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

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.

Is a PCSK9 Inhibitor Right for Your Patient? A Review of Treatment Data for Individualized Therapy

INTRODUCTION

In the United States, a significant amount of the population is affected by hyperlipidemia, which is associated with increased levels of serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) and risk of cardiovascular disease. As of 2019, the guidelines set by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association advocate for the use of statins as the major contributor to lowering serum LDL-C. While proven to be effective, side effects, including muscle-related symptoms and new-onset diabetes mellitus, can make patients unable to tolerate statin therapy. Additionally, there is a subset of the population which does not approach a recommended LDL-C goal on statin treatment. Due to these findings, it was deemed necessary to review the literature of current statin-alternative lipid-lowering therapies.

METHODS

A systematic review of preclinical and clinical papers, and a current meta-analysis, was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Following the literature review, a meta-analysis was conducted using ProMeta 3.

RESULTS

Through systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature, it is suggested that newer lipid-lowering therapies such as proprotein convertase subtilsin-kixen type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors are a safe and effective statin alternative for the population with statin intolerance. PCSK9 inhibitors were shown to have no significant effect in causing myalgia in patients and showed no increase in adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared to a control of a current antilipemic medication regimen.

DISCUSSION

There are many statin-alternative therapies that should be investigated further as a potential replacement for patients with statin intolerance or as an addition for patients with statin resistance.

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.

Diabetes and Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Interplay between Lipid and Glucose Metabolism

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic disease characterized by high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (LDL-c) concentrations that increase cardiovascular risk and cause premature death. The most frequent cause of the disease is a mutation in the LDL receptor (LDLR) gene. Diabetes is also associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. People with FH seem to be protected from developing diabetes, whereas cholesterol-lowering treatments such as statins are associated with an increased risk of the disease. One of the hypotheses to explain this is based on the toxicity of LDL particles on insulin-secreting pancreatic β-cells, and their uptake by the latter, mediated by the LDLR. A healthy lifestyle and a relatively low body mass index in people with FH have also been proposed as explanations. Its association with superimposed diabetes modifies the phenotype of FH, both regarding the lipid profile and cardiovascular risk. However, findings regarding the association and interplay between these two diseases are conflicting. The present review summarizes the existing evidence and discusses knowledge gaps on the matter.

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.

Real-World Analyses of the Safety Outcome among a General Population Treated with Statins: An Asian Population-Based Study

Aim: The safety concern of statins is still a major issue for Asians. The aim of this study is to compare the risk of statin-associated adverse events among potent statins.

Methods: We included patients from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database who had been treated with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, or pitavastatin and were without diabetes at baseline. They were classified into three groups: usual-dose statin (atorvastatin 10 mg/d or rosuvastatin 5–10 mg/d), high-dose statin (atorvastatin 20–40 mg/d and rosuvastatin 20 mg/d), and pitavastatin (2–4 mg/d). The primary endpoint is a composite of safety events, including hepatitis, myopathy, and new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). We matched age, sex, and year of recruitment among the three groups (n=50,935 in each group) and then used the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate the relation between the safety endpoint and different statin groups.

Results: After a mean follow-up of 3.08±0.83 years, the safety events occurred in 9.84% in the pitavastatin group, 10.88% in the usual-dose statin group, and 10.49% in high-dose statin group. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model indicated that usual-dose statin and high-dose statin were associated with a higher risk of the composite safety events compared with pitavastatin (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08–1.17 for usual-dose statin and aHR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.10 for high-dose statin). The risks of hepatitis requiring hospitalization and NODM were especially lower in pitavastatin group.

Conclusions: Compared with atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, pitavastatin might be associated with a lower risk of safety events in Asians.

Comparative effect of statin intensity between prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus after implanting newer-generation drug-eluting stents in Korean acute myocardial infarction patients: a retrospective observational study

Background

Comparative studies regarding the long-term clinical outcomes of statin intensity between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with prediabetes and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), after successful implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) with statin treatment, are limited. We compared the 2-year clinical outcomes between these patients.

Methods

A total of 11,612 AMI patients were classified as statin users (n = 9893) and non-users (n = 1719). Thereafter, statin users were further divided into high-intensity (n = 2984) or low-moderate-intensity statin (n = 6909) treatment groups. Those in these two groups were further classified into patients with normoglycemia, prediabetes, and T2DM. The major outcomes were the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI), or any repeat coronary revascularization.

Results

After adjusting for both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin users, the cumulative incidences of MACE (p = 0.737, p = 0.062, respectively), all-cause death, Re-MI, and any repeat revascularization were similar between the prediabetes and T2DM groups. In the total study population, both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin treatments showed comparable results. However, in the patients who enrolled after October 2012, the cumulative incidences of MACE (aHR 1.533; 95% CI 1.144–2.053; p = 0.004) and any repeat revascularization (aHR, 1.587; 95% CI 1.026–2.456; p = 0.038) were significantly lower in high-intensity statin users than in low-moderate intensity statin users. The beneficial effects of high-intensity compared to low-moderate-intensity statin therapy were more apparent in the normoglycemia group than hyperglycemia group, as it reduced the cumulative incidences of MACE (aHR 1.903; 95% CI 1.203–3.010; p = 0.006) and any repeat revascularization (aHR 3.248; 95% CI 1.539–6.854; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

In this retrospective registry study, prediabetes and T2DM groups showed comparable clinical outcomes, after administering both high-intensity and low-moderate-intensity statin treatments. However, these results are likely to be clearly proved by further studies, especially in patients with AMI who are being treated in contemporary practice.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02198-w.

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.

Prevention of Cardiovascular Events with Pitavastatin is Associated with Increased Serum Lipoprotein Lipase Mass Level: Subgroup Analysis of the TOHO-LIP

Aim: To clarify the mechanism by which pitavastatin reduced cardiovascular (CV) events more effectively than atorvastatin in the TOHO Lipid Intervention Trial Using Pitavastatin (TOHO-LIP), the changes in (Δ) non-heparinized serum level of lipoprotein lipase mass (LPL mass) during administration of the respective statins were investigated.

Methods: From TOHO-LIP data, 223 hypercholesterolemic patients with any CV risks followed at Toho University Sakura Medical Center were analyzed. The patients were randomized to pitavastatin (2 mg/day) group ( n =107) or atorvastatin (10 mg/day) group ( n =116), and followed for 240 weeks. In this subgroup study, the primary and secondary end points were the same as those in TOHO-LIP, and 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE) was added. The relationship between ΔLPL mass during the first year and the incidences of each end point was analyzed.

Results: The lipid-lowering effect was not different between the two statins. Cumulative 240-week incidence of each end point was significantly lower in pitavastatin group (primary: 1.9% vs. 10.3%, secondary: 4.7% vs. 18.1%, 3P-MACE: 0.9% vs. 6.9%). Mean LPL mass (64.9 to 69.0 ng/mL) and eGFR (70.1 to 73.6 ml/min/1.73m ² ) increased in pitavastatin group, but not in atorvastatin group during the first year. Cox proportional-hazards model revealed that ΔLPL mass (1 ng/mL or 1SD) contributed to almost all end points.

Conclusions: Pitavastatin administration reduced CV events more efficaciously than atorvastatin despite similar LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of the two statins. Increased LPL mass during the first year by pitavastatin treatment may be associated with this efficacy.

New onset diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular events in Korean patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving high-intensity statins

BACKGROUND

High-intensity statin therapy is typically used in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for secondary prevention. However, there have been consistent concerns regarding its association with diabetes mellitus. We investigated the effect of high-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) and cardiovascular outcomes over a 3-year follow-up period.

METHODS

Data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were collected from November 2011 to October 2015, and 13,104 patients with AMI were enrolled from major cardiovascular centers. Among them, 2221 patients without diabetes who had been administered with high-intensity atorvastatin (40-80 mg) and rosuvastatin (20 mg) were investigated. The atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups were evaluated for the incidence of NODM and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization cases in the following 3 years.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Event-free survival rate of NODM was not significantly different between the atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups (92.5% vs. 90.8%, respectively; Log-rank P-value = 0.550). The event-free survival rate of MACE was also not significantly different between atorvastatin and rosuvastatin groups (89.0% vs. 89.6%, respectively; Log rank P-value = 0.662). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that statin type was not a prognostic factor in the development of NODM and MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering high-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in patients with AMI produced comparable effects on NODM and clinical outcomes, suggesting their clinical equivalence in secondary prevention.

High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease Treated with Statins: An Observation from the REAL-CAD Study

AIM

The association between high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level after statin therapy and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains unclear. Thus, in this study, we sought to determine how HDL-C level after statin therapy is associated with cardiovascular events in stable CAD patients.

METHODS

From the REAL-CAD study which had shown the favorable prognostic effect of high-dose pitavastatin in stable CAD patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ＜120 mg/dL, 9,221 patients with HDL-C data at baseline and 6 months, no occurrence of primary outcome at 6 months, and reported non-adherence for pitavastatin, were examined. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring emergent admission after 6 months of randomization. Absolute difference and ratio of HDL-C levels were defined as (those at 6 months-at baseline) and (absolute difference/baseline)×100, respectively.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 4.0 (IQR 3.2-4.7) years, the primary outcome occurred in 417 (4.5%) patients. The adjusted risk of all HDL-C-related variables (baseline value, 6-month value, absolute, and relative changes) for the primary outcome was not significant (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-1.08, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98-1.12, and HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.24, respectively). Furthermore, adjusted HRs of all HDL-C-related variables remained non-significant for the primary outcome regardless of on-treatment LDL-C level at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

After statin therapy with modestly controlled LDL-C, HDL-C level has little prognostic value in patients with stable CAD.

CAVI-Lowering Effect of Pitavastatin May Be Involved in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Subgroup Analysis of the TOHO-LIP

AIM

In the TOHO Lipid Intervention Trial Using Pitavastatin (TOHO-LIP), a multicenter randomized controlled trial, pitavastatin significantly reduced cardiovascular (CV) events compared to atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia. To investigate the mechanism by which pitavastatin preferentially prevents CV events, we investigated the relationship between CV events and cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) using the TOHO-LIP database.

METHODS

For the subgroup analysis, we selected patients from a single center, Toho University Sakura Medical Center. After excluding those who had CV events at baseline or during the first year, 254 patients were enrolled. The primary end point was the same as that of TOHO-LIP, and three-point major cardiac adverse events (3P-MACE) was added as secondary end point.

RESULTS

The cumulative 5-year incidence of 3P-MACE (pitavastatin 1.6%, atorvastatin 6.1%, P=0.038) was significantly lower in pitavastatin group (2 mg/day) than in atorvastatin group (10 mg/day). CAVI significantly decreased only in pitavastatin group during the first year (9.50-9.34, P=0.042), while the change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) did not differ between the two groups. The change in CAVI during the first year positively correlated with 3P-MACE and tended to be an independent predictor of 3P-MACE in Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio, 1.736; P=0.079). The annual change in CAVI throughout the observation period was significantly higher in subjects with CV events compared to those without.

CONCLUSIONS

In this subgroup analysis, the reduction in CV events tended to be associated with the CAVI-lowering effect of pitavastatin, which was independent of the LDL-C-lowering effect.

Efficacy and Safety of Pitavastatin in a Real-World Setting: Observational Study Evaluating SaFety in Patient Treated with Pitavastatin in Korea (PROOF Study)

BACKGROUND

While randomized controlled trials provide useful information about drug safety and efficacy, they do not always reflect the observed results in the real world. The prospective, observational, non-comparative trial in South Korea was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin in clinical practice in 28,343 patients.

METHODS

This study was conducted in 893 facilities in Korea from April 2, 2012 to April 1, 2017. This study was designed to administer 1, 2, or 4 mg pitavastatin to patients with hyperlipidemia at the age of 20 or older for at least 8 weeks.

RESULTS

For 126 days of mean duration of administration of pitavastatin, the % change of low density lipoprotein cholesterol indicated a dose dependent reduction: -23.4%, -29.1%, and -35.2% in the 1, 2, and 4 mg groups, respectively in patients who have not been treated with lipid lowering medications prior to study. Only 1.74% (492/28,343) of pitavastatin-treated patients experienced adverse events, of which 0.43% (123/28,343) were adverse drug reactions. Less than 1% of patients experienced the grade 2 or more toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) in alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, serum creatinine, and serum creatine phosphokinase. Although there were no rhabdomyolysis in 28,343 patients, 0.04% of patients had been reported pitavastatin-related musculoskeletal disorders.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this observational study showed that pitavastatin was well tolerated and effectively modified the lipid profile, reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk in Korean patients with hypercholesterolemia in the real world.

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 different types and dosages of statins on plasma lipoprotein(a) levels: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Studies differ with respect to the effects of statins and their on lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] levels. The aim of the present study was to resolve these differences by determining the effect of various types and dosages of statins on Lp(a) levels.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of statins on plasma Lp(a) levels. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by four authors. We conducted pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Consistency models were applied to NMA and the ranking probabilities for each treatment's efficacy were calculated. Node-splitting analysis was used to test inconsistency. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42020167612.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs with 23,605 participants were included, involving 11 interventions. Most of the included studies presented some risks of bias, especially risks of performance and detection bias. In the pairwise meta-analysis, pooled results showed a small but statistically significant difference between high-intensity rosuvastatin and placebo on Lp(a) levels (MD = 1.81, 95 % CI [0.43, 3.19], P = 0.01). In the NMA, different types and dosages of statins showed no significant effect on the level of Lp(a), and there was no obvious difference between them. Subgroup analysis based on different populations and treatment durations did not provide any statistically significant findings about different statins on Lp(a) levels. Node-splitting analysis showed that no significant inconsistency existed (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Statins have no clinically significant effect on Lp(a) levels, and there is no significant difference in the effect on Lp(a) levels between different types and dosages of statins. Moderate-intensity pitavastatin tended to have the best effect on reducing Lp(a) levels; nevertheless, it was insignificant. Our findings highlight the necessity for further study of the effect of statins on Lp(a) levels in future studies.

Clinical Benefit of Statins in Korean Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Experience of the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

Statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor) are among the most important medications for treating patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Herein, we review the clinical benefit and future scope of statin therapy in Korean patients with AMI from the experience of the Korea AMI Registry. Statins are effective and safe in AMI patients, even in those with very low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Peri-procedural statin treatment could reduce the incidence of early stent thrombosis in patients with AMI after percutaneous coronary intervention. Reduction of high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels in patients with AMI plays an important role in the beneficial effect of statins on regression and compositional change of coronary plaques. Obtaining ≥50% reduction in LDL-C is associated with better clinical outcomes after AMI, whereas achieving <70 mg/dL LDL-C is not. Statin therapy has positive effects on clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock, ischemic heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and vasospasm. The combination of high-dose statin plus N-acetyl cysteine is associated with lower incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Moderate-intensity pitavastatin therapy is associated with a lower incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus in patients with AMI and has similar clinical outcomes to moderate-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin therapy. Future studies are required to assess the optimal intensity and LDL-C target concerning statin therapy, and the implementation of guidelines based cholesterol lowering practice in Korean patients with AMI.

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.

Outcome of pitavastatin versus atorvastatin therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

There has been no report about outcome of pitavastatin versus atorvastatin therapy in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

Hypercholesterolemic patients with one or more risk factors for atherosclerotic diseases (n = 664, age = 65, male = 54%, diabetes = 76%, primary prevention = 74%) were randomized to receive pitavastatin 2 mg/day (n = 332) or atorvastatin 10 mg/day (n = 332). Follow-up period was 240 weeks. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, sudden death of unknown origin, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attack, or heart failure requiring hospitalization. The secondary end point was a composite of the primary end point plus clinically indicated coronary revascularization for stable angina.

RESULTS

The mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at baseline was 149 mg/dL. The mean LDL-C levels at 1 year were 95 mg/dL in the pitavastatin group and 94 mg/dL in the atorvastatin group. There were no differences in LDL-C levels between both groups, however, pitavastatin significantly reduced the risk of the primary end point, compared to atorvastatin (pitavastatin = 2.9% and atorvastatin = 8.1%, HR, 0.366; 95% CI 0.170-0.787; P = 0.01 by multivariate Cox regression) as well as the risk of the secondary end point (pitavastatin = 4.5% and atorvastatin = 12.9%, HR = 0.350; 95%CI = 0.189-0.645, P = 0.001). The results for the primary and secondary end points were consistent across several prespecified subgroups. There were no differences in incidence of adverse events between the statins.

CONCLUSION

Pitavastatin therapy compared with atorvastatin more may prevent cardiovascular events in hypercholesterolemic patients with one or more risk factors for atherosclerotic diseases despite similar effects on LDL-C levels.

Recent advances in synthetic pharmacotherapies for dyslipidaemias

Despite the demonstrated benefits of statins and injectable biologics, there is a need for new and safe oral agents for addressing classical lipid targets, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). LDL-C is unquestionably causal in the development of atherogenesis and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but new options are required to address triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and lipoprotein(a). For hypercholesterolaemia, pitavastatin provides a very low dose and potent statin that does not adversely affect glucose metabolism; bempedoic acid acts at a biochemical step preceding hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase and is not associated with muscular side effects. For hypertriglyceridaemia, pemafibrate displays a unique and selective agonist activity on peroxisomal proliferator activated receptor-α that does not elevate homocysteine or creatinine. Although omega-3 fatty acids supplementation is not effective in secondary prevention, high dose eicosapentaenoic ethyl ester can lead to a remarkable fall in first and recurrent events in high risk patients with hypertriglyceridaemia/low HDL-C. Gemcabene, a dicarboxylic acid regulating apolipoprotein B-100, is effective in reducing both cholesterol and triglycerides. Among cholesteryl ester transfer protein antagonists that elevate HDL-C, only anacetrapib reduces cardiovascular events. Probucol stimulates reverse cholesteryl ester transport, lowers LDL-C stabilizing plaques and may lower incidence of cardiovascular events. These agents, which act through novel mechanisms, afford good and potentially safe treatment choices that may increase adherence and the attainment of therapeutic targets.