2.5% v 1.5%; 1.66, 1.07 to 2.58; P=0.02). Other safety endpoints did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with coronary artery disease, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin showed comparable efficacy for the composite outcome of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any coronary revascularisation at three years. Rosuvastatin was associated with lower LDL cholesterol levels but a higher risk of new onset diabetes mellitus requiring antidiabetics and cataract surgery compared with atorvastatin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02579499.

Ribociclib may potentiate rosuvastatin effect in causing late onset rhabdomyolysis.

A woman in her 50s with metastatic hormone receptor positive breast cancer developed rhabdomyolysis and subsequent acute kidney injury while on a combination of ribociclib and rosuvastatin therapy. She had been taking both medications long term and had recently recommenced her ribociclib at her usual dose after a routine 1 week break. Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors have been implicated in causing rhabdomyolysis by potentiating statin effect by way of inhibition of cytochrome P450 enzymatic action and decreasing hepatic membrane transporter function. This is the first case in which the combination of ribociclib and rosuvastatin has been shown to cause this adverse effect. It is also one of the first to demonstrate this effect occurring years after commencement of therapy. Continued vigilance for this side effect should be maintained long term.

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia.

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Real-world pharmacogenetics of statin intolerance: effects of SLCO1B1, ABCG2 , and CYP2C9 variants.

OBJECTIVE: The association of SLCO1B1 c.521T>C with simvastatin-induced muscle toxicity is well characterized. However, different statins are subject to metabolism and transport also by other proteins exhibiting clinically meaningful genetic variation. Our aim was to investigate associations of SLCO1B1 c.521T>C with intolerance to atorvastatin, fluvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, or simvastatin, those of ABCG2 c.421C>A with intolerance to atorvastatin, fluvastatin, or rosuvastatin, and that of CYP2C9*2 and *3 alleles with intolerance to fluvastatin. METHODS: We studied the associations of these variants with statin intolerance in 2042 patients initiating statin therapy by combining genetic data from samples from the Helsinki Biobank to clinical chemistry and statin purchase data. RESULTS: We confirmed the association of SLCO1B1 c.521C/C genotype with simvastatin intolerance both by using phenotype of switching initial statin to another as a marker of statin intolerance [hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-3.25, P  = 0.025] and statin switching along with creatine kinase measurement (HR 5.44, 95% CI 1.49-19.9, P  = 0.011). No significant association was observed with atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. The sample sizes for fluvastatin and pravastatin were relatively small, but SLCO1B1 c.521T>C carriers had an increased risk of pravastatin intolerance defined by statin switching when compared to homozygous reference T/T genotype (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.01-4.39, P  = 0.047). CONCLUSION: The current results can inform pharmacogenetic statin prescribing guidelines and show feasibility for the methodology to be used in larger future studies.