Association of a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with incident cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Although there is overwhelming evidence that reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins leads to reductions in cardiovascular disease, less is known about the effects in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without pre-existing vascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the UK-based General Practice Research Database we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 21,998 T2DM patients aged 35-69 with ≥2 prescriptions for lipid-modifying therapy (2000-2009). We categorized LDL-C change (mmol/l) between last available and baseline lipid values as reduction (≥3.0, 2.0-2.9, 1.0-1.9, 0.3-0.9), no-change (±0.2 of baseline), or increase (>0.2). Outcomes were incident composite cardiovascular (n = 621) and cerebrovascular events (n = 274). We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of study outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for LDL-C change compared with the no-change group. Compared to no changes, adjusted HRs of cardiovascular events for a reduction ≥3.0 and a reduction between 2.0-2.9 were 0.41 (95% CI: 0.23-0.71) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34-0.76) (p for linear trend <0.001). LDL-C reduction yielded a decreased cerebrovascular event risk compared to no change, even with the smallest reduction (adjusted HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing LDL-C is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among T2DM patients without such pre-existing events. The magnitude of the protective effect on cerebrovascular events is less certain, and further studies are warranted.

Engaging patients, clinicians and health funders in weight management: the Counterweight Programme.

BACKGROUND: The Counterweight Programme provides an evidence based and effective approach for weight management in routine primary care. Uptake of the programme has been variable for practices and patients. Aim. To explore key barriers and facilitators of practice and patient engagement in the Counterweight Programme and to describe key strategies used to address barriers in the wider implementation of this weight management programme in UK primary care. METHODS: All seven weight management advisers participated in a focus group. In-depth interviews were conducted with purposeful samples of GPs (n = 7) and practice nurses (n = 15) from 11 practices out of the 65 participating in the programme. A total of 37 patients participated through a mixture of in-depth interviews (n = 18) and three focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were analysed for key themes that emerged. RESULTS: Engagement of practice staff was influenced by clinicians' beliefs and attitudes, factors relating to the way the programme was initiated and implemented, the programme content and organizational/contextual factors. Patient engagement was influenced by practice endorsement of the programme, clear understanding of programme goals, structured proactive follow-up and perception of positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Having a clear understanding of programme goals and expectations, enhancing self-efficacy in weight management and providing proactive follow-up is important for engaging both practices and patients. The widespread integration of weight management programmes into routine primary care is likely to require supportive public policy.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg versus atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the POLARIS study.

POLARIS investigated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Patients (n=871) were randomized to rosuvastatin 40 mg/day or atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C levels at 8 weeks. Secondary assessments included safety and tolerability, NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal achievement, change in other lipids and lipoproteins at 8 and 26 weeks, and health economics. Mean LDL-C levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin 40 mg than with atorvastatin 80 mg at 8 weeks (-56% versus -52%, p<0.001). The proportion of patients achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal at 8 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group (80% versus 72%, p<0.01). Significant differences in the change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+9.6% versus +4.4%) and apolipoprotein (Apo)A-I levels (+4.2 versus -0.5) were observed between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin (all p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Based on a US analysis, rosuvastatin used fewer resources and delivered greater efficacy. Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day provided greater LDL-C-lowering efficacy than atorvastatin 80 mg/day, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goals. Rosuvastatin may therefore improve LDL-C goal achievement in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Statin-induced myositis: a commonly encountered or rare side effect?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Statins are well established as first-line agents for cholesterol lowering in cardiovascular disease, with accumulating evidence supporting their initiation and guidelines recommending treatment to lower LDL levels. Although generally well tolerated with few side effects, including headaches and gastrointestinal symptoms, concerns are raised regarding myopathy, which may lead to fatal rhabdomyolysis. This review examines current evidence on statin interactions, mechanism of injury and toxicity. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant myopathy is rare with an incidence of less than 0.5% of patients. Statin side effects may be dose-related, associated with other drug interactions that interfere with statin metabolic pathways through cytochrome p450 pathways or glucuronidation, or related to co-morbidities. Several theories have suggested that statin myotoxicity may be due to intracellular cholesterol depletion, or interference with oxidative phosphorylation pathways. Exact mechanisms are yet to be fully defined. Individuals with mixed dyslipidaemia may require combination therapy to achieve target lipid levels. No large-scale randomized trials have yet reported on the safety of combination therapy, although more recent studies may shed some light when they report. CONCLUSION: As most individuals on statins are 'high-risk' patients, they tend to be on multiple agents for cardiovascular disease which may interact with their statin. Progression of myalgia or myositis to rhabdomyolysis is rare (one in 30-100,000 patient-years of exposure), but if progressive muscle symptoms are ignored then fatalities can occur. When prescribing statins, physicians should be alert to potential risks and educate patients to report any potentially significant symptoms.

Favorable effects of pioglitazone and metformin compared with gliclazide on lipoprotein subfractions in overweight patients with early type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of different oral hypoglycemic drugs as first-line therapy on lipoprotein subfractions in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixty overweight type 2 diabetic patients not on lipid-lowering therapy were randomized to metformin, pioglitazone, or gliclazide after a 3-month dietary run-in. Drug doses were uptitrated for 3 months to optimize glycemia and were kept fixed for a further 3 months. LDL subfractions (LDL(1), LDL(2), and LDL(3)) were prepared by density gradient ultracentrifugation at randomization and study end. Triglycerides, cholesterol, total protein, and phospholipids were measured and mass of subfractions calculated. HDL subfractions were prepared by precipitation. The primary end point was change in proportion of LDL as LDL(3). RESULTS: HbA(1c), triglycerides, glucose, and cholesterol were comparable across groups at baseline and over time. LDL(3) mass and the LDL(3)-to-LDL ratio fell with pioglitazone (LDL(3) mass 36.2 to 28.0 mg/dl, P < 0.01; LDL(3)-to-LDL 19.2:13.3%, P < 0.01) and metformin (42.7 to 31.5 mg/dl, P < 0.01; 21.3:16.2%, P < 0.01, respectively) with no change on gliclazide. LDL(3) reductions were associated with reciprocal LDL(1) increases. Changes were independent of BMI, glycemic control, and triglycerides. Total HDL cholesterol increased on pioglitazone (1.28 to 1.36 mmol/l, P = 0.02) but not gliclazide (1.39 to 1.37 mmol/l, P = NS) or metformin (1.26 to 1.18 mmol/l, P = NS), largely due to an HDL(2) increase (0.3 to 0.4 mmol/l, P < 0.05). HDL(3) cholesterol fell on metformin (0.9 to 0.85 mmol/l, P < 0.01). On pioglitazone and metformin, the HDL(2)-to-HDL(3) ratio increased compared with no change on gliclazide. CONCLUSIONS: For the same improvement in glycemic control, pioglitazone and metformin produce favorable changes in HDL and LDL subfractions compared with gliclazide in overweight type 2 diabetic patients. Such changes may be associated with reduced atherosclerosis risk and may inform the choice of initial oral hypoglycemic agent.

Risk for myopathy with statin therapy in high-risk patients.

Emerging data suggest that the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) offer important benefits for the large population of individuals at high risk for coronary heart disease. This population encompasses a sizable portion of individuals who are also at high risk for drug-drug interactions due to their need for multiple medications. In general, statins are associated with a very small risk for myopathy (which may progress to fatal or nonfatal rhabdomyolysis); however, the potential for drug-drug interactions is known to increase this risk in specific high-risk groups. The incidence of myopathy associated with statin therapy is dose related and is increased when statins are used in combination with agents that share common metabolic pathways. Of particular concern is the potential for interactions with other lipid-lowering agents such as fibrates and niacin (nicotinic acid), which may be used in patients with mixed lipidemia, and with immunosuppressive agents, such as cyclosporine, which are commonly used in patients after transplantation. Clinicians should be alert to the potential for drug-drug interactions to minimize the risk of myopathy during long-term statin therapy in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease.