Effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on renal function: A meta-analysis

Renal Safety Assessment of Lipid-Lowering Drugs: Between Old Certainties and New Questions

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Quantitative and qualitative changes in plasma lipoprotein profiles are frequently associated with CKD and represent a significant risk factor for CVD in patients with CKD. Guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology and the European Atherosclerosis Society classify CKD as a condition with high or very high cardiovascular risk and set specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets. Conventional lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), such as statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, can control CKD-associated dyslipidemia and, to some extent, prevent major atherosclerotic events in patients with CKD, but their use in clinical practice presents challenges because of the potential renal safety concerns. In recent years, novel therapies with the ability to lower both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides have been introduced to the market (e.g., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, bempedoic acid, lomitapide, volanesorsen) to improve our ability to control lipid abnormalities. However, their impact on kidney functionality has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this review was to examine the renal safety profiles of various LLTs, with special reference to novel medications, and to highlight important considerations and guidance for the use of these medications in overt CKD or in patients with some degree of renal function impairment. We underscore the lack of a comprehensive understanding of kidney safety, particularly for novel LLT therapies, and strongly emphasize the importance of future dedicated research to fully assess the safety and efficacy of these agents in patients with kidney abnormalities.

The association of statin use with in-hospital mortality in patients with acute kidney injury during hospitalization: A retrospective analysis

AIM

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a severe condition in hospitalized patients and carries high mortality. The influence of statin use on the outcomes of AKI patients remains inconsistent. We aimed to discover the association between statin use and in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective study screened all adult admissions in Peking University First Hospital between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2020, and patients with AKI during hospitalization were included. Exposure was defined as any statin prescription prior to AKI onset. Patients were followed up until death or discharge. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included cardiovascular- and sepsis-related mortality, elevated transaminases, rhabdomyolysis and kidney nonrecovery at discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 2034 AKI patients were included. 551 (27%) patients were statin users. During a median of 10 days of follow-up, we documented 283 (14%) in-hospital deaths. Compared with statin nonusers, statin users experienced a significantly lower risk in in-hospital all-cause mortality (adjust hazard ratio [aHR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.84) and cardiovascular-related mortality (aHR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.97) after covariate adjustment. The survival benefit of statin use was consistent across subgroups, that is, age, sex, initial AKI stage and major surgery (all P for heterogeneity >.05). For sepsis-related mortality, elevated transaminases, rhabdomyolysis and kidney nonrecovery, the association was no longer significant in the fully adjusted model. For any type of statins, a statistically significant association was only observed in atorvastatin (aHR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Statin use may improve survival, and atorvastatin may be preferred in patients with AKI.

Comparison of Efficacy of Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Statins, particularly atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin, are crucial in managing cholesterol levels and reducing cardiovascular risk in ACS patients. However, direct comparative studies between these two statins are limited. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality in patients with ACS. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus for studies published up to July 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies directly comparing atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in ACS patients were included. The primary outcomes were the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality. Six studies involving 4195 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference between atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in reducing MACE [risk ratio (RR): 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68 to 1.22, p-value: 0.54] or all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.70, p-value: 0.83). No significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I-square: 0% for both outcomes). This meta-analysis suggests that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin have comparable efficacy in reducing MACE and all-cause mortality in ACS patients. These findings provide clinicians with flexibility in choosing between these statins based on individual patient factors. However, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results and explore potential differences in specific patient subgroups.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Atorvastatin with Rosuvastatin in Preventing Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to assess and compare the efficacy of atorvastatin with rosuvastatin in preventing cardiovascular events among patients already diagnosed with cardiovascular disease (CVD). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Two investigators independently searched online databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Excerpta Medica database (Embase), from the inception of databases until November 2023. The primary outcome assessed in the meta-analysis included cardiovascular mortality and a composite of cardiovascular events. Other outcomes included myocardial infarction and stroke. A total of four studies were selected for our meta-analysis. A total of 7,378 patients were enrolled, including 3,721 in the atorvastatin group and 3,657 in the rosuvastatin group. Pooled analysis showed that the incidence of composite cardiovascular events was not significantly different in patients receiving atorvastatin and patients receiving rosuvastatin (risk ratio (RR): 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79 to 1.09, p-value: 0.38, I-square: 0%). Pooled analysis showed that the risk of cardiovascular mortality was not significantly different between the two study groups (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.81, p-value: 0.93, I-square: 0%). In conclusion, our meta-analysis, based on four selected studies, found no significant disparities in composite cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke between patients administered atorvastatin and those receiving rosuvastatin. This outcome underscores the comparable efficacy of these statins in mitigating cardiovascular risks, highlighting their clinical equipoise in the realm of secondary prevention.

A Prospective, Randomized, Open-Label Trial of Atorvastatin versus Rosuvastatin in the Prevention of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury, Worsened Renal Function at 30 Days, and Clinical Events After Acute Coronary Angiography: the PRATO-ACS-2 Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Both high-dose atorvastatin and rosuvastatin have been shown to reduce contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) occurrence and improve clinical outcomes in high-risk coronary patients undergoing angiographic procedures. However, there is a lack of head-to-head comparative studies on the effects of atorvastatin or rosuvastatin administered upon hospital admission in statin-naive patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS

In this open-label, noninferiority study, we compared changes in renal function in 709 NSTE-ACS patients randomized to atorvastatin (80 mg upon admission followed by 40 mg/day) or rosuvastatin (40 mg upon admission followed by 20 mg/day). The primary end point was AKI (increase in serum creatinine ≥0.5 mg/dL or ≥25% above baseline within 72 h). Worsening renal function (WRF) (decrease of ≥25% in the glomerular filtration rate from baseline to 30 days), 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events, and 12-month myocardial infarction (MI) or death were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The AKI incidence was similar in the 2 groups (i.e., 8.2% with rosuvastatin and 7.6% with atorvastatin; absolute risk difference = 0.54; 90% CI -3.9 to 2.8), satisfying the noninferiority criteria. WRF occurred in 53 (7.5%) patients, 19 (34%) of whom had developed AKI. The rates of WRF and adverse events at 30 days and at 12 months did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Both AKI and WRF were found to be closely associated with the 12-month cardiovascular outcome irrespectively of statin choice.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose rosuvastatin or atorvastatin started upon hospital admission led to similar rates of AKI, 30-day renal function changes, and 12-month death or MI in NSTE-ACS patients who underwent an early invasive strategy (clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT01870804).

Statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and the risk of acute kidney injury

Purpose

To investigate the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in subjects initiating statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Methods

A nationwide cohort study using French hospital discharge and claims databases was performed, studying subjects from the general population aged 40 to 75 years in 2009, with no history of CVD and no lipid‐lowering drugs during the preceding 3‐year period, followed for up to 7 years. Exposure to statins (type, dose, and time since first use) and to other drugs for CVD risk was assessed. The primary outcome was hospital admission for AKI.

Results

The cohort included 8 236 279 subjects, 818 432 of whom initiated a statin for primary prevention. During 598 487 785 person‐months exposed to statins, 700 events were observed, corresponding to an incidence of AKI of 4.59 per 10 000 person‐years (7.01 in men, 3.01 in women). AKI mainly occurred in the context of organ failure, sepsis, and genitourinary disease. A 19% increased rate of AKI (hazard ratio = 1.19, 95%CI: 1.08‐1.31) was observed in men exposed to statins, whereas no increase in the overall risk of AKI was observed in women. However, exposure to high‐potency statins was associated with a 72% to 116% increased risk in both genders and a dose‐effect relationship observed for rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. No temporal pattern of occurrence nor interaction with drugs for CVD risk was observed.

Conclusions

Although the overall risk of AKI appears moderately increased, more attention should be paid to renal function in subjects taking statins for primary prevention both in clinical practice and from a research viewpoint.

[The problem of safety of lipid-lowering therapy]

This study focused on analysis of current publications evaluating safety of lipid-lowering therapy. Search for literature was performed on websites of cardiological societies and online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and eLibrary by the following key words: statins, statin intolerance, lipid-lowering therapy, statin safety, and statin аdverse effects. The focus is on statins, in view of the fact that they are the most commonly prescribed, highly effective and safe drugs for primary and secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis. This review consistently summarized information about myopathies, hepatic and renal dysfunction, potentiation of DM, and other possible adverse effects of lipid-lowering therapy. The author concluded that despite the high safety of statins acknowledged by all international cardiological societies, practicing doctors still continue unreasonably cancel statins, exposing the patient under even greater danger. Information about the corresponding author.

2019 Taiwan Society of Lipids and Atherosclerosis expert consensus statement on statin intolerance

Statin reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and improves clinical outcomes in high risk patients. In general, statin is a safe and well-tolerated medication. However, varieties of adverse effects are reported in some patients and may interfere long-term drug compliance. Statin-associated muscle events and liver function change account for most of these adverse effects. Patients are regarded as statin intolerance if they need to discontinue statin therapy due to these adverse effects. To date, there is no universal standard definition of statin intolerance. But a pragmatic definition of statin intolerance is essential and helpful for clinicians in daily practice. In this article, after expert consensus meetings and literature review, criteria were recommended to identify patients with statin intolerance in Taiwan. The purpose of this statement is to help health care professionals in Taiwan to diagnose and manage individuals who develop muscular and hepatic side effects after statin therapy.

Pharmacological Options in Atherosclerosis: A Review of the Existing Evidence

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide and high low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels have been shown to be key in the pathogenesis of this condition. Lipid control has therefore been the subject of decades of research and has led to many large and robust randomized controlled trials, as well as the highest grossing drug of all time—Lipitor (atorvastatin). Statin therapy has long been indicated for secondary and more recently primary prevention. However, despite the large-scale use of statins, CHD prevalence remains high, and some patients do not respond to statin therapy. There has been a large push to find and test alternative lipid-lowering agents, these include fibrates, cholesterol absorption inhibitors, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK-9) inhibitors. It is the aim of this review to assess the literature surrounding each of these groups of drugs.

Role of statins in preventing cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The prevention of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI) by statins remains controversial. Therefore, the present meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to assess the effect of perioperative statin on CSA-AKI.

Methods

Two reviewers independently searched for RCTs about perioperative statin for prevention of CSA-AKI. The primary endpoint was CSA-AKI. Relative risk was calculated between statin and placebo for preventing CSA-AKI using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model according to different heterogeneity.

Results

Eight RCTs met inclusion criteria, including five studies with atorvastatin, two with rosuvastatin, and one with simvastatin. There were 1,603 patients receiving statin treatment and 1,601 with placebo. Perioperative statin therapy did not reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI (relative risk =1.17, 95% CI: 0.98–1.39, p=0.076). Furthermore, perioperative statin increased the risk of CSA-AKI in the subgroup analysis with clear definition of CSA-AKI and those with JADAD score >3. Perioperative rosuvastatin produced slightly significantly higher risk of AKI than atorvastatin therapy (p=0.070). Statin intervention both pre and post surgery slightly increased the risk of CSA-AKI versus preoperative statin therapy alone (p=0.040).

Conclusions

Perioperative statin therapy might increase the risk of CSA-AKI after cardiac surgery.

Impact of Glycemic Variability on Chromatin Remodeling, Oxidative Stress, and Endothelial Dysfunction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and With Target HbA1c Levels

Intensive glycemic control (IGC) targeting HbA_1c fails to show an unequivocal reduction of macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Epigenetic changes are emerging as important mediators of cardiovascular damage and may play a role in this setting. This study investigated whether epigenetic regulation of the adaptor protein p66^Shc, a key driver of mitochondrial oxidative stress, contributes to persistent vascular dysfunction in patients with T2D despite IGC. Thirty-nine patients with uncontrolled T2D (HbA_1c >7.5%) and 24 age- and sex-matched healthy control subjects were consecutively enrolled. IGC was implemented for 6 months in patients with T2D to achieve a target HbA_1c of ≤7.0%. Brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD), urinary 8-isoprostaglandin F_2α (8-isoPGF_2α), and epigenetic regulation of p66^Shc were assessed at baseline and follow-up. Continuous glucose monitoring was performed to determine the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE) and postprandial incremental area under the curve (AUCpp). At baseline, patients with T2D showed impaired FMD, increased urinary 8-isoPGF_2α, and p66^Shc upregulation in circulating monocytes compared with control subjects. FMD, 8-isoPGF_2α, and p66^Shc expression were not affected by IGC. DNA hypomethylation and histone 3 acetylation were found on the p66^Shc promoter of patients with T2D, and IGC did not change such adverse epigenetic remodeling. Persistent downregulation of methyltransferase DNMT3b and deacetylase SIRT1 may explain the observed p66^Shc-related epigenetic changes. MAGE and AUCpp but not HbA_1c were independently associated with the altered epigenetic profile on the p66^Shc promoter. Hence, glucose fluctuations contribute to chromatin remodeling and may explain persistent vascular dysfunction in patients with T2D with target HbA_1c levels.

Statin-Associated Side Effects

Hydroxy-methyl-glutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors or statins are well tolerated, but associated with various statin-associated symptoms (SAS), including statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), diabetes mellitus (DM), and central nervous system complaints. These are "statin-associated symptoms" because they are rare in clinical trials, making their causative relationship to statins unclear. SAS are, nevertheless, important because they prompt dose reduction or discontinuation of these life-saving mediations. SAMS is the most frequent SAS, and mild myalgia may affect 5% to 10% of statin users. Clinically important muscle symptoms, including rhabdomyolysis and statin-induced necrotizing autoimmune myopathy (SINAM), are rare. Antibodies against HMG-CoA reductase apparently provoke SINAM. Good evidence links statins to DM, but evidence linking statins to other SAS is largely anecdotal. Management of SAS requires making the possible diagnosis, altering or discontinuing the statin treatment, and using alternative lipid-lowering therapy.

Comparison between Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin in Renal Function Decline among Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Although the beneficial effects of statin treatment in dyslipidemia and atherosclerosis have been well studied, there is limited information regarding the renal effects of statins in diabetic nephropathy. We aimed to investigate whether, and which, statins affected renal function in Asian patients with diabetes.

METHODS

We enrolled 484 patients with diabetes who received statin treatment for more than 12 months. We included patients treated with moderate-intensity dose statin treatment (atorvastatin 10 to 20 mg/day or rosuvastatin 5 to 10 mg/day). The primary outcome was a change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) during the 12-month statin treatment, and rapid renal decline was defined as a >3% reduction in eGFR in a 1-year period.

RESULTS

In both statin treatment groups, patients showed improved serum lipid levels and significantly reduced eGFRs (from 80.3 to 78.8 mL/min/1.73 m² for atorvastatin [P=0.012], from 79.1 to 76.1 mL/min/1.73 m² for rosuvastatin [P=0.001]). A more rapid eGFR decline was observed in the rosuvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group (48.7% vs. 38.6%, P=0.029). Multiple logistic regression analyses demonstrated more rapid renal function loss in the rosuvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group after adjustment for other confounding factors (odds ratio, 1.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.42).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that a moderate-intensity dose of atorvastatin has fewer detrimental effects on renal function than that of rosuvastatin.

Perioperative Rosuvastatin in Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Complications after cardiac surgery are common and lead to substantial increases in morbidity and mortality. Meta-analyses of small randomized trials have suggested that perioperative statin therapy can prevent some of these complications.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1922 patients in sinus rhythm who were scheduled for elective cardiac surgery to receive perioperative rosuvastatin (at a dose of 20 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcomes were postoperative atrial fibrillation within 5 days after surgery, as assessed by Holter electrocardiographic monitoring, and myocardial injury within 120 hours after surgery, as assessed by serial measurements of the cardiac troponin I concentration. Secondary outcomes included major in-hospital adverse events, duration of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit, left ventricular and renal function, and blood biomarkers.

RESULTS

The concentrations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and C-reactive protein after surgery were lower in patients assigned to rosuvastatin than in those assigned to placebo (P<0.001). However, the rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation did not differ significantly between the rosuvastatin group and the placebo group (21.1% and 20.5%, respectively; odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.30; P=0.72), nor did the area under the troponin I-release curve (102 ng×hour per milliliter and 100 ng×hour per milliliter, respectively; between-group difference, 1%; 95% CI, -9 to 13; P=0.80). Subgroup analyses did not indicate benefit in any category of patient. Rosuvastatin therapy did not result in beneficial effects on any of the secondary outcomes but was associated with a significant absolute (±SE) excess of 5.4±1.9 percentage points in the rate of postoperative acute kidney injury (P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial, perioperative statin therapy did not prevent postoperative atrial fibrillation or perioperative myocardial damage in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Acute kidney injury was more common with rosuvastatin. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation and others; STICS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01573143.).

Rosuvastatin: Beyond the cholesterol-lowering effect

Rosuvastatin is a fully synthetic statin wich acts by interfering with the endogenous synthesis of cholesterol through competitively inhibiting the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, a liver enzyme responsible of the rate-limiting step in cholesterol synthesis. When compared to other molecules of the same class, it shows high efficacy in the improvement of lipid profile, and, thanks to its non-cholesterol-lowering actions (anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and antithrombotic), represents a crucial tool for cardiovascular primary and secondary prevention. Moreover, recent data highlight rosuvastatin beneficial effects in several other fields. In this manuscript we analyzed literature sources in order to better define rosuvastatin features and discuss some critical issues.

[An updated overview of the high intensity lipid lowering therapy in high cardiovascular risk patients]

Statins are highly effective drugs to decrease the plasma concentrations of atherogenic lipoproteins and prevent cardiovascular disease. The clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of high-intensity statins to lower LDL-cholesterol by at least 50% in patients with CVD and those at high cardiovascular risk. The recommendations for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia by the ACC/AHA have led to a paradigm shift in cardiovascular prevention. These recommendations have abandoned the therapeutic goals of LDL-cholesterol, and recommend the treatment with statins of high or moderate intensity in four high cardiovascular risk groups. These recommendations are different from the European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention, in which their objectives are still towards LDL-cholesterol. This paper reviews this controversy from different angles and from the perspective of the Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention. Intervention studies with high intensity statins in primary prevention, in patients with acute coronary syndrome, and with stable ischaemic heart disease are also described. Likewise, treatment with statins of high intensity is addressed in terms of their effectiveness in cardiovascular prevention and in terms of their safety, with particular attention to muscle effects, as well as taking into account the pharmacological characteristics of the different statins and the increased safety of those with less potential for interactions. Finally, new agents are described for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia, with special emphasis on anti-PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, a new therapeutic group for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia that will offer a huge progress in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases.

Effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

We performed this population-based study to investigate the effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes. From the Taiwan National Health Insurance Pay-for-Performance program for diabetes mellitus database, 2006 to 2009, type 2 diabetic patients aged 40 to 100 years with the first prescription of atorvastatin or rosuvastatin were identified. All the data were linked to the National Health Insurance claims database, 2000 to 2010, to construct longitudinal health care data. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation was used to calculate the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the eGFRs between baseline and the end of follow-up (maximum 2 years) were compared. Totally, 3,601 new users of atorvastatin and 1,968 new users of rosuvastatin were included. The median follow-up was 238 days in atorvastatin users and 210 days in rosuvastatin users. The eGFR at baseline was 72.3 ± 25.9 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in atorvastatin users and 73.7 ± 27.3 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in rosuvastatin users. In both statin groups, we found no significant change in eGFR (+0.1 ml/min/1.73 m(2), 95% confidence interval -0.4 to 0.7, p = 0.62 in atorvastatin users; -0.1 ml/min/1.73 m(2), 95% confidence interval -0.8 to 0.6, p = 0.77 in rosuvastatin users). In conclusion, neither treatment with atorvastatin nor rosuvastatin was associated with a significant change of renal function in type 2 diabetic patients.

Renal effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in patients with diabetes who have progressive renal disease (PLANET I): a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The role of lipid-lowering treatments in renoprotection for patients with diabetes is debated. We studied the renal effects of two statins in patients with diabetes who had proteinuria.

METHODS

PLANET I was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial done in 147 research centres in Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Romania, and the USA. We enrolled patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes aged 18 years or older with proteinuria (urine protein:creatinine ratio [UPCR] 500-5000 mg/g) and taking stable angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or both. We randomly assigned participants to atorvastatin 80 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 40 mg for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 of mean UPCR in each treatment group. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00296374.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 353 patients: 118 were assigned to rosuvastatin 10 mg, 124 to rosuvastatin 40 mg, and 111 to atorvastatin 80 mg; of these, 325 were included in the intention-to-treat population. UPCR baseline:week 52 ratio was 0·87 (95% CI 0·77-0·99; p=0·033) with atorvastatin 80 mg, 1·02 (0·88-1·18; p=0·83) with rosuvastatin 10 mg, and 0·96 (0·83-1·11; p=0·53) with rosuvastatin 40 mg. In a post-hoc analysis to compare statins, we combined data from PLANET I with those from PLANET II (a similar randomised parallel study of 237 patients with proteinuria but without diabetes; registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00296400). In this analysis, atorvastatin 80 mg lowered UPCR significantly more than did rosuvastatin 10 mg (-15·6%, 95% CI -28·3 to -0·5; p=0·043) and rosuvastatin 40 mg (-18·2%, -30·2 to -4·2; p=0·013). Adverse events occurred in 69 (60%) of 116 patients in the rosuvastatin 10 mg group versus 79 (64%) of 123 patients in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group versus 63 (57%) of 110 patients in the atorvastatin 80 mg group; renal events occurred in nine (7·8%) versus 12 (9·8%) versus five (4·5%).

INTERPRETATION

Despite high-dose rosuvastatin lowering plasma lipid concentrations to a greater extent than did high-dose atorvastatin, atorvastatin seems to have more renoprotective effects for the studied chronic kidney disease population.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Rosuvastatin preserves renal function and lowers cystatin C in HIV-infected subjects on antiretroviral therapy: the SATURN-HIV trial

BACKGROUND

In chronic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, plasma cystatin C may be influenced by factors other than glomerular filtration rate such as inflammation. Statins may improve cystatin C by improving glomerular function or by decreasing inflammation.

METHODS

The Stopping Atherosclerosis and Treating Unhealthy Bone With Rosuvastatin in HIV (SATURN-HIV) trial randomized 147 patients on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART) with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≤130 mg/dL to blinded 10 mg daily rosuvastatin or placebo. We analyzed relationships of baseline and 0- to 24-week changes in plasma cystatin C concentration with measures of vascular disease, inflammation, and immune activation.

RESULTS

Median age was 46 (interquartile range, 40-53) years; 78% were male, 68% African American. Tenofovir and protease inhibitors were used in 88% and 49% of subjects, respectively. Baseline cystatin C was associated with higher carotid intima-media thickness and epicardial adipose tissue independent of age, sex, and race. Biomarkers of endothelial activation and inflammation were associated with cystatin C in a multivariable model independent of creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr). After 24 weeks, statin use slowed mean eGFRcr decline (1.61 vs -3.08 mL/minute/1.73 m(2) for statin vs placebo; P = .033) and decreased mean cystatin C (-0.034 mg/L vs 0.010 mg/L; P = .008). Within the statin group, changes in cystatin C correlated with changes in endothelial activation, inflammation, and T-cell activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin 10 mg daily reduces plasma cystatin C and slows kidney function decline in HIV-infected patients on ART. Reductions in cystatin C with statin therapy correlate with reductions in inflammatory biomarkers. Relationships between cystatin C, kidney function, and cardiovascular risk in HIV may be mediated in part by inflammation. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01218802.

Inflammatory stress reduces the effectiveness of statins in the kidney by disrupting HMGCoA reductase feedback regulation

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are unlikely to gain the same benefit from conventional doses of statins as do patients with cardiovascular disease alone. This study investigated whether inflammation accompanying CKD causes statin resistance.

METHODS

Inflammatory stress was induced by adding cytokines and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to human mesangial cells (HMCs) in vitro, and in vivo by subcutaneous casein injection in apolipoprotein E, scavenger receptors class A and CD36 triple knockout mice.

RESULTS

Inflammatory stress exacerbated cholesterol accumulation and was accompanied in vitro and in vivo by increased HMGCoA reductase (HMGCoA-R) mRNA and protein expression mediated via activation of the sterol regulatory element-binding protein cleavage-activating protein (SCAP)/sterol regulatory element-binding protein 2 pathway. Atorvastatin reduced HMGCoA-R enzymatic activity and intracellular cholesterol synthesis in vitro; however, inflammatory stress weakened these suppressive effects. Atorvastatin at concentrations of 15 µM inhibited HMGCoA-R activity by 50% (IC50) in HMCs, but the same concentration in the presence of interleukin (IL)-1β resulted in only 30% inhibition of HMGCoA-R activity in HMCs. Knocking down SCAP prevented statin resistance induced by IL-1β, and overexpression of SCAP-induced statin resistance even without inflammatory stress. In vivo, the amount of atorvastatin required to lower serum cholesterol and decrease kidney lipid accumulation rose from 2 to 10 mg/kg/day in the presence of inflammatory stress.

CONCLUSIONS

Inflammatory stress can disrupt HMGCoA-R-mediated cholesterol synthesis resulting in intracellular lipid accumulation and statin resistance.

An update on the benefits and risks of rosuvastatin therapy

Rosuvastatin is a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) that reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels to the greatest extent of all currently marketed statins. Prospective, randomized studies demonstrate the ability of rosuvastatin to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and stabilize atherosclerosis. However, the efficacy of rosuvastatin in patient subpopulations (eg, patients with chronic kidney disease, women, ethnic subgroups) is not well described in the literature. To provide an updated, comprehensive review of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin, a literature search of PubMed was conducted using statins as a major topic, MESH topic, or a word in the title (including rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, atorvastatin, pitavastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin). Publications selected for inclusion in this review were published from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013, and provide new information pertaining to the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin.

Statins stabilize the renal function of IgA nephropathy

BACKGROUND

The renoprotective pleiotropic effect of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) has recently been reported by several investigators. However, the effect of statins on IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is still unknown.

METHODS

We selected 24 IgAN patients who had newly started statin therapy and were not treated with steroids and immunosuppressive agents during the observation period. We analyzed and compared clinical findings 1 year before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Mean age was 50.5 ± 9.91 years and mean blood pressure was 90.9 ± 10.8 mmHg. Renal function was slightly deteriorated, serum creatinine was 1.03 (0.71-1.24) mg/dL and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 55.8 ± 22.8 mL/min. Lipid metabolism was poorly controlled [total cholesterol 247.7 ± 35.7 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 151.5 (140.8-172.8) mg/dL, and triglyceride 163.0 (126.3-243.8) mg/dL]. Mild urinary abnormality was observed [proteinuria: 0.50 (0.22-1.29) g/g creatinine, urinary red blood cells 1.0 (0.2-5.0) per high power field]. After 1 year of statin treatment, lipid control was significantly better than at baseline. Proteinuria was not significantly decreased but renal function was improved. eGFR changed from a -5.9% decrease to a 2.4% increase (p = 0.0098).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that statins stabilized the renal function of IgAN patients independent of their reduction of proteinuria.

Natriuretic peptide-guided therapy in chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis of 2,686 patients in 12 randomized trials

Background

The role of cardiac natriuretic peptides in the management of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether natriuretic peptide-guided therapy, compared to clinically-guided therapy, improves mortality and hospitalization rate in patients with chronic HF.

Methodology/Principal Findings

MEDLINE, Cochrane, ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS databases were searched for articles reporting natriuretic peptide-guided therapy in HF until August 2012. All randomized trials reporting clinical end-points (all-cause mortality and/or HF-related hospitalization and/or all-cause hospitalization) were included. Meta-analysis was performed to assess the influence of treatment on outcomes. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the influence of potential effect modifiers and of each trial included in meta-analysis on results. Twelve trials enrolling 2,686 participants were included. Natriuretic peptide-guided therapy (either B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP]- or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]-guided therapy) significantly reduced all-cause mortality (Odds Ratio [OR]:0.738; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:0.596 to 0.913; p = 0.005) and HF-related hospitalization (OR:0.554; CI:0.399 to 0.769; p = 0.000), but not all-cause hospitalization (OR:0.803; CI:0.629 to 1.024; p = 0.077). When separately assessed, NT-proBNP-guided therapy significantly reduced all-cause mortality (OR:0.717; CI:0.563 to 0.914; p = 0.007) and HF-related hospitalization (OR:0.531; CI:0.347 to 0.811; p = 0.003), but not all-cause hospitalization (OR:0.779; CI:0.414 to 1.465; p = 0.438), whereas BNP-guided therapy did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (OR:0.814; CI:0.518 to 1.279; p = 0.371), HF-related hospitalization (OR:0.599; CI:0.303 to 1.187; p = 0.142) or all-cause hospitalization (OR:0.726; CI:0.609 to 0.964; p = 0.077).

Conclusions/Significance

Use of cardiac peptides to guide pharmacologic therapy significantly reduces mortality and HF related hospitalization in patients with chronic HF. In particular, NT-proBNP-guided therapy reduced all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization but not all-cause hospitalization, whereas BNP-guided therapy did not significantly reduce both mortality and morbidity.