Effect of pitavastatin on glucose, HbA1c and incident diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials in individuals without diabetes

Lipid-lowering drug therapy for reducing cardiovascular risk in diabetes. A clinical view of the Cardiovascular Disease Working Group of the Spanish Diabetes Society

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) managed in both hospital and out-ofhospital settings usually have a high/very high cardiovascular risk, with a high burden of cardiovascular disease. All this justifies that the reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is the main therapeutic goal in T2DM. However, residual cardiovascular risk is very prevalent in T2DM, and is usually associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia and hyperlipoproteinemia(a); therefore, it is also necessary to reverse these lipoprotein abnormalities to achieve effective cardiovascular prevention. Given the considerable armamentarium of lipid-lowering drugs currently available, the Cardiovascular Disease Working Group of the Spanish Diabetes Society has considered it appropriate to carry out a narrative review and update of the effectiveness of these lipid-lowering drugs in the population with T2DM taking into account their effect on the lipoprotein profile and their potential impact on glycemic control.

The Diabetogenic Effect of Statin Use May Interact With Polygenic Risk Scores for Type 2 Diabetes: Evidence From the UK Biobank

OBJECTIVES

Statins are essential in the prevention of cardiovascular disease; however, their association with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk is concerning. We examined whether genetic susceptibility to T2DM modifies the association between regular statin use and T2DM risk.

METHODS

This study included 447 176 individuals from the UK Biobank without baseline diabetes or major cardiovascular disease. Statin use was recorded at baseline, and T2DM incidence was determined using clinical records. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for T2DM risk were provided by the UK Biobank. Using propensity scores adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and comorbidities, 14 831 statin users were matched with 37 060 non-users. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the interaction effect of statin use and PRS on T2DM incidence, adjusting for key confounders.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched cohort, 3675 of 51 891 participants developed T2DM over a mean follow-up period of 13.7 years. Within the top 5% of the PRS distribution, per 1000 person-years, the incidence of T2DM was 15.42 for statin users versus 12.18 for non-users. Among the lowest 5%, the incidence was 1.90 for statin users and 1.65 for non-users. Based on the Cox proportional hazards model, regular statin use was associated with a 1.24-fold increased T2DM risk (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.33). Furthermore, PRS exhibited a significant multiplicative interaction with regular statin use (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.19).

CONCLUSIONS

PRS may help identify individuals particularly susceptible to the diabetogenic effects of statins, providing a potential path for personalized cardiovascular disease management.

Statin Use and Hyperglycemia: Do Statins Cause Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and diabetes are leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally. Statin medications, a cornerstone of ASCVD prevention and treatment strategies, have been demonstrated to cause hyperglycemia and new onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). The purpose of this review is to summarize existing and emerging knowledge around the intersection of statins and these two important clinical problems.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since initial reporting of statin-induced hyperglycemia and NODM, the totality of available data corroborates an association between incident diabetes and statin use. A consensus that high-intensity statin and individuals with obesity or glycemic parameters approximating diabetes thresholds constitute the majority of risk exists. Alterations in insulin signaling, glucose transport and gastrointestinal microbiota are leading hypotheses underlying the mechanisms of statin-induced hyperglycemia. The probability of NODM based on an individual's risk factors and statin specific properties can be anticipated. This risk needs to be contextualized with the risk of ASCVD. In order to effectively adjudicate the risk of NODM, improvement in formulating and ultimately conveying a comprehensive ASCVD risk assessment to patients is necessary.

Association of BMI, lipid-lowering medication, and age with prevalence of type 2 diabetes in adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: a worldwide cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Statins are the cornerstone treatment for patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia but research suggests it could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in the general population. A low prevalence of type 2 diabetes was reported in some familial hypercholesterolaemia cohorts, raising the question of whether these patients are protected against type 2 diabetes. Obesity is a well known risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to investigate the associations of known key determinants of type 2 diabetes with its prevalence in people with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.

METHODS

This worldwide cross-sectional study used individual-level data from the EAS FHSC registry and included adults older than 18 years with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia who had data available on age, BMI, and diabetes status. Those with known or suspected homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and type 1 diabetes were excluded. The main outcome was prevalence of type 2 diabetes overall and by WHO region, and in relation to obesity (BMI ≥30·0 kg/m2) and lipid-lowering medication as predictors. The study population was divided into 12 risk categories based on age (tertiles), obesity, and receiving statins, and the risk of type 2 diabetes was investigated using logistic regression.

FINDINGS

Among 46 683 adults with individual-level data in the FHSC registry, 24 784 with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia were included in the analysis from 44 countries. 19 818 (80%) had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Type 2 diabetes prevalence in the total population was 5·7% (1415 of 24 784), with 4·1% (817 of 19 818) in the genetically diagnosed cohort. Higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes was observed in the Eastern Mediterranean (58 [29·9%] of 194), South-East Asia and Western Pacific (214 [12·0%] of 1785), and the Americas (166 [8·5%] of 1955) than in Europe (excluding the Netherlands; 527 [8·0%] of 6579). Advancing age, a higher BMI category (obesity and overweight), and use of lipid-lowering medication were associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, independent of sex and LDL cholesterol. Among the 12 risk categories, the probability of developing type 2 diabetes was higher in people in the highest risk category (aged 55-98 years, with obesity, and receiving statins; OR 74·42 [95% CI 47·04-117·73]) than in those in the lowest risk category (aged 18-38 years, without obesity, and not receiving statins). Those who did not have obesity, even if they were in the upper age tertile and receiving statins, had lower risk of type 2 diabetes (OR 24·42 [15·57-38·31]). The corresponding results in the genetically diagnosed cohort were OR 65·04 (40·67-104·02) for those with obesity in the highest risk category and OR 20·07 (12·73-31·65) for those without obesity.

INTERPRETATION

Adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia in most WHO regions have a higher type 2 diabetes prevalence than in Europe. Obesity markedly increases the risk of diabetes associated with age and use of statins in these patients. Our results suggest that heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia does not protect against type 2 diabetes, hence managing obesity is essential to reduce type 2 diabetes in this patient population.

FUNDING

Pfizer, Amgen, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Regeneron.

Hyperlipidaemia in diabetes: are there particular considerations for next-generation therapies?

Dyslipidaemias are major cardiovascular risk factors, especially in people with diabetes. In this area, next-generation therapies targeting circulating lipoparticle metabolism (LDL, VLDL, chylomicrons, HDL) have recently been approved by the European and US medical agencies, including anti- proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) antibodies; an siRNA targeting PCSK9; bempedoic acid, which targets ATP citrate lyase; an antisense oligonucleotide targeting apolipoprotein C-III; an anti-angiopoietin-like 3 antibody; and a purified omega-3 fatty acid, icosapent ethyl. Other therapies are in different phases of development. There are several important considerations concerning the link between these new lipid-lowering therapies and diabetes. First, since concerns were first raised in 2008 about an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) with intensive statin treatment, each new lipid-lowering therapy is being evaluated for its associated risk of NODM, particularly in individuals with prediabetes (impaired fasting glucose and/or impaired glucose tolerance). Second, people with diabetes represent a large proportion of those at high or very high cardiovascular risk in whom these lipid-lowering drugs are currently, or will be, prescribed. Thus, the efficacy of these drugs in subgroups with diabetes should also be closely considered, as well as any potential effects on glycaemic control. In this review, we describe the efficacy of next-generation therapies targeting lipoprotein metabolism in subgroups of people with diabetes and their effects on glycaemic control in individuals with diabetes and prediabetes and in normoglycaemic individuals.

Pitavastatin treatment remodels the HDL subclass lipidome and proteome in hypertriglyceridemia

HDL particles vary in lipidome and proteome, which dictate their individual physicochemical properties, metabolism, and biological activities. HDL dysmetabolism in nondiabetic hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) involves subnormal HDL-cholesterol and apoAI levels. Metabolic anomalies may impact the qualitative features of both the HDL lipidome and proteome. Whether particle content of bioactive lipids and proteins may differentiate HDL subclasses (HDL2b, 2a, 3a, 3b, and 3c) in HTG is unknown. Moreover, little is known of the effect of statin treatment on the proteolipidome of hypertriglyceridemic HDL and its subclasses. Nondiabetic, obese, HTG males (n = 12) received pitavastatin calcium (4 mg/day) for 180 days in a single-phase, unblinded study. ApoB-containing lipoproteins were normalized poststatin. Individual proteolipidomes of density-defined HDL subclasses were characterized prestatin and poststatin. At baseline, dense HDL3c was distinguished by marked protein diversity and peak abundance of surface lysophospholipids, amphipathic diacylglycerol and dihydroceramide, and core cholesteryl ester and triacylglycerol, (normalized to mol phosphatidylcholine), whereas light HDL2b showed peak abundance of free cholesterol, sphingomyelin, glycosphingolipids (monohexosylceramide, dihexosylceramide, trihexosylceramide, and anionic GM3), thereby arguing for differential lipid transport and metabolism between subclasses. Poststatin, bioactive lysophospholipid (lysophosphatidylcholine, lysoalkylphosphatidylcholine, lysophosphatidylethanolamine, and lysophosphatidylinositol) cargo was preferentially depleted in HDL3c. By contrast, baseline lipidomic profiles of ceramide, dihydroceramide and related glycosphingolipids, and GM3/phosphatidylcholine were maintained across particle subclasses. All subclasses were depleted in triacylglycerol and diacylglycerol/phosphatidylcholine. The abundance of apolipoproteins CI, CII, CIV, and M diminished in the HDL proteome. Statin treatment principally impacts metabolic remodeling of the abnormal lipidome of HDL particle subclasses in nondiabetic HTG, with lesser effects on the proteome.

Acute Statin Withdrawal Does not Interfere With the Improvements of a Session of Exercise in Postprandial Metabolism

BACKGROUND

The risk for atherogenic plaque formation is high after ingestion of meals in individuals with high blood lipid levels (ie, dyslipidemia). Statins and exercise reduce the rise of blood triglyceride concentrations after a meal, but the effect of their combination is unclear.

METHODS

In a randomized crossover design, 11 individuals with dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome treated with statins underwent a mixed-meal (970 ± 111 kcal, 24% fat, and 34% carbohydrate) tolerance test. Plasma lipid concentrations, fat oxidation, glucose, and glycerol kinetics were monitored immediately prior and during the meal test. Trials were conducted with participants under their habitual statin treatment and 96 hours after blinded statin withdrawal. Trials were duplicated after a prolonged bout of low-intensity exercise (75 minutes at 53 ± 4% maximal oxygen consumption) to study the interactions between exercise and statins.

RESULTS

Statins reduced postprandial plasma triglycerides from 3.03 ± 0.85 to 2.52 ± 0.86 mmol·L-1 (17%; P = .015) and plasma glycerol concentrations (ie, surrogate of whole-body lipolysis) without reducing plasma free fatty acid concentration or fat oxidation. Prior exercise increased postprandial plasma glycerol levels (P = .029) and fat oxidation rates (P = .024). Exercise decreased postprandial plasma insulin levels (241 ± 116 vs 301 ± 172 ρmol·L-1; P = .026) but not enough to increase insulin sensitivity (P = .614). Neither statins nor exercise affected plasma glucose appearance rates from exogenous or endogenous sources.

CONCLUSIONS

In dyslipidemic individuals, statins reduce blood triglyceride concentrations after a meal, but without limiting fat oxidation. Statins do not interfere with exercise lowering the postprandial insulin that likely promotes fat oxidation. Last, statins do not restrict the rates of plasma incorporation or oxidation of the ingested glucose.

Efficacy and Safety of Pitavastatin in Patients with Impaired Glucose Tolerance: An Updated Review

This review provides an updated overview of the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). IGT is a prediabetic state characterized by elevated blood glucose levels that do not meet the criteria for diabetes. The review explores the potential benefits of pitavastatin in reducing cardiovascular risk and improving lipid profiles in individuals with IGT. It also examines the glycemic effects of pitavastatin, including its impact on fasting blood glucose levels, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function. The review highlights the need for individualized treatment approaches, taking into account the patient's overall cardiovascular risk profile and glycemic control needs. While pitavastatin has shown modest improvements in glycemic control, it is not a substitute for lifestyle modifications or standard antidiabetic medications. Future directions for research include long-term follow-up studies, mechanistic investigations, and comparative analyses to further understand the glycemic effects of pitavastatin in IGT. Overall, this narrative review provides valuable insights for healthcare professionals involved in the management of individuals with IGT, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive approach to reduce cardiovascular risk and optimize glycemic control.

Efficacy and Safety of Pitavastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-Dose Combination vs. Pitavastatin: Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

AIM

We compared the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. A total of 293 patients were randomly assigned into four groups receiving 2 mg pitavastatin, 4 mg pitavastatin, 2 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 LD), and 4 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 HD) once daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The percentage changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the primary endpoint, were -39.5% for 2 mg pitavastatin, -45.2% for 4 mg pitavastatin, -51.4% for K-924 LD, and -57.8% for K-924 HD. Compared with pitavastatin monotherapy, the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination significantly reduced LDL-C, total cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Meanwhile, the cholesterol synthesis marker, lathosterol, was significantly decreased with pitavastatin monotherapy and the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, although the decrease was attenuated in the latter. On the other hand, the cholesterol absorption markers, beta-sitosterol and campesterol, were reduced with the fixed-dose combination but not with pitavastatin monotherapy. The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions was not significantly different between the two groups receiving the fixed-dose combination and monotherapy. The mean values of laboratory tests that are related to liver function and myopathy increased but remained within the reference range in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination showed an excellent LDL-C-reducing effect by the complementary pharmacological action of each component, and its safety profile was similar to that of pitavastatin monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04289649).

2023 China Guidelines for Lipid Management

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death among urban and rural residents in China, and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a risk factor for ASCVD. Considering the increasing burden of ASCVD, lipid management is of the utmost importance. In recent years, research on blood lipids has made breakthroughs around the world, hence a revision of China guidelines for lipid management is imperative, especially since the target lipid levels in the general population vary in respect to the risk of ASCVD. The level of LDL-C, which can be regarded as appropriate in a population without frisk factors, can be considered abnormal in people at high risk of developing ASCVD. As a result, the "Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of dyslipidemia" were adapted into the "China Guidelines for Lipid Management" (henceforth referred to as the new guidelines) by an Experts' committee after careful deliberation. The new guidelines still recommend LDL-C as the primary target for lipid control, with CVD risk stratification to determine its target value. These guidelines recommend that moderate intensity statin therapy in adjunct with a heart-healthy lifestyle, be used as an initial line of treatment, followed by cholesterol absorption inhibitors or/and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, as necessary. The new guidelines provide guidance for lipid management across various age groups, from children to the elderly. The aim of these guidelines is to comprehensively improve the management of lipids and promote the prevention and treatment of ASCVD by guiding clinical practice.

2023 Chinese guideline for lipid management

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death among urban and rural residents in China, and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a risk factor for ASCVD. Considering the increasing burden of ASCVD, lipid management is of the utmost importance. In recent years, research on blood lipids has made breakthroughs around the world, hence a revision of Chinese guideline for lipid management is imperative, especially since the target lipid levels in the general population vary in respect to the risk of ASCVD. The level of LDL-C, which can be regarded as appropriate in a population without frisk factors, can be considered abnormal in people at high risk of developing ASCVD. As a result, the "Guidelines for the prevention and treatment of dyslipidemia" were adapted into the "Chinese guideline for Lipid Management" (henceforth referred to as the new guidelines) by an Experts' committee after careful deliberation. The new guidelines still recommend LDL-C as the primary target for lipid control, with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification to determine its target value. These guidelines recommend that moderate intensity statin therapy in adjunct with a heart-healthy lifestyle, be used as an initial line of treatment, followed by cholesterol absorption inhibitors or/and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, as necessary. The new guidelines provide guidance for lipid management across various age groups, from children to the elderly. The aim of these guidelines is to comprehensively improve the management of lipids and promote the prevention and treatment of ASCVD by guiding clinical practice.

Effects of statin therapy on glycemic control and insulin resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To update the evidence about the diabetogenic effect of statins.

METHODS

We searched for randomized-controlled trials reporting the effects of statin therapy on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and/or homeostatic model insulin resistance (i.e., HOMA-IR) as indexes of diabetes. Studies were classified between the ones testing normal vs individuals with already altered glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%; and HOMA-IR ≥ 2.15). Furthermore, studies were separated by statin type and dosage prescribed. Data are presented as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 67 studies were included in the analysis (>25,000 individuals). In individuals with altered glycemic control, statins increased HbA1c levels (MD 0.21%, 95% CI 0.16-to-0.25) and HOMA-IR index (MD 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-to-0.38). In individuals with normal glycemic control, statin increased HbA1c (MD 1.33%, 95% CI 1.31-to-1.35) and HOMA-IR (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-to-0.58) in comparison to the placebo groups. The dose or type of statins did not modulate the diabetogenic effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Statins, slightly but significantly raise indexes of diabetes in individuals with adequate or altered glycemic control. The diabetogenic effect does not seem to be influenced by the type or dosage of statin prescribed.

Do Statins Counteract the Effect of Antidiabetic Drugs? Results of the SCEAD Study

PURPOSE

Diabetes and dyslipidemia are leading causes of mortality and morbidity. According to international guidelines, statins are the cornerstone of treatment in patients with diabetes and/or dyslipidemia. However, statins and antidiabetic agents have opposite pharmacological effects, because statins, particularly atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, impair glucose homeostasis, increasing the risk of new-onset diabetes, whereas antidiabetic drugs improve glycemic homeostasis. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and pitavastatin on glucose homeostasis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and dyslipidemia during stable treatment with hypoglycemic drugs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a pilot, prospective, randomized, open label, parallel group with blinded-endpoints (PROBE) study. Of 180 recruited patients with T2DM and dyslipidemia, 131 were randomized to atorvastatin (n=44), rosuvastatin (n=45), and pitavastatin (n=42) and treated for 6 months.

RESULTS

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) marginally decreased in patients assigned to atorvastatin (-3.5 mg/dL, p=0.42) and rosuvastatin (-6.5 mg/dL, p=0.17), while it decreased much more in patients treated with pitavastatin (-19.0 mg/dL, p<0.001). Mean glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ) values remained unchanged during treatment with atorvastatin (-0.10%, p=0.53) and rosuvastatin (0.20%, p=0.40), but were significantly reduced with pitavastatin (-0.75%, p=0.01). Atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and pitavastatin significantly lowered (p<0.001) plasma levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, and triglycerides, while high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels increased significantly (p=0.04) only in the pitavastatin group.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study suggest that pitavastatin affects FPG and HbA1c less than atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in patients with T2DM and concomitant dyslipidemia. Lipid-lowering efficacies were not significantly different among the three statins, with the exception of HDL-C, which increased significantly with pitavastatin. Although the pharmacological mechanism of pitavastatin on glucose homeostasis in patients with T2DM during stable antidiabetic therapy is not known, it can be assumed that pitavastatin has less drug interaction with hypoglycemic agents or that it increases plasma levels of adiponectin.

Side effects of statins: from pathophysiology and epidemiology to diagnostic and therapeutic implications

Treatment with statins, inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase, has proven beneficial preventive effects on cardiovascular events. However, discontinuation due to intolerance and non-adherence remain two of the major gaps in both primary and secondary prevention. This leads many patients with high-risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to be inadequately treated or not to achieve target lipid level goals, and as consequence they undergo an increased risk of cardiovascular events. The aim of this review is thus to give an overview of the reasons for discontinuation and on the possible mechanisms behind them. Although statins, as a class, are generally safe, they are associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus and hepatic transaminase elevations. Incidence of cataracts or cognitive dysfunction and others presented in the literature (e.g. proteinuria and haematuria) have been never confirmed to have a causal link. Conversely, debated remains the effect on myalgia. Muscle side effects are the most commonly reported, although myalgia is still believed by some to be the result of a nocebo/drucebo effect. Concerning mechanisms behind muscular side effects, no clear conclusions have been reached. Thus, if on one side it is important to identify individuals either at higher risk to develop a side effect, or with confirmed risk factors and conditions of statin intolerance, on the other side alternative strategies should be identified to avoid an increased ASCVD risk.

Does Pitavastatin Therapy for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Dyslipidemia Affect Serum Adiponectin Levels and Insulin Sensitivity?

(1) Background: We aimed to demonstrate the effects of pitvastatin therapy on the serum levels of total adiponectin and high-molecular-weight (HMW) adiponectin in type 2 diabetes and the correlation with insulin sensitivity. (2) Methods: This study was designed as an open-labelled randomized trial. Patients with diabetes who were prescribed pitavastatin therapy were enrolled and randomized to either treatment with 2 mg of pitavastatin once daily (n = 44) (PITA group) or diet and exercise only, except their antidiabetic medications (n = 49), for 24 weeks. (3) Results: In lipid profiles, the reduction in total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was significantly increased in the PITA group (TC; 207.5 ± 20 vs. 195.5 ± 30.0 ng/dL, p < 0.001, LDL-C; 132.0 ± 15.8 vs. 123.1 ± 25.7 mg/dL, p < 0.001). Adiponectin and HMW adiponectin were elevated in the PITA group, compared to the control group without significance. The PITA group showed a lower level of HOMA-IR and HOMA-β levels. However, there was no significance (HOMA-IR; p = 0.5921 -at 12 weeks and p = 0.3645 at 24 weeks; HOMA-β; p = 0.8915 at 12 weeks and p = 0.7313 in 6 months). (4) Conclusions: The present study did not show a significant change in serum adiponectin or HMW adiponectin from baseline in serum adiponectin following pitavastatin therapy. Although statin has been considered as a risk for dysglycemia, pitavastatin did not affect insulin sensitivity.

Assessing the Incidence of New-onset Diabetes Mellitus with Statin Use: A Systematic Review of the Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Statin use has been linked with new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). In the present systematic review, we aimed to determine the incidence of NODM with statin use by assessing and summarizing the data generated by different systematic reviews and metaanalyses published on this topic. We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses using a pre-defined study protocol. Two authors independently performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies reporting data on statin use and NODM incidence and screened and extracted data for the outcomes of interest. The Assessing the Methodological Auality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The initial search yielded 621 potential records, and 16 relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the present systematic review. The included studies showed an increase in the risk of NODM with statin use. In particular, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were associated with NODM in many systematic reviews or meta-analyses; however, pravastatin and pitavastatin were found to be associated with lower or no risk. We observed a positive trend of development of NODM with statin use became more evident with advancing years as more number of studies were added. Intensive doses of statins and use in older subjects were found to be important risk factors for NODM. Finally, the quality assessment revealed that the included systematic reviews and metaanalyses were of critically low or low quality. We concluded that statin use carries a risk of causing NODM. Statins should not be discouraged in anticipation of NODM. However, glycaemic monitoring should be encouraged with the on-going statin therapy. Furthermore, clinical studies addressing the use of statins and the incidence of NODM as their primary objective should be planned.

Effects of high-intensity statin combined with telmisartan versus amlodipine on glucose metabolism in hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients with impaired fasting glucose: A randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

There is lacking evidence that telmisartan can improve insulin resistance in patients on high-intensity statins. This study compared the effects of telmisartan and amlodipine on glucose metabolism in hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) requiring high-intensity rosuvastatin therapy.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups [telmisartan-statin group (n=48) and amlodipine-statin group (n=51)] as add-on therapy to high-intensity rosuvastatin therapy (20 mg). The primary endpoint was to assess insulin resistance using the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) value at week 24. The secondary endpoint was the change in glucose metabolism indices from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

The HOMA-IR at week 24 (2.4 [interquartile range, 1.8-3.8] versus 2.7 [1.7-3.7]; P = .809) and changes in the HOMA-IR from baseline to week 24 (-7.0 [-29.0 to 21.0] versus -5.5 [-53.3 to 27.3]; P = .539) were not significantly different between 2 groups. However, the fasting glucose level at week 24 was significantly lower in the telmisartan-statin group than in the amlodipine-statin group (107.7 ± 13.4 mg/dL versus 113.3 ± 12.4 mg/dL; P = .039) and significantly decreased in the telmisartan-statin group (-3.2 ± 8.6% versus 3.8 ± 13.2%; P = .003). The proportion of patients with fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL (71.1% versus 89.6%; P = .047) or new-onset diabetes mellitus (12.5% versus 31.4%, P = .044) at week 24 was also significantly lower in the telmisartan-statin group than in the amlodipine-statin group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to amlodipine, telmisartan did not decrease the HOMA-IR. However, telmisartan preserved insulin secretion, led to a regression from IFG to euglycemia and prevented new-onset diabetes mellitus in ASCVD patients with IFG requiring high-intensity statins.

Statins effect on insulin resistance after a meal and exercise in hypercholesterolemic pre-diabetic individuals

Aim

To study if statins, a widely prescribed, inexpensive medication to prevent coronary artery diseases may cause insulin resistance (IR).

Methods

Fasted (HOMA‐IR) and post‐meal insulin resistance were assessed in 21 pre‐diabetic hypercholesterolemic individuals treated with statins (STA trial). Measurements were compared to another trial conducted 96 h after statin withdrawal using placebo pills (PLAC trial). Trials were duplicated 16–18 h after a bout of moderate‐intensity exercise (500 kcal of energy expenditure) to reduce IR and better appreciate statin effects (EXER+STA and EXER+PLAC trials).

Results

Statin withdrawal did not affect fasting (HOMA‐IR; 2.35 ± 1.05 vs. 2.18 ± 0.87 for STA vs. PLAC trials; p = 0.150) or post‐meal insulin resistance (i.e., Matsuda‐index, STA 6.23 ± 2.83 vs. PLAC 6.49 ± 3.74; p = 0.536). A bout of aerobic exercise lowered post‐meal IR (p = 0.043), but statin withdrawal did not add to the exercise actions (p = 0.564). Statin withdrawal increased post‐meal plasma free glycerol concentrations (0.136 ± 0.073 vs. 0.185 ± 0.090 mmol·L⁻¹ for STA vs. PLAC trials; p < 0.001) but not plasma free fatty acids or fat oxidation (p = 0.981, and p = 0.621, respectively). Post‐meal fat oxidation was higher in the exercise trials (p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Withdrawal of statin medication does not affect fasting or post‐meal insulin resistance in pre‐diabetic hypercholesterolemic individuals. Furthermore, statin use does not interfere with the beneficial effects of exercise on lowering IR.

Impact of pitavastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin: a distributed network analysis of 10 real-world databases

BACKGROUND

Statin treatment increases the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM); however, data directly comparing the risk of NODM among individual statins is limited. We compared the risk of NODM between patients using pitavastatin and atorvastatin or rosuvastatin using reliable, large-scale data.

METHODS

Data of electronic health records from ten hospitals converted to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (n = 14,605,368 patients) were used to identify new users of pitavastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin (atorvastatin + rosuvastatin) for ≥ 180 days without a previous history of diabetes or HbA1c level ≥ 5.7%. We conducted a cohort study using Cox regression analysis to examine the hazard ratio (HR) of NODM after propensity score matching (PSM) and then performed an aggregate meta-analysis of the HR.

RESULTS

After 1:2 PSM, 10,238 new pitavastatin users (15,998 person-years of follow-up) and 18,605 atorvastatin + rosuvastatin users (33,477 person-years of follow-up) were pooled from 10 databases. The meta-analysis of the HRs demonstrated that pitavastatin resulted in a significantly reduced risk of NODM than atorvastatin + rosuvastatin (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.87). In sub-analysis, pitavastatin was associated with a lower risk of NODM than atorvastatin or rosuvastatin after 1:1 PSM (HR 0.69; CI 0.54-0.88 and HR 0.74; CI 0.55-0.99, respectively). A consistently low risk of NODM in pitavastatin users was observed when compared with low-to-moderate-intensity atorvastatin + rosuvastatin users (HR 0.78; CI 0.62-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective, multicenter active-comparator, new-user, cohort study, pitavastatin reduced the risk of NODM compared with atorvastatin or rosuvastatin.

Simvastatin is associated with superior lipid and glycaemic control to atorvastatin and reduced levels of incident Type 2 diabetes, in men and women, in the UK Biobank

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Statins reduce low-density lipoproteins and positively affect CVD outcomes. Statin type and dose have differential effects on glycaemia and risk of incident T2DM; however, the impact of gender, and of individual drugs within the statin class, remains unclear.

AIM

To compare effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on lipid and glycaemic control in men and women with and without T2DM, and their association with incident T2DM.

METHODS

The effect of simvastatin and atorvastatin on lipid and glycaemic control was assessed in the T2DM DiaStrat cohort. Prescribed medications, gender, age, BMI, diabetes duration, blood lipid profile and HbA1c were extracted from Electronic Care Record, and compared in men and women prescribed simvastatin and atorvastatin. Analyses were replicated in the UKBiobank in those with and without T2DM. The association of simvastatin and atorvastatin with incident T2DM was also investigated in the UKBiobank. Cohorts where matched for age, BMI and diabetes duration in men and women, in the UKBioBank analysis, where possible.

RESULTS

Simvastatin was associated with better LDL (1.6 ± 0.6 vs 2.1 ± 0.9 mmol/L, p < .01) and total cholesterol (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 4.2 ± 1.0 mmol/L, p < .05), and glycaemic control (62 ± 17 vs 67 ± 19 mmol/mol, p < .059) than atorvastatin specifically in women in the DiaStrat cohort. In the UKBiobank, both men and women prescribed simvastatin had better LDL (Women: 2.6 ± 0.6 vs 2.6 ± 0.7 mmol/L, p < .05; Men: 2.4 ± 0.6 vs 2.4 ± 0.6, p < .01) and glycaemic control (Women:54 ± 14 vs 56 ± 15mmol/mol, p < .05; Men, 54 ± 14 vs 55 ± 15 mmol/mol, p < .01) than those prescribed atorvastatin. Simvastatin was also associated with reduced risk of incident T2DM in both men and women (p < .0001) in the UKBiobank.

CONCLUSIONS

Simvastatin is associated with superior lipid and glycaemic control to atorvastatin in those with and without T2DM, and with fewer incident T2DM cases. Given the importance of lipid and glycaemic control in preventing secondary complications of T2DM, these findings may help inform prescribing practices.

Mini-Review on the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin: “The novel seventh statin gaining momentum”

Background:

Recently, a plethora of events have affected the statin arena such as muscle-induced myalgia, myopathy, myositis, rare rhabdomyolysis, and new-onset diabetes. The latest statin pitavastatin has emerged with descent stamina (optimum efficacy and improved safety).

Objective:

The objective of the current review is to explore the pros and cons of pitavastatin as a novel second-generation statin in terms of efficacy and safety that delineate its clinical utility.

Methods:

The review was conducted via EBSCO hosted Medline search (AL Ain University, UAE subscription) for relevant English written literature articles containing “pitavastatin” as the primary search term “pitavastatin and safety;” “pitavastatin and efficacy” and “pitavastatin and safety and randomized clinical trials;” and “pitavastatin and efficacy and randomized clinical trials.”

Results:

The number of articles containing the word “pitavastatin” as the primary search term used was (n = 901). The next retrieves MeSH term was “pitavastatin and safety” (n = 99) and then “pitavastatin and efficacy” (n = 132). Furthermore, narrowing down the search by adding study design terms revealed: “pitavastatin and safety and randomized clinical trials,” (n = 10) and “pitavastatin and efficacy and randomized clinical trials” (n = 13). Combining the two main searches (safety and efficacy) has yielded 23 items, of which 15 articles were satisfying the current mini-review criteria. The prominent efficacy of pitavastatin was depicted by the increase in high-dense lipoprotein cholesterol and a decrease in low-dense lipoprotein cholesterol as illustrated by the clinical trials in the results and discussions section. The safety was enlightened with a very low propensity to cause new-onset diabetes and a low tendency for statin-induced muscular adverse events.

Conclusion:

Pitavastatin might be suitable for patients with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS), metabolic syndrome, and patients with diabetes. We highly recommend rational individualization for the selection of statin, especially in patients with diabetes and/or with ACS.

Differences in the diabetogenic effect of statins in patients with prediabetes. The PRELIPID study

INTRODUCTION

Statins are used with the understanding that a slightly increased risk of diabetes is outweighed by their cardiovascular benefits. However, it may be necessary to reconsider whether statin therapy really increase this risk mainly in the population with prediabetes.

METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study was conducted to assess the relationship between statin therapy and glucose metabolism in 407 patients aged 63.1 years (11SD) diagnosed with dyslipidemia and prediabetes treated in specialized lipid clinics in Spain.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found in HbA1c values among treatment groups (p=0.015). Patients treated with pitavastatin (1-4mg/day) showed the lowest HbA1c levels, with significant differences compared to patients treated with atorvastatin 40-80mg/day (p=0.016) and simvastatin 10-40mg/day (p=0.036). By contrast, patients treated with atorvastatin 40-80mg/day showed the highest HbA1c levels compared to those receiving atorvastatin 10-20mg/day (p=0.003), pitavastatin 1-4mg/day (p=0.016), pravastatin 20-40mg/day (p=0.027), rosuvastatin 5-10mg/day (p=0.043), and no statin treatment (p=0.004). Patients treated with simvastatin 10-40mg/day also had higher values than those treated with atorvastatin 10-20mg/day (p=0.016) and pitavastatin 1-4mg/day (p=0.036) or with no statin treatment (p=0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that there are differences in the diabetogenic effect of statins. Simvastatin and high doses of atorvastatin may be associated with greater impairment in glucose metabolism than pitavastatin and other statins with less lipid-lowering potency such as pravastatin.

Diabetogenic effects of cardioprotective drugs

Drugs that protect against cardiovascular events in the patient with diabetes may also positively or negatively affect glycaemic control in the patient with established diabetes and may induce the development of diabetes in the predisposed patient. Mainly through increasing insulin resistance, beta-blockers, statins and high-dose diuretics have the potential to worsen glycaemic control. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, low-dose diuretics, vasodilating beta-blockers, alpha-blockers and pitavastatin have little or no effect on glycaemic control. Blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, colesevelam, ranolazine and verapamil, through slowing breakdown of bradykinin, vasodilation, increasing cholecystokinin levels, blocking sodium channels and decreasing beta cell apoptosis, may improve glycaemic control and avoid the development of diabetes.

Effects of Pitavastatin, Atorvastatin, and Rosuvastatin on the Risk of New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus: A Single-Center Cohort Study

Statins constitute the mainstay treatment for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, which is associated with the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). However, the effects of individual statins on the risk of NODM remain unclear. We recruited 48,941 patients taking one of the three interested statins in a tertiary hospital between 2006 and 2018. Among them, 8337 non-diabetic patients taking moderate-intensity statins (2 mg/day pitavastatin, 10 mg/day atorvastatin, and 10 mg/day rosuvastatin) were included. The pitavastatin group had a higher probability of being NODM-free than the atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups during the 4-year follow-up (log-rank test: p = 0.038). A subgroup analysis revealed that rosuvastatin had a significantly higher risk of NODM than pitavastatin among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–2.05, p = 0.025), hypertension (aHR, 1.26, 95% CI, 1.00–1.59, p = 0.047), or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (aHR, 1.74, 95% CI, 1.02–2.94, p = 0.04). We concluded that compared with rosuvastatin, reduced diabetogenic effects of pitavastatin were observed among patients treated with moderate-intensity statin who had hypertension, COPD, or CAD. Additional studies are required to prove the effects of different statins on the risk of NODM.

Effect of bempedoic acid on new onset or worsening diabetes: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Bempedoic acid is a new agent that reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Since inhibits cholesterol synthesis through a different mechanism than statins, the adverse effects related to it may also be different. Therefore, the objective of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of bempedoic acid on new onset or worsening diabetes.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis including randomized trials of bempedoic acid therapy, reporting new onset or worsening diabetes with a minimum of 4 weeks of follow-up. The fixed-effects model was performed. This meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Five eligible trials of bempedoic acid, including 3629 patients, were identified and considered eligible for the analyses. A total of 2419 subjects were allocated to receive bempedoic acid while 1210 subjects were allocated to the respective control arms. Bempedoic acid therapy is associated with a significant reduction in new onset or worsening diabetes [Odds Ratio: 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.90; I2: 0%].

CONCLUSION

This data suggests that the use of bempedoic acid significantly reduces the new onset or worsening diabetes risk. This finding should be confirmed with future studies.

Effects of Pitavastatin on Lipoprotein Subfractions and Oxidized Low-density Lipoprotein in Patients with Atherosclerosis

It has been demonstrated that pitavastatin can significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-C), but its impact on lipoprotein subfractions and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL) has not been determined. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential effects of pitavastatin on subfractions of LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) as well as oxLDL in untreated patients with coronary atherosclerosis (AS). Thirty-six subjects were enrolled in this study. Of them, 18 patients with AS were administered pitavastatin 2 mg/day for 8 weeks and 18 healthy subjects without therapy served as controls. The plasma lipid profile, lipoprotein subfractions and circulating oxLDL were determined at baseline and 8 weeks respectively. The results showed that pitavastatin treatment indeed not only decreased LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG) and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) levels, and increased HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), but also reduced the cholesterol concentration of all of the LDL subfractions and the percentage of intermediate and small LDL subfractions. Meanwhile, pitavastatin could decrease plasma oxLDL levels. Furthermore, a more close correlation was found between oxLDL and LDL-C as well as LDL subfractions after pitavastatin treatment. We concluded that a moderate dose of pitavastatin therapy not only decreases LDL-C and oxLDL concentrations but also improves LDL subfractions in patients with AS.

Safety and Efficacy of Pitavastatin in Patients With Impaired Fasting Glucose and Hyperlipidemia: A Randomized, Open-labeled, Multicentered, Phase IV Study

PURPOSE

Although the role of high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy in cardiovascular protection has broadened, concerns still exist about new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), especially in vulnerable patients. This study aimed to compare the effect of high-dose (4 mg/d) and usual dose (2 mg/d) pitavastatin on glucose metabolism in patients with hyperlipidemia and impaired fasting glucose (IFG).

METHODS

In this 12-month study, glucose tolerance and lipid-lowering efficacy of high-dose pitavastatin (4 mg [study group]) was compared with that of usual dose pitavastatin (2 mg [control group]) in patients with hyperlipidemia and IFG. The primary end point was the change of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) after 24 weeks of treatment. The secondary end points were as follows: (1) NODM within 1 year after treatment, (2) change of lipid parameters, (3) changes of adiponectin, and (4) change of blood glucose and insulin levels.

FINDINGS

Of the total 417 patients screened, 313 patients with hypercholesterolemia and IFG were randomly assigned into groups. The mean (SD) change in HbA_1c was 0.06% (0.20%) in the study group and 0.03% (0.22%) in the control group (P = 0.27). Within 1 year, 27 patients (12.3%) developed NODM, including 12 (10.6%) of 113 patients in the study group and 15 (14.2%) of 106 in the control group (P = 0.43). The study group had a significantly higher reduction of total cholesterol and LDL-C levels and a higher increase in apolipoprotein A1/apolipoprotein B ratio (0.68 [0.40] vs 0.51 [0.35], P < 0.01).

IMPLICATIONS

The high-dose pitavastatin therapy did not aggravate glucose metabolism compared with the usual dose therapy. Moreover, it had a better effect on cholesterol-lowering and apolipoprotein distribution in the patients with hyperlipidemia and IFG.

Time- and Dose-Dependent Association of Statin Use With Risk of Clinically Relevant New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Prevention: A Nationwide Observational Cohort Study

Background

Given that statins are increasingly being used for primary‐prevention, the public concerns regarding the risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus associated with statin use may be an issue.

Methods and Results

Using healthcare data from the national health insurance examinees, our study comprised a cohort of adults aged ≥40 years with hypercholesterolemia who would be eligible for statin therapy for primary prevention from 2005 to 2012. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant new‐onset diabetes mellitus requiring medical therapy. Among 2 162 119 adults with hypercholesterolemia who might be eligible for statin therapy, 638 625 (29.5%) ever used statins and 1 523 494 (70.5%) never used statins. In the propensity‐matched cohort of 518 491 pairs, during mean follow‐up of 3.9 years, being an ever‐user of statin was significantly associated with diabetes mellitus risk compared with being a never‐user of statin (13.4 versus 6.9 per 1000 person‐years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.85–1.93). With increasing duration of statin use, the risk of diabetes mellitus was proportionally increased (HR 1.25 <1 year, HR 2.22 for 1–2 years, and HR 2.62 >2 years). An excess risk of diabetes mellitus was also associated with a higher intensity (HR 1.75 for low‐to‐moderate potency and HR 2.31 for high potency) and a cumulative dosing of statin (HR 1.06 for low‐tertile, HR 1.74 for middle‐tertile, and HR 2.52 for high‐tertile of defined‐daily‐disease).

Conclusions

In patients receiving statin therapy for primary prevention, there was a time‐ and dose‐dependent association of statin use with an increasing risk of new‐onset diabetes mellitus.

See Editorial Robinson

LDL subclass lipidomics in atherogenic dyslipidemia: effect of statin therapy on bioactive lipids and dense LDL

Atherogenic LDL particles are physicochemically and metabolically heterogeneous. Can bioactive lipid cargo differentiate LDL subclasses, and thus potential atherogenicity? What is the effect of statin treatment? Obese hypertriglyceridemic hypercholesterolemic males [n = 12; lipoprotein (a) <10 mg/dl] received pitavastatin calcium (4 mg/day) for 180 days in a single-phase unblinded study. The lipidomic profiles (23 lipid classes) of five LDL subclasses fractionated from baseline and post-statin plasmas were determined by LC-MS. At baseline and on statin treatment, very small dense LDL (LDL5) was preferentially enriched (up to 3-fold) in specific lysophospholipids {LPC, lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI), lysoalkylphosphatidylcholine [LPC(O)]; 9, 0.2, and 0.14 mol per mole of apoB, respectively; all P < 0.001 vs. LDL1-4}, suggesting elevated inflammatory potential per particle. In contrast, lysophosphatidylethanolamine was uniformly distributed among LDL subclasses. Statin treatment markedly reduced absolute plasma concentrations of all LDL subclasses (up to 33.5%), including LPC, LPI, and LPC(O) contents (up to -52%), consistent with reduction in cardiovascular risk. Despite such reductions, lipotoxic ceramide load per particle in LDL1-5 (1.5-3 mol per mole of apoB; 3-7 mmol per mole of PC) was either conserved or elevated. Bioactive lipids may constitute biomarkers for the cardiometabolic risk associated with specific LDL subclasses in atherogenic dyslipidemia at baseline, and with residual risk on statin therapy.

Time-varying and dose-dependent effect of long-term statin use on risk of type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the effect of statin use on new-onset type 2 diabetes among individuals without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) using nationally representative South Korean claims data (2002-2013, N = 1,016,820).

METHODS

A total of 13,698 patients (statin users 5273, non-statin users 5273) aged 40-74 years, newly diagnosed with dyslipidemia but without any history of diabetes or ASCVD, were selected in 2005. We followed up the final sample until 2013 and evaluated the cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes. We used extended Cox regression models to estimate the time-varying adjusted hazard ratios of statin use on new-onset type 2 diabetes. We performed further analyses based on the cumulative defined daily dose of statin received per year to evaluate the degree of risk compared to non-statin users.

RESULTS

Over the mean follow-up period of 7.1 years, 3034 patients developed type 2 diabetes; the number of statin users exceeded that of non-users, demonstrating that statin use significantly increased the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. The risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes differed among statin users according to cDDD per year (adjusted HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.18-1.46] for less than 30 cDDD per year; 1.58 [1.43-1.75] for 30-120 cDDD per year; 1.83 [1.62-2.08] for 120-180 cDDD per year; and 2.83 [2.51-3.19] for more than 180 cDDD per year). The diabetogenic effect of pitavastatin was not statistically significant, but the risk was the largest for atorvastatin. Long-term exposure (≥ 5 years) to statins was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of new onset type 2 diabetes in all statin subtypes explored, with the highest magnitude for simvastatin (HR = 1.916, 95% CI 1.647-2.228) followed by atorvastatin (HR = 1.830, 95% CI 1.487-2.252).

CONCLUSIONS

Statin use was significantly associated with an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. We also found a dose-response relationship in terms of statin use duration and dose maintenance. Periodic screening and monitoring for incident type 2 diabetes may be warranted in long-term statin users.

Exploring the role of adipsin in statin-induced glucose intolerance: a prospective open label study

Background Evidence from the literature, highlights the increased risk of developing glucose intolerance and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with statin therapy. In addition, few animal studies demonstrate that adipsin secreted from adipocytes plays a crucial role in insulin secretion and the development of T2DM. Methods To further explore the role of serum adipsin, in this prospective open label study, 55 newly diagnosed dyslipidemic patients were enrolled. Before starting statin therapy, liver function test (LFT), kidney function test (KFT), lipid profile, glycemic parameters [glycated hemoglobin A (HbA1c), fasting blood sugar (FBS), and postprandial blood sugar (PPBS)], serum insulin, and serum adipsin were estimated. Then these patients were prescribed statin (i.e. atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, or pitavastatin) and after 12 weeks of therapy, all the above investigations were repeated. Results After 12 weeks of statin therapy, the LFT and KFT values remained unchanged and lipid parameters showed significant improvement. But the glycemic parameters deranged significantly (p < 0.001), i.e. FBS, PPBS, and HbA1c increased by 12.49% (102.99 ± 20.76 mg/dL), 24.72% (147.71 ± 47.29 mg/dL), and 21.43% (6.38 ± 1.34%), respectively. On the other hand, the baseline adipsin (2.73 ± 1.99 ng/mL) and insulin (16.13 ± 12.50 mIU/L) levels reduced significantly (p < 0.0001) to 1.43 ±1.13 ng/mL and 6.91 ± 5.93 mIU/L, respectively. The reduction in serum adipsin also showed a positive correlation with reduction in serum insulin (r = 0.85; p < 0.0001). None of the patients experienced any significant adverse effect or reaction leading to discontinuation of therapy. Conclusions There might be an association between reduction in adipsin and development of glucose intolerance by statin therapy.

Statin Safety and Associated Adverse Events: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

One in 4 Americans >40 years of age takes a statin to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and other complications of atherosclerotic disease. The most effective statins produce a mean reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 55% to 60% at the maximum dosage, and 6 of the 7 marketed statins are available in generic form, which makes them affordable for most patients. Primarily using data from randomized controlled trials, supplemented with observational data where necessary, this scientific statement provides a comprehensive review of statin safety and tolerability. The review covers the general patient population, as well as demographic subgroups, including the elderly, children, pregnant women, East Asians, and patients with specific conditions such as chronic disease of the kidney and liver, human immunodeficiency viral infection, and organ transplants. The risk of statin-induced serious muscle injury, including rhabdomyolysis, is <0.1%, and the risk of serious hepatotoxicity is ≈0.001%. The risk of statin-induced newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus is ≈0.2% per year of treatment, depending on the underlying risk of diabetes mellitus in the population studied. In patients with cerebrovascular disease, statins possibly increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke; however, they clearly produce a greater reduction in the risk of atherothrombotic stroke and thus total stroke, as well as other cardiovascular events. There is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship between statins and cancer, cataracts, cognitive dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, erectile dysfunction, or tendonitis. In US clinical practices, roughly 10% of patients stop taking a statin because of subjective complaints, most commonly muscle symptoms without raised creatine kinase. In contrast, in randomized clinical trials, the difference in the incidence of muscle symptoms without significantly raised creatinine kinase in statin-treated compared with placebo-treated participants is <1%, and it is even smaller (0.1%) for patients who discontinued treatment because of such muscle symptoms. This suggests that muscle symptoms are usually not caused by pharmacological effects of the statin. Restarting statin therapy in these patients can be challenging, but it is important, especially in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, for whom prevention of these events is a priority. Overall, in patients for whom statin treatment is recommended by current guidelines, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.

Incidence of new-onset diabetes with 1 mg versus 4 mg pitavastatin in patients at high risk of developing diabetes during a 3-year follow-up

Background

Statin therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events across a broad spectrum of patients; however, it increases the risk of new-onset diabetes (NOD). Although the highest dose pitavastatin is considered to not be associated with NOD, there are limited data regarding the impact of long-term highest dose pitavastatin use on the development of NOD in patients at high risk of developing diabetes. Therefore, we prospectively compared the differences in the development of NOD between the lowest and the highest dose of pitavastatin in patients at high risk of developing diabetes during a 3-year follow-up.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of a prospective, single-blinded, randomized study compared the risk of NOD between the highest dose of pitavastatin (4 mg) and the lowest dose of pitavastatin (1 mg) over a 3-year follow-up in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Among 1044 patients of the original study, 667 patients at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus were in the subgroup analysis. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the differences in the cumulative incidence of NOD in the pitavastatin 1 mg and 4 mg groups during a 3-year follow-up.

Results

With propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in baseline demographic characteristics between the 2 groups. Incidence of NOD was similar between the pitavastatin 1 mg and 4 mg groups [12 of 289 patients (4.2%) and 8 of 289 patients (2.8%), respectively; p = 0.36]. In a prespecified analysis, there were no significant differences in NOD events according to sex, age, diagnosis, body mass index, glucose intolerance, or dyslipidemia.

Conclusions

Administration of highest-dose pitavastatin did not increase the risk of NOD in patients at high risk of developing diabetes during the 3-year follow-up. Moreover, various risk factors for NOD such as metabolic syndrome components, glucose intolerance, dyslipidemia, obesity, or hypertension did not affect the development of NOD during pitavastatin administration. Thus, the highest dose pitavastatin can be safely used in patients with metabolic syndrome who are at high risk of developing diabetes.

Trial registration Clinical Trial registration information. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02545231. Unique identifier: NCT02545231

Differential Diabetogenic Effect of Pitavastatin and Rosuvastatin, in vitro and in vivo

Aim: Most statins increase the risk of new-onset diabetes. Unlike other statins, pitavastatin is reported to exert neutral effects on serum glucose level, but the precise mechanism is unknown.

Methods: Eight-week-old male C57BL/6J mice (n = 26) were fed high-fat diet (HFD, 45% fat) with 0.01% placebo, rosuvastatin, or pitavastatin for 12 weeks. Cultured HepG2, C2C12, and 3T3-L1 cells and visceral adipocytes from HFD-fed mice were treated with vehicle or 10 µM statins for 24 h. The effects of pitavastatin and rosuvastatin on intracellular insulin signaling and glucose transporter 4 (GLUT4) translocation were evaluated.

Results: After 12 weeks, the fasting blood glucose level was significantly lower in pitavastatin-treated group than in rosuvastatin-treated group (115.2 ± 7.0 versus 137.4 ± 22.3 mg/dL, p = 0.024). Insulin tolerance significantly improved in pitavastatin-treated group as compared with rosuvastatin-treated group, and no significant difference was observed in glucose tolerance. Although plasma adiponectin and insulin levels were not different between the two statin treatment groups, the insulin-induced protein kinase B phosphorylation was weakly attenuated in pitavastatin-treated adipocytes than in rosuvastatin-treated adipocytes. Furthermore, minor attenuation in insulin-induced GLUT4 translocation to the plasma membrane of adipocytes was observed in pitavastatin-treated group.

Conclusion: Pitavastatin showed lower diabetogenic effects than rosuvastatin in mice that may be mediated by minor attenuations in insulin signaling in adipocytes.

Apolipoprotein E2 Genotype Is Associated with a 2-Fold Increase in the Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results from a Long-Term Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The apolipoprotein E (APOE) polymorphisms are associated with cardiovascular (CV) disease, but its interaction with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) long-term incidence is unknown. We investigated the association between APOE genotype and long-term (i) CV events and (ii) T2DM incidence in a Southern European primary prevention cohort.

METHODS

We assessed individual APOE genotypes in a total of 436 patients followed at a lipid clinic, with a 15-year median follow-up time. We collected data on major CV events (CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) and T2DM development.

RESULTS

No differences were found regarding major CV event incidence among the different APOE genotypes. However, after excluding 39 patients with a prior history of T2DM, APOE2 carriers displayed a higher incidence of T2DM during follow-up (42.2%) than APOE3 (27.1%) and APOE4 (28.7%) carriers. The age-, sex-, triglycerides-, and statin usage-adjusted OR for T2DM incidence in APOE2 carriers was 1.8 (95%CI 1.1-2.9, p=0.03), compared with wild-type APOE3. To address the role of statins as a confounder, we analyzed T2DM incidence in statin-treated patients. Statin-treated APOE2 carriers also had a higher T2DM incidence (57.9%), in comparison with APOE3 homozygotes (31.6%) and APOE4 carriers (32.5%). After adjustment for confounding, APOE2 carriers on statins displayed a similar twofold increase in T2DM risk compared to APOE3 homozygotes (OR 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.0, p=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest a twofold increase in T2DM incidence in APOE2 carriers. This may prompt for a specific glucose dysmetabolism follow-up that might be tailored on the APOE genotype.

The statins effects on HbA1c control among diabetic patients: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and clinical trials

Statins have impacts on the metabolism of glucose that might influence the progress of diabetes in non-diabetics or affect glycemic control in patients with existing diabetes. Experimental proof has been contradictory about whether some statins display beneficial properties while others indicate harmful impressions. Some systematic reviews of statins had stated conflicting findings on the concern of glucose metabolism. The current study investigates the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to combine their results and give a clear situation regarding the influence of statins therapy on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). This study has valuable strength points; long follow-up period and big sample size.

Impaired blood glucose levels in patients with dyslipidemia: what are the therapeutic implications? The PREVENDIAB study

Aim: Dyslipidemia and diabetes are two of the main cardiovascular risk factors due to their impact and high prevalence. The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence of impaired glucose metabolism in dyslipidemic patients attending the cardiology department. Patients & methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational epidemiological study that consecutively enrolled the first ten dyslipidemic patients who attended the cardiology outpatient clinic. To find associated factors between variables, a bivariate analysis was performed, using a Student's t-test and a Fisher's exact test. Results: From the 490 analyzed patients, 67.4% of them presented impaired blood glucose levels, 39.2% with DM and 28.1% with prediabetes. Conclusion: More than half of the patients presented alterations of the glucose metabolism, very few reached a good metabolic control and a great number were found polymedicated.

Low density lipoprotein mimics insulin action on autophagy and glucose uptake in endothelial cells

Elevated plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease. In addition to being able to cross the endothelial barrier to become accumulated in subendothelial space and thereby initiate atherosclerosis, LDL may exert a direct effect on vascular endothelial cells through activation of LDL receptor and its downstream signaling. Whether LDL can modulate the signaling for autophagy in endothelial cells is not clear. The present study firstly demonstrated that LDL can suppress endothelial autophagy through activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway and can promote glucose uptake by translocating glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) from cytoplasm to cell membrane, actions similar to those of insulin. A co-immunoprecipitation assay found that LDL receptor (LDLR) and insulin receptor (IR) formed a complex in HUVECs. Knock down of the insulin receptor by small interfering RNA blocked the suppression of autophagy by LDL, as well as the signaling pathway involved. We conclude that LDL may mimic the action of insulin in endothelial cells, which might partly explain the increased incidence of diabetes in patients receiving some LDL-lowering therapy.

Statin treatment and increased diabetes risk. Possible mechanisms

Statins have been associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), as confirmed in previous observational studies and meta-analyses. Controversy exists as to whether this risk varies depending on statin type or dose. However, there appears to be unanimity regarding the different associated factors that raise this risk. Furthermore, diverse pathophysiologic mechanisms have been described that could explain the increased risk of diabetes in patients with statin treatment. These fundamentally cause a rise in insulin resistance together with a decrease in insulin secretion. The present review aimed to describe the relationship between statin treatment and the presence of diabetes and provide an update of previous published evidence and the possible mechanisms involved.

Consensus document of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA) for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus

A consensus document of the Diabetes working group of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA) is presented, based on the latest studies and conceptual changes that have appeared. It presents the cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the action guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with T2DM. The importance of lipid control, based on the objective of LDL-C and non-HDL-C when there is hypertriglyceridemia, and the blood pressure control in the prevention and treatment of CVD is evaluated. The new hypoglycemic drugs and their effects on CVD are reviewed, as well as the treatment and control guidelines of hyperglycemia. Likewise, the use of antiplatelet agents is considered. Emphasis is placed on the importance of global and simultaneous action on all risk factors to achieve a significant reduction in cardiovascular events. This supplement is sponsored by Laboratorios Esteve, S.A.

Effect of statins on fasting glucose in non-diabetic individuals: nationwide population-based health examination in Korea

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence suggest that statin therapy has a diabetogenic effect. Individual types of statin may have a different effect on glucose metabolism. Using the repeated nationwide population-based health screening data in Korea, we investigated the longitudinal changes in fasting glucose level of non-diabetic individuals by use of statins.

METHODS

From the National Health Screening Cohort, we included 379,865 non-diabetic individuals who had ≥ 2 health screening examinations with fasting blood glucose level measured in 2002-2013. Using the prescription records of statins in the database, we calculated the proportion of days covered (PDC) and average number of defined daily doses per day (anDDD) by statins. We constructed multivariate linear mixed models to evaluate the effects of statins on the changes in fasting glucose (Δglu).

RESULTS

High PDC by statins had a significant positive effect on Δglu (coefficient for PDC 0.093 mmol/L, standard error 0.007, p < 0.001). anDDD by statins was also positively associated with Δglu (coefficient for anDDD 0.119 mmol/L, standard error 0.009, p < 0.001). Unlike statins, the PDC by fibrate and ezetimibe were not significantly associated with Δglu. There was no significant interaction effect on Δglu between time interval and statin. Considering individual types of statins, use of atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin, and simvastatin were significantly associated with increase of Δglu. Pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin were also positively associated with Δglu, but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

More adherent and intensive use of statins was significantly associated with an increase in fasting glucose of non-diabetic individuals. In subgroup analysis of individual statins, use of atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and simvastatin had significant association with increase in fasting glucose. Pravastatin, lovastatin, and fluvastatin had non-significant trend toward an increased fasting glucose. Our findings suggest the medication class effect of statins inducing hyperglycemia.

Effects of Pitavastatin on Insulin Sensitivity and Liver Fat: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Context

3-Hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) are widely prescribed. Statins may have important metabolic effects on insulin sensitivity and liver fat, but limited studies have assessed these effects by using euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp, stable isotopes, and 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) for liver fat quantification.

Objective

To study the effects of pitavastatin on hepatic fat and insulin sensitivity.

Design

Six-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting

Academic clinical research center in Boston, Massachusetts.

Participants

Overweight, insulin-resistant men aged 40 to 65 years who had not received statin therapy for ≥1 year.

Interventions

Pitavastatin 4 mg or placebo daily.

Outcome

The primary endpoints were changes in insulin sensitivity measured by euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp and liver fat measured by 1H MRS.

Results

Pitavastatin showed no effect on endogenous glucose production (ΔRa glucose 0.07 ± 0.07 vs 0.04 ± 0.07 mg/kg/min, pitavastatin vs placebo, P = 0.76) or insulin-stimulated glucose uptake during "low dose" (ΔM 0.1 ± 0.1 vs -0.3 ± 0.2 mg/kg/min, P = 0.11) and "high dose" (ΔM -0.5 ± 0.3 vs -0.7 ± 0.4 mg/kg/min, P = 0.70) euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamps. There was also no effect of pitavastatin on fasting glucose, HbA1c, and 2-hour glucose after 75-g glucose challenge. There was also no change in liver fat fraction (-1 ± 1 vs -0 ± 1%, P = 0.56).

Conclusion

Compared with placebo, pitavastatin did not affect hepatic or whole-body insulin sensitivity, and it did not reduce liver fat.

Effect of Pitavastatin Compared with Atorvastatin andRosuvastatin on New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus in PatientsWith Acute Myocardial Infarction

Although statin use in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is mandatory, it has been suggested to be associated with new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). In real world practice, moderate-intensity statin therapy is more commonly used than high-intensity statin therapy. In this study, we investigated the impact of moderate-intensity pitavastatin (2 to 4 mg) compared with moderate-intensity atorvastatin (10 to 20 mg) and rosuvastatin (5 to 10 mg) on the development of NODM during a follow-up period of up to 3years. Between November 2011 and May 2015, 2001 patients with AMI who did not have diabetes mellitus were investigated. The cumulative incidence of NODM was evaluated in all groups. To adjust for potential confounders, multinomial propensity scores were used. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the hazard ratio of NODM in the atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups compared with pitavastatin group. The cumulative incidence of NODM was significantly lower in pitavastatin group compared with the atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups (3.0% vs 8.4% vs 10.4%, respectively; Log-rank p value = 0.001). After weighting the baseline characteristics of the 3 statin groups by multinomial propensity scores, atorvastatin (hazard ratio: 2.615, 95% confidence interval: 1.163 to 5.879) and rosuvastatin (hazard ratio: 3.906, 95% confidence interval: 1.756 to 8.688) were found to be associated with a higher incidence of NODM compared with pitavastatin therapy on multivariable analysis. Moderate-intensity pitavastatin therapy is associated with a lower incidence of NODM in patients with AMI andhas similar clinical outcomes to moderate-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin therapy.

Atorvastatin, but not pravastatin, inhibits cardiac Akt/mTOR signaling and disturbs mitochondrial ultrastructure in cardiac myocytes

Statins, which reduce LDL-cholesterol by inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase, are among the most widely prescribed drugs. Skeletal myopathy is a known statin-induced adverse effect associated with mitochondrial changes. We hypothesized that similar effects would occur in cardiac myocytes in a lipophilicity-dependent manner between 2 common statins: atorvastatin (lipophilic) and pravastatin (hydrophilic). Neonatal cardiac ventricular myocytes were treated with atorvastatin and pravastatin for 48 h. Both statins induced endoplasmic reticular (ER) stress, but only atorvastatin inhibited ERK1/2^T202/Y204, Akt^Ser473, and mammalian target of rapamycin signaling; reduced protein abundance of caveolin-1, dystrophin, epidermal growth factor receptor, and insulin receptor-β; decreased Ras homolog gene family member A activation; and induced apoptosis. In cardiomyocyte-equivalent HL-1 cells, atorvastatin, but not pravastatin, reduced mitochondrial oxygen consumption. When male mice underwent atorvastatin and pravastatin administration per os for up to 7 mo, only long-term atorvastatin, but not pravastatin, induced elevated serum creatine kinase; swollen, misaligned, size-variable, and disconnected cardiac mitochondria; alteration of ER structure; repression of mitochondria- and endoplasmic reticulum-related genes; and a 21% increase in mortality in cardiac-specific vinculin-knockout mice during the first 2 months of administration. To our knowledge, we are the first to demonstrate in vivo that long-term atorvastatin administration alters cardiac ultrastructure, a finding with important clinical implications.-Godoy, J. C., Niesman, I. R., Busija, A. R., Kassan, A., Schilling, J. M., Schwarz, A., Alvarez, E. A., Dalton, N. D., Drummond, J. C., Roth, D. M., Kararigas, G., Patel, H. H., Zemljic-Harpf, A. E. Atorvastatin, but not pravastatin, inhibits cardiac Akt/mTOR signaling and disturbs mitochondrial ultrastructure in cardiac myocytes.

Adverse effects of statin therapy: perception vs. the evidence - focus on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, haemorrhagic stroke and cataract

Aims

To objectively appraise evidence for possible adverse effects of long-term statin therapy on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, and risk for haemorrhagic stroke or cataract.

Methods and results

A literature search covering 2000-2017 was performed. The Panel critically appraised the data and agreed by consensus on the categorization of reported adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and genetic studies show that statin therapy is associated with a modest increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (about one per thousand patient-years), generally defined by laboratory findings (glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5); this risk is significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes. Statin treatment does not adversely affect cognitive function, even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and is not associated with clinically significant deterioration of renal function, or development of cataract. Transient increases in liver enzymes occur in 0.5-2% of patients taking statins but are not clinically relevant; idiosyncratic liver injury due to statins is very rare and causality difficult to prove. The evidence base does not support an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in individuals without cerebrovascular disease; a small increase in risk was suggested by the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction of Cholesterol Levels study in subjects with prior stroke but has not been confirmed in the substantive evidence base of RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies.

Conclusion

Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; statin-associated muscle symptoms were discussed in a previous Consensus Statement. Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects.