The association between statin use and diabetic nephropathy in US adults: data from NHANES 2005 - 2018.

Background: A serious consequence of diabetes is diabetic nephropathy (DN), which is commonly treated by statins. Studies evaluating the effects of statin medication have yielded inconsistent results regarding the potential association with diabetic nephropathy. To manage diabetic nephropathy's onset and improve the quality of life of patients, it is imperative to gain a comprehensive understanding of its contributing factors. Data and methods: Our study was conducted using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) as well as weighted multivariate logistic regression models to determine the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for diabetic nephropathy. We conducted stratified analyses to examine the impact of statins and the duration of their usage on diabetic nephropathy in different subgroups. A nomogram model and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were also developed to predict DN risk. Results: Statin use significantly increased the incidence of DN (OR=1.405, 95%CI (1.199,1.647), p<0.001). Individuals who used statins for 5 to 7 years were more likely to develop diabetic nephropathy (OR=1.472, 95%CI (1.057,2.048), p=0.022) compared to those who used statins for 1-3 years (OR=1.334, 95%CI (1.058,1.682), p=0.015) or <1 year (OR=1.266, 95%CI (1.054,1.522), p = 0.012). Simvastatin has a greater incidence of diabetic nephropathy (OR=1.448, 95%CI(1.177, 1.78), P < 0.001). Conclusion: Taking statins long-term increases the risk of DN. Statin use is associated with an increased risk of DN. Caution should be exercised when prescribing atorvastatin and simvastatin for long-term statin therapy.

Comparison of the pleiotropic effect of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on postmenopausal changes in bone turnover: A randomized comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Statins are the first-line treatment for dyslipidemia, which is a major modifiable risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Studies have shown that in addition to the beneficial lipid-lowering effect, statins also exhibit a number of pleiotropic effects that may find application in other diseases, including osteoporosis. This study aimed to assess the effect of statins on bone turnover, as measured by the concentration of bone turnover markers, and to compare the effect of atorvastatin as a lipophilic statin and rosuvastatin as a hydrophilic statin. METHODS: This study included 34 postmenopausal women aged < 65 years with newly diagnosed dyslipidemia requiring statin therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a statin drug. Statins were initiated at standard doses of 5 to 10 mg of rosuvastatin and 20 mg of atorvastatin. The levels of C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen as a bone resorption marker and N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I as a marker of bone formation, lipid concentrations and other biochemical parameters were assessed at baseline and after 6 and twelve months of treatment. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the levels of bone turnover markers before and 6 months after statin implementation (P > .05) - for all patients or subgroups according to statin use. Analysis of the results showed that after 12 months, there was a statistically significant decrease in N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I concentration in all subjects (P = .004). By statin subgroup, a statistically significant decrease in N-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I was observed only in patients receiving rosuvastatin (P = .012) and not in those receiving atorvastatin (P = .25). Moreover, changes in bone turnover markers did not correlate with changes in lipid concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: These results may indicate the superiority of atorvastatin over rosuvastatin in inhibiting adverse changes in bone turnover in postmenopausal women. Confirmed by studies involving a larger population, the observed differences might find particular applications in clinical practice, and the choice of atorvastatin over rosuvastatin for women could be considered in the early postmenopausal period to reduce the risk of osteoporosis and subsequent osteoporotic fractures.

Potential impact of blood cholesterol guidelines on statin treatment in the U.S. population using interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline was a paradigm shift in lipid management and identified the four statin-benefit groups. Many have studied the guideline's potential impact, but few have investigated its potential long-term impact on MACE. Furthermore, most studies also ignored the confounding effect from the earlier release of generic atorvastatin in Dec 2011. METHODS: To evaluate the potential (long-term) impact of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline release in Nov 2013 in the U.S., we investigated the association of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline with the trend changes in 5-Year MACE survival and three other statin-related outcomes (statin use, optimal statin use, and statin adherence) while controlling for generic atorvastatin availability using interrupted time series analysis, called the Chow's test. Specifically, we conducted a retrospective study using U.S. nationwide de-identified claims and electronic health records from Optum Labs Database Warehouse (OLDW) to follow the trends of 5-Year MACE survival and statin-related outcomes among four statin-benefit groups that were identified in the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline. Then, Chow's test was used to discern trend changes between generic atorvastatin availability and guideline potential impact. RESULTS: 197,021 patients were included (ASCVD: 19,060; High-LDL: 33,907; Diabetes: 138,159; High-ASCVD-Risk: 5,895). After the guideline release, the long-term trend (slope) of 5-Year MACE Survival for the Diabetes group improved significantly (P = 0.002). Optimal statin use for the ASCVD group also showed immediate improvement (intercept) and long-term positive changes (slope) after the release (P < 0.001). Statin uses did not have significant trend changes and statin adherence remained unchanged in all statin-benefit groups. Although no other statistically significant trend changes were found, overall positive trend change or no changes were observed after the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline release. CONCLUSIONS: The 2013 ACA/AHA Guideline release is associated with trend improvements in the long-term MACE Survival for Diabetes group and optimal statin use for ASCVD group. These significant associations might indicate a potential positive long-term impact of the 2013 ACA/AHA Guideline on better health outcomes for primary prevention groups and an immediate potential impact on statin prescribing behaviors in higher-at-risk groups. However, further investigation is required to confirm the causal effect of the 2013 ACA/AHA Guideline.

Statins as anti-tumor agents: A paradigm for repurposed drugs.

BACKGROUND: Statins, frequently prescribed medications, work by inhibiting the rate-limiting enzyme HMG-CoA reductase (HMGCR) in the mevalonate pathway to reduce cholesterol levels. Due to their multifaceted benefits, statins are being adapted for use as cost-efficient, safe and effective anti-cancer treatments. Several studies have shown that specific types of cancer are responsive to statin medications since they rely on the mevalonate pathway for their growth and survival. RECENT FINDINGS: Statin are a class of drugs known for their potent inhibition of cholesterol production and are typically prescribed to treat high cholesterol levels. Nevertheless, there is growing interest in repurposing statins for the treatment of malignant neoplastic diseases, often in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The mechanism behind statin treatment includes targeting apoptosis through the BCL2 signaling pathway, regulating the cell cycle via the p53-YAP axis, and imparting epigenetic modulations by altering methylation patterns on CpG islands and histone acetylation by downregulating DNMTs and HDACs respectively. Notably, some studies have suggested a potential chemo-preventive effect, as decreased occurrence of tumor relapse and enhanced survival rate were reported in patients undergoing long-term statin therapy. However, the definitive endorsement of statin usage in cancer therapy hinges on population based clinical studies with larger patient cohorts and extended follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: The potential of anti-cancer properties of statins seems to reach beyond their influence on cholesterol production. Further investigations are necessary to uncover their effects on cancer promoting signaling pathways. Given their distinct attributes, statins might emerge as promising contenders in the fight against tumorigenesis, as they appear to enhance the efficacy and address the limitations of conventional cancer treatments.

Use of coronary artery calcium score and coronary CT angiography to guide cardiovascular prevention and treatment.

Currently, cardiovascular risk stratification to guide preventive therapy relies on clinical scores based on cardiovascular risk factors. However, the discriminative power of these scores is relatively modest. The use of coronary artery calcium score (CACS) and coronary CT angiography (CCTA) has surfaced as methods for enhancing the estimation of risk and potentially providing insights for personalized treatment in individual patients. CACS improves overall cardiovascular risk prediction and may be used to improve the yield of statin therapy in primary prevention, and possibly identify patients with a favorable risk/benefit relationship for antiplatelet therapies. CCTA holds promise to guide anti-atherosclerotic therapies and to monitor individual response to these treatments by assessing individual plaque features, quantifying total plaque volume and composition, and assessing peri-coronary adipose tissue. In this review, we aim to summarize current evidence regarding the use of CACS and CCTA for guiding lipid-lowering and antiplatelet therapy and discuss the possibility of using plaque burden and plaque phenotyping to monitor response to anti-atherosclerotic therapies.

Causal association between lipid-lowering drugs and cancers: A drug target Mendelian randomization study.

Accumulating evidences have indicated that lipid-lowering drugs have effect for the treatment of cancers. However, causal associations between lipid-lowering drugs and the risk of cancers are still unclear. In our study, we utilized single nucleotide polymorphisms of proprotein convertase subtilis kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-assisted enzyme A reductase (HMGCR) inhibitors and performed a drug target Mendelian randomization to explore the causal association between lipid-lowering drugs and the risk of cancers. Five regression methods were carried out, including inverse variance weighted (IVW) method, MR Egger, weighted median, simple mode and weighted mode methods, of which IVW method was considered as the main analysis. Our outcome dataset contained the risk of breast cancer (BC), colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, gastric cancer (GC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), lung cancer, esophageal cancer, prostate cancer (PC), and skin cancer (SC). Our results demonstrated that PCSK9 inhibitors were significant associated with a decreased effect of GC [IVW: OR = 0.482, 95% CI: 0.264-0.879, P = .017]. Besides, genetic inhibitions of HMGCR were significant correlated with an increased effect of BC [IVW: OR = 1.421, 95% CI: 1.056-1.911, P = .020], PC [IVW: OR = 1.617, 95% CI: 1.234-2.120, P = .0005] and SC [IVW: OR = 1.266, 95% CI: 1.022-1.569, P = .031]. For GC [IVW: OR = 0.559, 95% CI: 0.382-0.820, P = .0029] and HCC [IVW: OR = 0.241, 95% CI: 0.085-0.686, P = .0077], HMGCR inhibitors had a protective risk. Our method suggested that PCSK9 inhibitors were significant associated with a protective effect of GC. Genetic inhibitions of HMGCR were significant correlated with an increased effect of BC, PC and SC. Meanwhile, HMGCR inhibitors had a protective risk of GC and HCC. Subsequent studies still needed to assess potential effects between lipid-lowering drugs and the risk of cancers with clinical trials.

The Ability of Primary Care Practices to Measure and Report on Care Quality.

BACKGROUND: Creating useful clinical quality measure (CQM) reports in a busy primary care practice is known to depend on the capability of the electronic health record (EHR). Two other domains may also contribute: supportive leadership to prioritize the work and commit the necessary resources, and individuals with the necessary health information technology (IT) skills to do so. Here we describe the results of an assessment of the above 3 domains and their associations with successful CQM reporting during an initiative to improve smaller primary care practices' cardiovascular disease CQMs. METHODS: The study took place within an AHRQ EvidenceNOW initiative of external support for smaller practices across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Practice facilitators who provided this support completed an assessment of the 3 domains previously described for each of their assigned practices. Practices submitted 3 CQMs to the study team: appropriate aspirin prescribing, use of statins when indicated, blood pressure control, and tobacco screening/cessation. RESULTS: Practices with advanced EHR reporting capability were more likely to report 2 or more CQMs. Only one-third of practices were "advanced" in this domain, and this domain had the highest proportion of practices (39.1%) assessed as "basic." The presence of advanced leadership or advanced skills did not appreciably increase the proportion of practices that reported 2 or more CQMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support previous reports of limited EHR reporting capabilities within smaller practices but extend these findings by demonstrating that practices with advanced capabilities in this domain are more likely to produce CQM reports.

Use of Statins in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Current Evidence and Perspectives.

Systemic inflammation and coronary microvascular endothelial dysfunction are essential pathophysiological factors in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) that support the use of statins. The pleiotropic properties of statins, such as anti-inflammatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and antioxidant effects, are generally accepted and may be beneficial in HF, especially in HFpEF. Numerous observational clinical trials have consistently shown a beneficial prognostic effect of statins in patients with HFpEF, while the results of two larger trials in patients with HFrEF have been controversial. Such differences may be related to a more pronounced impact of the pleiotropic properties of statins on the pathophysiology of HFpEF and pro-inflammatory comorbidities (arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, chronic kidney disease) that are more common in HFpEF. This review discusses the potential mechanisms of statin action that may be beneficial for patients with HFpEF, as well as clinical trials that have evaluated the statin effects on left ventricular diastolic function and clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF.

Association between Statin Use and Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity: A Meta-Analysis.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced cardiac dysfunction (CIC) is a significant and concerning complication observed among cancer patients. Despite the demonstrated cardioprotective benefits of statins in various cardiovascular diseases, their effectiveness in mitigating CIC remains uncertain. Objective: This meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the potential cardioprotective role of statins in patients with CIC. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify relevant articles published from inception until 10th May 2023. The outcomes were assessed using pooled odds ratio (OR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Results: This meta-analysis comprised nine studies involving a total of 5532 patients, with 1904 in the statin group and 3628 in the non-statin group. The pooled analysis of primary outcome shows that patients who did not receive statin suffer a greater decline in the LVEF after chemotherapy compared to those who receive statin (MD, 3.55 (95% CI: 1.04-6.05), p = 0.01). Likewise, we observed a significantly higher final mean LVEF among chemotherapy patients with statin compared to the non-statin group of patients (MD, 2.08 (95% CI: 0.86-3.30), p > 0.001). Additionally, there was a lower risk of incident heart failure in the statin group compared to the non-statin group of patients (OR, 0.41 (95% CI: 0.27-0.62), p < 0.001). Lastly, the change in the mean difference for LVEDV was not statistically significant between the statin and non-statin groups (MD, 1.55 (95% CI: -5.22-8.33), p = 0.65). Conclusion: Among patients of CIC, statin use has shown cardioprotective benefits by improving left ventricular function and reducing the risk of heart failure.

Secondary Prevention in Patients With Stroke Versus Myocardial Infarction: Analysis of 2 National Cohorts.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of preventive therapies among patients with stroke remains inadequately explored, especially when compared with patients with myocardial infarction (MI), despite sharing similar vascular risk profiles. We tested the hypothesis that participants with a history of stroke have a worse cardiovascular prevention profile in comparison to participants with MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In cross-sectional analyses within the UK Biobank and All of Us Research Program, involving 14 760 (9193 strokes, 5567 MIs) and 7315 (2948 strokes, 4367 MIs) participants, respectively, we evaluated cardiovascular prevention profiles assessing low-density lipoprotein (<100 mg/dL), blood pressure (systolic, <140 mm Hg; and diastolic, <90 mm Hg), statin and antiplatelet use, and a cardiovascular prevention score that required meeting at least 3 of these criteria. The results revealed that, within the UK Biobank, patients with stroke had significantly lower odds of meeting all the preventive criteria compared with patients with MI: low-density lipoprotein control (odds ratio [OR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.68-0.78]; P<0.001), blood pressure control (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.59-0.68]; P<0.001), statin use (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.42-0.48]; P<0.001), antiplatelet therapy use (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.27-0.32]; P<0.001), and cardiovascular prevention score (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.39-0.45]; P<0.001). Similar patterns were observed in the All of Us Research Program, with significant differences across all comparisons (P<0.05), and further analysis suggested that the odds of having a good cardiovascular prevention score were influenced by race and ethnicity as well as neighborhood deprivation levels (interaction P<0.05 in both cases). CONCLUSIONS: In 2 independent national cohorts, patients with stroke showed poorer cardiovascular prevention profiles and lower adherence to guideline-directed therapies compared with patients with MI. These findings underscore the need to explore the reasons behind the underuse of secondary prevention in vulnerable stroke survivors.

European and US Guideline-Based Statin Eligibility, Genetically Predicted Coronary Artery Disease, and the Risk of Major Coronary Events.

BACKGROUND: A study was designed to investigate whether the coronary artery disease polygenic risk score (CAD-PRS) may guide lipid-lowering treatment initiation as well as deferral in primary prevention beyond established clinical risk scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants were 311 799 individuals from the UK Biobank free of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and lipid-lowering treatment at baseline. Participants were categorized as statin indicated, statin indication unclear, or statin not indicated as defined by the European and US guidelines on statin use. For a median of 11.9 (11.2-12.6) years, 8196 major coronary events developed. CAD-PRS added to European-Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (European-SCORE2) and US-Pooled Cohort Equation (US-PCE) identified 18% and 12% of statin-indication-unclear individuals whose risk of major coronary events were the same as or higher than the average risk of statin-indicated individuals and 16% and 12% of statin-indicated individuals whose major coronary event risks were the same as or lower than the average risk of statin-indication-unclear individuals. For major coronary and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, CAD-PRS improved C-statistics greater among statin-indicated or statin-indication-unclear than statin-not-indicated individuals. For atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, CAD-PRS added to the European evaluation and US equation resulted in a net reclassification improvement of 13.6% (95% CI, 11.8-15.5) and 14.7% (95% CI, 13.1-16.3) among statin-indicated, 10.8% (95% CI, 9.6-12.0) and 15.3% (95% CI, 13.2-17.5) among statin-indication-unclear, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.6-1.3) and 3.6% (95% CI, 3.0-4.2) among statin-not-indicated individuals. CONCLUSIONS: CAD-PRS may guide statin initiation as well as deferral among statin-indication-unclear or statin-indicated individuals as defined by the European and US guidelines. CAD-PRS had little clinical utility among statin-not-indicated individuals.

Statin use for cardiovascular disease prevention: perceptions among people living with HIV in the United States.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV (PLWH) may be at heightened risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statin use and lifestyle changes reduce the risk of CVD but remain under-prescribed among PLWH. The objective of this study was to characterize knowledge of CVD and statin use, current usage, barriers to taking statins, and information desired by PLWH to improve statin uptake among PLWH in Los Angeles, CA. METHODS: Between April 2019 and April 2020, we conducted four focus group discussions (n = 37) with patients across three public community health clinics that serve PLWH in Los Angeles County, California. All clinics participated in a larger study to improve statin prescribing for PLWH. We asked about knowledge of statins, willingness to take a statin, possible barriers to statin usage, preferred information sources for health information, and desired information about statins. We utilized standard qualitative content analysis methods to identify themes. RESULTS: We found a range in the awareness of statins, with some participants reporting never having heard of statins while others had a history of statin use. There were concerns about the potential long-term effect of statin use, but participants expressed willingness to use CVD medications generally and statins specifically, especially if recommended by their healthcare provider. Participants also expressed interest in potential alternatives to statin usage such as exercising regularly and nutritious eating. CONCLUSIONS: More interventions are needed to increase statin use among PLWH to improve CVD outcomes, which also has implications for HIV progression. Clinics should aim to increase patient and provider knowledge about CVD risk and statin use for PLWH and provide shared decision-making tools that are easy to use and culturally appropriate.

SLCO1B1 Exome Sequencing and Statin Treatment Response in 64,000 UK Biobank Patients.

The solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) encodes the organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B1 (OATP1B1 protein) that transports statins to liver cells. Common genetic variants in SLCO1B1, such as *5, cause altered systemic exposure to statins and therefore affect statin outcomes, with potential pharmacogenetic applications; yet, evidence is inconclusive. We studied common and rare SLCO1B1 variants in up to 64,000 patients from UK Biobank prescribed simvastatin or atorvastatin, combining whole-exome sequencing data with up to 25-year routine clinical records. We studied 51 predicted gain/loss-of-function variants affecting OATP1B1. Both SLCO1B1*5 alone and the SLCO1B1*15 haplotype increased LDL during treatment (beta*5 = 0.08 mmol/L, p = 6 × 10-8; beta*15 = 0.03 mmol/L, p = 3 × 10-4), as did the likelihood of discontinuing statin prescriptions (hazard ratio*5 = 1.12, p = 0.04; HR*15 = 1.05, p = 0.04). SLCO1B1*15 and SLCO1B1*20 increased the risk of General Practice (GP)-diagnosed muscle symptoms (HR*15 = 1.22, p = 0.003; HR*20 = 1.25, p = 0.01). We estimated that genotype-guided prescribing could potentially prevent 18% and 10% of GP-diagnosed muscle symptoms experienced by statin patients, with *15 and *20, respectively. The remaining common variants were not individually significant. Rare variants in SLCO1B1 increased LDL in statin users by up to 1.05 mmol/L, but replication is needed. We conclude that genotype-guided treatment could reduce GP-diagnosed muscle symptoms in statin patients; incorporating further SLCO1B1 variants into clinical prediction scores could improve LDL control and decrease adverse events, including discontinuation.

Lipid-Lowering Medications are Associated with Reduced Sarcopenia-Related Quality of Life in Older Adults with Hyperlipidemia.

PURPOSE: Statins medications negatively affect age-associated loss of muscle mass and strength, termed sarcopenia, and neuromuscular junction (NMJ) integrity. However, their association with the sarcopenia-related-quality-of-life (SarQoL) is unknown. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, case control study, we recruited male nonusers (n = 75 and age 75.2 ± 5.9 years) and users (n = 77 and age 77.1 ± 6.2 years) of statins to evaluate SarQoL and handgrip strength (HGS). We also measured plasma C-terminal agrin fragment-22 (CAF22) as a marker of NMJ degradation. RESULTS: Statin users had higher CAF22, and lower HGS, and cumulative SarQoL scores than non-users (all p < 0.05). Plasma CAF22 exhibited negative correlations with SarQoL scores for physical and mental health, locomotion, functionality, activities-of-daily-living, and cumulative SarQoL in statins users and non-users (all p < 0.05). Lastly, the cumulative SarQoL scores exhibited positive associations with HGS and gait speed in the study participants (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, statin usage was associated with NMJ degradation and reduced SarQoL. Statins should be cautiously prescribed in patients with sarcopenia with reduced QoL.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Low/Moderate-Intensity Statin plus Ezetimibe Combination Therapy vs. High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

AIM: Statin therapy is considered the gold standard for treating hypercholesterolemia. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of a low/moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: A systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from inception to January 2023 and a total of 21 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified and included in the analysis. Data were pooled using Hedges's g and a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to derive standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis). The primary outcome studied was the effect of these treatments on lipid parameters and safety events. RESULTS: The results revealed that combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (SMD= - 0.41; CI - 0.63 to - 0.19; P = 0.0002). There was no significant change in the levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), Apo A1, or Apo B. The safety of these treatments was assessed by the following markers alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CK), and a significant difference was only observed in CK (SMD: - 0.81; CI - 1.52 to - 0.10; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of low/moderate-intensity statin combination therapy significantly reduced LDL-C levels compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, making it preferable for patients with related risks. However, further trials are encouraged to evaluate potential adverse effects associated with combined therapy.

Low-dose colchicine for atherosclerosis: long-term safety.

Low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg daily) is now FDA-approved for secondary prevention in patients with coronary disease and will be increasingly prescribed in clinical practice. In this State-of-the-Art Review, data were collated from contemporary systemic reviews of case reports, drug registries, and placebo-controlled trials that assessed specific issues of safety related to the continuous use of colchicine in a range of clinical settings to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the absolute risks of continuous use of low-dose colchicine, including among individuals taking statin therapy. Based upon these collective data, it is concluded that aside mild diarrhoea on initiation of colchicine that typically subsides in the vast majority of patients within a week of therapy, continuous use of low-dose colchicine is well tolerated and very safe. It does not affect renal, liver, or cognitive function, has no adverse effects on bleeding, wound healing, fertility, or pregnancy, and does not increase risks of cancer, serious infection, or cause-specific mortality. When appropriately prescribed to patients without significant renal or hepatic impairment, reports of myelosuppression, myotoxicity, and serious drug-drug interactions are rare and no more frequent than placebo, including in patients taking statin therapy. Physicians, pharmacists, and patients can be reassured that in the absence of significant renal or hepatic impairment continuous use of low-dose colchicine can be used safely in patients with atherosclerosis for the purpose of reducing cardiovascular risk.

Omega-3 (n-3) Fatty Acid-Statin Interaction: Evidence for a Novel Therapeutic Strategy for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Managing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) often involves a combination of lifestyle modifications and medications aiming to decrease the risk of cardiovascular outcomes, such as myocardial infarction and stroke. The aim of this article is to discuss possible omega-3 (n-3) fatty acid-statin interactions in the prevention and treatment of ASCVD and to provide evidence to consider for clinical practice, highlighting novel insights in this field. Statins and n-3 fatty acids (eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)) are commonly used to control cardiovascular risk factors in order to treat ASCVD. Statins are an important lipid-lowering therapy, primarily targeting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, while n-3 fatty acids address triglyceride (TG) concentrations. Both statins and n-3 fatty acids have pleiotropic actions which overlap, including improving endothelial function, modulation of inflammation, and stabilizing atherosclerotic plaques. Thus, both statins and n-3 fatty acids potentially mitigate the residual cardiovascular risk that remains beyond lipid lowering, such as persistent inflammation. EPA and DHA are both substrates for the synthesis of so-called specialized pro-resolving mediators (SPMs), a relatively recently recognized feature of their ability to combat inflammation. Interestingly, statins seem to have the ability to promote the production of some SPMs, suggesting a largely unrecognized interaction between statins and n-3 fatty acids with relevance to the control of inflammation. Although n-3 fatty acids are the major substrates for the production of SPMs, these signaling molecules may have additional therapeutic benefits beyond those provided by the precursor n-3 fatty acids themselves. In this article, we discuss the accumulating evidence that supports SPMs as a novel therapeutic tool and the possible statin-n-3 fatty acid interactions relevant to the prevention and treatment of ASCVD.

Are there lost opportunities in chronic kidney disease? A region-wide cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Identify the windows of opportunity for the diagnosis of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the prevention of its adverse outcomes and quantify the potential population gains of such prevention. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational, population-wide study of residents in the Stockholm and Skåne regions of Sweden between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who did not yet have a diagnosis of CKD in healthcare but had CKD according to laboratory measurements of CKD biomarkers available in electronic health records. OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the proportions of the patient population that received a subsequent diagnosis of CKD in healthcare, that used guideline-directed pharmacological therapy (statins, renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)) and that experienced adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)). The potential to prevent adverse outcomes in CKD was assessed using simulations of guideline-directed pharmacological therapy in untreated subsets of the study population. RESULTS: We identified 99 382 patients with undiagnosed CKD during the study period. Only 33% of those received a subsequent diagnosis of CKD in healthcare after 5 years. The proportion that used statins or RAASi was of similar size to the proportion that didn't, regardless of how advanced their CKD was. The use of SGLT2i was negligible. In simulations of optimal treatment, 22% of the 21 870 deaths, 27% of the 14 310 cardiovascular deaths and 39% of the 22 224 MACE could have been avoided if every patient who did not use an indicated medication for their laboratory-confirmed CKD was treated with guideline-directed pharmacological therapy for CKD. CONCLUSIONS: While we noted underdiagnosis and undertreatment of CKD in this large contemporary population, we also identified a substantial realisable potential to improve CKD outcomes and reduce its burden by treating patients early with guideline-directed pharmacological therapy.

Complicated Treatment Course of Severe Asymptomatic Hypertriglyceridemia: A Case Report and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND Close observation, statins, fibrate treatment, and lifestyle changes can safely manage asymptomatic individuals with severe hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) and minimal risk of symptom development. However, the risk of medication-induced liver injury in patients taking statin-fibrate makes management more challenging, and may require hospital admission and close monitoring with follow-up. CASE REPORT We present a rare case of a 43-year-old man with asymptomatic severe HTG exceeding 11.370 mg/dL with mixed hyperlipidemia, managed initially with high-intensity statins and fibrate. However, due to the concurrent use of statin and fibrates, the patient subsequently developed an acute liver injury. Hence, the oral medications had to be stopped, and the patient was admitted to the hospital for an insulin drip. Even during the hospital course, the patient's triglyceride (TG) levels showed resistance to the recommended dose of insulin and he required a higher insulin dose. He was discharged on fenofibrate and subcutaneous insulin to keep the TG level under 500. Fibrate was stopped, and high-intensity statin was used as primary prevention with lifestyle modifications. CONCLUSIONS This instance highlights the necessity of increased cognizance and cooperative endeavors in handling severe asymptomatic HTG. Our results highlight the significance of further research into the management of severe asymptomatic HTG in cases of injury to the liver. This work adds essential knowledge to the ongoing discussion about managing a rare case complicated by acute liver injury.