Comparative effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin on glucose metabolism and adipokine levels in non-diabetic patients with dyslipidaemia: a prospective randomised open-label study

Association between cardiovascular disease risk and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus in individuals with prediabetes: A retrospective cohort study

AIMS

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk on the development of incident T2DM in patients with prediabetes.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 5,908 subjects with prediabetes who underwent health check-ups at the Asan Medical Center. CVD risk was estimated using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS). We compared moderate- to high-risk groups with low-risk controls based on the FRS. Cox proportional hazards regressions were conducted to estimate the time-to-develop incident T2DM.

RESULTS

Among the 5908 subjects with prediabetes, 3031 (51.8 %) were identified to have either moderate or high CVD risk scores. During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 278 (9.2 %) patients from the moderate- to high-risk group and 171 (5.9 %) from the low-risk group were diagnosed with T2DM. The covariate-adjusted hazard ratio for the incident T2DM was 1.30 (95 % CI, 1.06-1.60, p = 0.011) in the moderate- to high-risk group compared to the low-risk controls.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with prediabetes, those with high CVD risk were more likely to develop incident T2DM, as determined by the FRS. CVD risk factors should be properly evaluated and managed in individuals with prediabetes to reduce the risk of both incident T2DM and associated cardiovascular complications.

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.

High cardiovascular disease risk-associated with the incidence of Type 2 diabetes among prediabetics

BACKGROUND

Prediabetes is a risk factor for developing Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). We report on the first cohort study of the association between high cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk with the incidence of T2D in prediabetics. First, estimate the direct effect of developing T2D on patients with prediabetes who have high CVDs risk; and 2) assess the potential increased risk of developing T2D mediated by statins.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study using a subset of data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) from 2000 to 2015. Cox proportional hazards (PH) regressions were conducted to estimate our primary outcome, which is the time to T2D among patients with prediabetes.

RESULTS

From the 4995 filtered prediabetic participants identified between 2000 and 2015, 2800 participants were diagnosed with high CVDs risk scores as measured by the Framingham risk score. 2195 participants were non-high CVDs risk controls. The covariate-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.24 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.10-1.31] for T2D by CVDs risk among prediabetics was observed. The total effect of CVDs risk on developing T2D was decomposed to a natural direct effect of high CVDs risk HR= 1.18 [95% CI, 1.01-1.48] and an indirect effect through statin therapy of HR= 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97-1.30].

CONCLUSION

Patients with prediabetes and high CVDs risk had a 24% higher chance of developing T2D. The high CVDs risk effect was mediated by statin therapy. Regular monitoring and counselling of prediabetics using statins is likely warranted to prevent the incidence of T2D.

The Impact of Age on Statin-Related Glycemia: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study in Korea

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of statin on glycemic control in different age groups. Patients admitted for suspected or confirmed coronary artery disease between January 2005 and December 2013 in Seoul, Korea were initially enrolled. After propensity score matching, 2654 patients (1:1 statin users and non-users) were selected out of total 5041 patients, including 1477 “young” patients (≤60 y) and 1177 elderly patients (>60 y). HbA1c was decreased by 0.04% (±0.86%) in statin non-users. On the contrary, a slight increment of 0.05% (±0.71%) was found in statin users (p < 0.001). The change patterns of HbA1c were constant in both young and elderly patient groups. Furthermore, elderly statin users demonstrated significantly worse glycemic control in serum insulin and homeostatic model assessment—insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index. In elderly patients, statin users were found to have a 2.61 ± 8.34 μU/mL increment in serum insulin, whereas it was 2.35 ± 6.72 μU/mL for non-users (p = 0.012). Statin users had a 0.78 ± 3.28 increment in HOMA-IR, in contrast to the 0.67 ± 2.51 increment in statin non-users (p = 0.008). In conclusion, statin treatment was associated with adverse glycemic control in the elderly population.

Artichoke and Bergamot Phytosome Alliance: A Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial in Mild Hypercholesterolemia

Botanicals are natural alternatives to pharmacological therapies that aim at reducing hypercholesterolemia. In this context, despite bergamot being effective in modulating lipid profile, some subjects failed to achieve a satisfactory response to supplementation. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the association of 600 mg of bergamot phytosome^® (from Citrus Bergamia Risso) and 100 mg of artichoke leaf standardized dry extract (from Cynara cardunculus L.) can be an alternative in patients with mild hypercholesterolemia who are poor responders to bergamot in a 2-month randomized placebo-controlled trial. Sixty overweight adults were randomized into two groups: 30 were supplemented and 30 received a placebo. The metabolic parameters and DXA body composition were evaluated at the start, after 30 and 60 days. Between the two groups, total and LDL cholesterol in the supplemented group (compared to placebo) showed significant decreases overtime. A significant reduction of waist circumference and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) was recorded in the supplemented group (compared to placebo), even in subjects who did not follow a low-calorie diet. In conclusion, the synergism between Citrus Bergamia polyphenols and Cynara cardunculus extracts may be an effective option and may potentially broaden the therapeutic role of botanicals in dyslipidemic patients.

Efficacy and safety of statin use in children and adolescents with familial hypercholesterolaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials

PURPOSE

Statins are the mainstay of treatment for patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH). However, their efficacy and safety in children and adolescents with FH has not been well-documented. The purpose of this study was to systematically investigate and meta-analyze the best available evidence from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy and safety of statins in this population.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane, up to 10 January 2020. Data were expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I² index was employed for heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis (1191 patients, aged 13.3 ± 2.5 years). Compared with placebo, statins led to a mean relative reduction in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride and apolipoprotein B (apo-B) concentrations by -25.5% (95% CI -30.4%, -20.5%; I² 91%), -33.8% (95% CI -40.1%, -27.4%; I² 90%), -8.4% (95% CI -14.8%, -2.03%; I² 26%) and -28.8% (95% CI -33.9%, -23.6%; I² 83%), respectively. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was increased by 3.1% (95% CI 1.1%-5.2%; I² 0%). Statins were well-tolerated, with no significant differences in transaminase and creatine kinase levels or other adverse effects compared with placebo. Statins exerted no effect on growth or sexual development.

CONCLUSION

Statins are quite effective in reducing TC, LDL-C, TG and apo-B and increasing HDL-C concentrations in children and adolescents with FH. No safety issues were seen with statin use.

Statin use in prediabetic patients: rationale and results to date

Prediabetes increases the risk for new-onset diabetes mellitus in patients receiving statins and this risk is dose- and time- dependent. Explanations for the conversion of a predisposed individual to diabetes are ambiguous including reductions in ubiquinone and adiponectin levels. However, the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus is far outweighed by the statin-induced considerable decrease in cardiovascular events. Thus, prediabetic patients at high cardiovascular risk should not be denied high-dose statin therapy due to the small increase in the risk of developing diabetes since statins, especially at higher doses, cause greater reductions in cardiovascular events compared with standard statin doses. Moreover, lifestyle modification or even antidiabetic drugs are highly recommended in these individuals.

Pathogenesis and management of the diabetogenic effect of statins: a role for adiponectin and coenzyme Q10?

There is growing evidence to suggest that statin therapy is associated with an increased risk of incident diabetes. The risk for statin-related diabetes depends upon many factors including age, pre-existing diabetic risk, type and potency of statin. Several mechanisms have been suggested for the diabetogenic effects of statins involving processes that alter islet ß-cell function, resulting in impaired glucose metabolism. Recent evidence suggests that the association of statin therapy with the development of diabetes may be partly mediated by a statin-induced decrease in circulating adiponectin and coenzyme Q10. The available evidence suggests the benefit of statins in reducing cardiovascular events outweigh the risk of developing diabetes. Moreover, statin therapy does not impair glycemic control in diabetic patients. Expert recommendations for the use of statins in people at risk of developing diabetes have recently been published. However, further research is required to elucidate both the association between statin use and incident diabetes as well as underlying mechanisms.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin in Reducing Concentration of C-Reactive Protein in Patients With Hyperlipidemia

We conducted a meta-analysis of 13 randomized trials comparing the efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP). We searched PubMed, Ovid, and Elsevier databases until June 2014. Search terms included C-reactive protein or CRP, rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, randomized, randomly, and randomization; 13 trials (3798 patients) were included. Funnel plots for CRP were inspected to assess publication bias. The pooled analysis demonstrated the benefit of rosuvastatin over atorvastatin therapy for all 13 trials (mean difference [MD] = −0.11, which is standardized mean with no unit although the raw data before pooling is mg/L, 95% confidence interval −0.15 to −0.07, P < .0001) with no evidence of significant publication bias (I2 = 6.9%, P = .377). Subgroup analysis indicated a significant benefit of rosuvastatin over atorvastatin regarding the 1/1 dose ratio (MD = −0.14, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.06) and 1/2 dose ratio (MD= −0.11, 95% CI −0.16 to −0.05). Cumulative and influence analyses showed accuracy and stability for the estimation mentioned earlier. Our meta-analysis shows that rosuvastatin produces better reduction in CRP concentrations than atorvastatin at a dose ratio of 1/1 and 1/2 (rosuvastatin/atorvastatin), respectively.

Resolution of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis by rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with metabolic syndrome

AIM: To investigate the effect of rosuvastatin monotherapy on non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). At present there is no effective treatment for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease or its advanced form NASH.

METHODS: This prospective study included 20 biopsy proven patients with NASH, metabolic syndrome (MetS) and dyslipidaemia. Biochemical parameters of the blood of the patients and an ultrasonography of the liver were performed at baseline. Then patients received lifestyle advice and were treated for a 12 mo period with rosuvastatin (10 mg/d) monotherapy. Patients were re-evaluated during the study at 3 mo intervals, during which biochemical parameters of the blood were measured including liver enzymes. A repeat biopsy and ultrasonography of the liver were performed at the end of the study in all 20 patients. Changes in liver enzymes, fasting plasma glucose, serum creatinine, serum uric acid (SUA), high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) and lipid profile were assessed every 3 mo. The primary endpoint was the resolution of NASH and the secondary endpoints were the changes in liver enzyme and lipid values.

RESULTS: The repeat liver biopsy and ultrasonography showed complete resolution of NASH in 19 patients, while the 20^th, which had no improvement but no deterioration either, developed arterial hypertension and substantial rise in triglyceride levels during the study, probably due to changes in lifestyle including alcohol abuse. Serum alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase were normalised by the 3^rd treatment month (ANOVA P < 0.001), while alkaline phosphatase activities by the 6^th treatment month (ANOVA, P = 0.01). Fasting plasma glucose and glycated haemoglobin were significantly reduced (P < 0.001). Lipid values were normalised by the 3^rd treatment month. No patient had MetS by the 9^th treatment month. Body mass index and waist circumference remained unchanged during the study. Thus, changes in liver pathology and function should be attributed solely to rosuvastatin treatment. A limitation of the study is the absence of a control group.

CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that rosuvastatin monotherapy could ameliorate biopsy proven NASH and resolve MetS within 12 mo. These effects and the reduction of fasting plasma glucose and SUA levels may reduce the risk of vascular and liver morbidity and mortality in NASH patients. These findings need confirmation in larger studies.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of atorvastatin

BACKGROUND

This represents the first update of this review, which was published in 2012. Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed statin in the world. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of atorvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of atorvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol and triglycerides in individuals with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. The primary focus of this review was determination of the mean per cent change from baseline of LDL-cholesterol. Secondary objectives • To quantify the variability of effects of various doses of atorvastatin.• To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to December Week 2 2013), EMBASE (1980 to December Week 2 2013), Web of Science (1899 to December Week 2 2013) and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to December Week 2 2013). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of atorvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we found an additional 42 trials and added them to the original 254 studies. The update consists of 296 trials that evaluated dose-related efficacy of atorvastatin in 38,817 participants. Included are 242 before-and-after trials and 54 placebo-controlled RCTs. Log dose-response data from both trial designs revealed linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides. The Summary of findings table 1 documents the effect of atorvastatin on LDL-cholesterol over the dose range of 10 to 80 mg/d, which is the range for which this systematic review acquired the greatest quantity of data. Over this range, blood LDL-cholesterol is decreased by 37.1% to 51.7% (Summary of findings table 1). The slope of dose-related effects on cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol was similar for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, but rosuvastatin is about three-fold more potent. Subgroup analyses suggested that the atorvastatin effect was greater in females than in males and was greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. Risk of bias for the outcome of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) was high, but the mostly unclear risk of bias was judged unlikely to affect lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not statistically significantly different between atorvastatin and placebo groups in these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.40).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update resulted in no change to the main conclusions of the review but significantly increases the strength of the evidence. Studies show that atorvastatin decreases blood total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in a linear dose-related manner over the commonly prescribed dose range. New findings include that atorvastatin is more than three-fold less potent than rosuvastatin, and that the cholesterol-lowering effects of atorvastatin are greater in females than in males and greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. This review update does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with atorvastatin because included trials were of short duration and adverse effects were not reported in 37% of placebo-controlled trials.

Adiponectin as an Independent Predictor of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Nondiabetic Patients With Hypertension

We evaluated novel and traditional biomarkers as well as hemodynamic parameters associated with the development of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in nondiabetic patients with hypertension. Nondiabetic patients with hypertension (n = 86) were evaluated for lipids, glucose, insulin, homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), adiponectin, aldosterone, renin, matrix metalloproteinase 2, and endothelin. Arterial elasticity was evaluated using pulse wave contour. The LVH parameters were assessed echographically. Adiponectin was significantly and inversely associated with left ventricular mass (LVM; P = .032). The aldosterone–renin ratio (ARR) was significantly, positively associated with LVM ( P = .031). Fasting insulin as well as HOMA-IR was significantly, positively associated with LVM ( P = .036 and P = .025, respectively). In multiple linear regression analysis, adiponectin and ARR remained a significant predictor of LVM. The present study found that adiponectin and ARR are important independent determinants of LVH in nondiabetic patients with hypertension.

Comparative Effect of Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin on 25-hydroxy-Vitamin D Levels in Non-diabetic Patients with Dyslipidaemia: A Prospective Randomized Open-label Pilot Study

AIMS

Low 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(ΟΗ)D] levels have been associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Conflicting data exist regarding the effect of statins on [25(OH)D] levels. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on 25(OH)D levels in non-diabetic patients with dyslipidaemia.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized open-label study. Patients were assigned to atorvastatin 20 mg⁄day (n=28, age: 56.1±2.2 years, 22 females) or rosuvastatin 10 mg⁄day (n=24, age: 57.4±1.9 years, 20 females). Total cholesterol (TC), low- (LDL-C) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), fasting plasma glucose, insulin, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels were measured, and homeostatic model of assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated at baseline and 12 weeks post-treatment.

RESULTS

There were no within or between group significant differences in 25(OH)D levels (atorvastatin: 21.7±1.9 ng/ml at baseline and 23.5±2.3 ng/ml at week 12; rosuvastatin: 25.3±1.8 and 27.0±2.4 ng/ml, respectively; p=0.172 and p=0.306 for between groups, respectively). Both statins significantly reduced TC, TG and LDL-C levels, with a greater LDL-C reduction being observed by rosuvastatin.

CONCLUSION

Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin did not significantly affect 25(OH)D levels in this study.

Benefit-risk assessment of rosuvastatin in the treatment of atherosclerosis and related diseases

Rosuvastatin has been marketed for approximately a decade. In this review we critically discuss available evidence on the benefits and risks from its use. In clinical trials using rosuvastatin, 'lowest is best' was relevant for on-treatment low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Targeting levels <50 mg/dl was associated with the greatest decrease in vascular morbidity/mortality in the primary prevention setting. Also, such reduction can induce atherosclerosis regression without increasing the risk of adverse effects. Pooled data suggest that the safety profile of rosuvastatin is not different from that of other statins. It was estimated that rosuvastatin-associated absolute hazards of muscle-, liver- and renal-related adverse effects are lower than the corresponding vascular benefits in moderate vascular risk individuals. However, these data are subject to biases and need confirmation on a prospective basis. Significant liver enzyme elevations are rare. These often imply underlying non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which is associated with increased vascular risk. Rosuvastatin can improve biochemical biomarkers and histological score of NAFLD. Whether this benefit is associated with vascular risk reduction should be assessed by prospective studies. Both chronic kidney disease and albuminuria independently predict vascular morbidity and mortality. Rosuvastatin improved the estimated glomerular filtration rate and decreased albuminuria in patients with moderately impaired kidney function. Also, vascular morbidity and mortality might be reduced in these patients. The same was not relevant in end-stage renal disease. Rosuvastatin-induced proteinuria appears to be of tubular origin, not relating to kidney injury. Rosuvastatin increases the risk of new-onset diabetes by dose-dependently impairing insulin sensitivity. Obese individuals with prediabetes appear to be predominantly affected. However, absolute vascular benefits of rosuvastatin may counterbalance this risk. Rosuvastatin is effective for the prevention and management of atherosclerotic vascular disease. Individualization of its use can maximize benefits and reduce the risk of adverse effects.

[Rosuvastatin improves insulin sensitivity in overweight rats induced by high fat diet. Role of SIRT1 in adipose tissue]

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of rosuvastatin on insulin resistance in overweight rats induced by high fat diet, as well as potential mediators.

METHODS

We used male Wistar rats fed with a standard diet (CT) or high fat diet (33.5% fat) (HFD); half of the animals HFD were treated with rosuvastatin (15mg/kg/day) (HFD+Rosu) for 7 weeks.

RESULTS

HFD rats showed increased body, epididymal and lumbar adipose tissue weights. Treatment with Rosu did not modify body weight or the weight of the adipose packages in HFD rat. Plasma glucose and insulin levels and HOMA index were higher in HFD rats, and rosuvastatin treatment reduced them. Leptin/adiponectin ratio in plasma and lumbar adipose tissue were higher in HDF rats, and were reduced by rosuvastatin. SIRT-1, PPAR-γ and GLUT-4 protein expression in lumbar adipose tissue were lower in HFD rats and Rosu normalized expression of the three mediators.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosuvastatin ameliorates insulin sensitivity induced by HFD in rats. This effect is mediated by several mechanisms including reduction of leptin and enhancement of SIRT-1, PPAR-γ and GLUT-4 expression in white adipose tissue. SIRT1 could be considered a major mediator of the beneficial effects of rosuvastatin on insulin sensitivity in overweight rats induced by diet.

The effect of short-term simvastatin treatment on plasma adipokine levels in patients with isolated hypercholesterolemia: A preliminary report

BACKGROUND

Apart from reducing plasma lipids, statins produce numerous non-lipid-related pleiotropic effects. The aim of this study was to investigate whether short-term simvastatin treatment affects plasma adipokine levels in patients with isolated hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

The study included 42 adult patients with untreated isolated hypercholesterolemia, complying throughout the study with lifestyle intervention, 23 of whom were treated with simvastatin (40 mg daily), as well as 18 healthy subjects with normal lipid profile. Plasma lipids, apolipoproteins, glucose metabolism markers, as well as plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), free fatty acids (FFA), leptin, adiponectin, visfatin and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were determined at baseline and after 30 days of treatment.

RESULTS

Compared with the control age-, sex-, and weight-matched healthy subjects, isolated hypercholesterolemic patients exhibited higher plasma levels of leptin, visfatin, TNF-α, FFA and CRP, as well as lower plasma levels of adiponectin. Apart from decreasing plasma total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B-100 levels, simvastatin reduced plasma levels of FFA, leptin and TNF-α, as well as increased plasma levels of adiponectin, which was accompanied by a reduction in plasma CRP. There were no differences in simvastatin action on plasma adipokines and CRP between insulin-resistant and insulin-sensitive subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the presence of isolated hypercholesterolemia is associated with abnormal hormonal function of the adipose tissue. These changes are partially reversed by short-term simvastatin treatment, and this action may contribute to the clinical effectiveness of statins in the therapy of atherosclerosis-related disorders.

Factors involved in rosuvastatin induction of insulin sensitization in rats fed a high fat diet

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To investigate whether rosuvastatin can improve insulin sensitivity in overweight rats having a high fat diet (HFD). The potential mechanisms involved in this action were evaluated, including SIRT-1, other factors involved in glucose metabolism and stress signaling pathways.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Male Wistar rats (n = 30) were divided into three groups: (i) rats fed a standard diet (3.5% fat); (ii) rats fed a HFD (33.5% fat); and (iii) rats fed a HFD and treated with rosuvastatin (15 mg/kg/day). Evolution: 7 weeks. HFD rats showed increased body, epididymal and lumbar adipose tissue weights. Plasma levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, VLDL, glucose and insulin and leptin/adiponectin ratio were higher in HFD rats, and rosuvastatin treatment reduced them. SIRT-1, p53, PGC-1α, PPAR-γ and GLUT-4 protein levels in white adipose tissue (WAT) were lower, and JNK was higher in HFD rats compared to controls. Rosuvastatin treatment normalized expression of these mediators. Endothelium-dependent relaxation was reduced in mesenteric rings from HFD rats compared to controls and rosuvastatin enhanced it in HFD rats.

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin treatment reduced insulin resistance without affecting body weight or WAT loss in HFD rats. Reduction of leptin and JNK, and enhancement of SIRT-1, p53, PGC-1α, PPAR-γ and GLUT-4 expression in WAT could contribute to insulin sensitization. Normalization of SIRT-1 expression in WAT could be considered a key novel mechanism that aids in explaining the beneficial effects of rosuvastatin on the amelioration of glucose metabolism and the arrangement of multiple signaling pathways participating in insulin resistance in overweight HFD rats.

Pleiotropic effects of rosuvastatin on the glucose metabolism and the subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue behavior in C57Bl/6 mice

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether rosuvastatin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) modulates the carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, the development of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and the increase in body mass in a model of diet-induced obesity. Male C57Bl/6 mice (3-months-old) were fed a high-fat diet (HF, 60% lipids) or the standard chow (SC, 10% lipids) for 15 weeks. The animals were then treated with 10 mg/kg/day (HF-R10 group), 20 mg/kg/day (HF-R20), or 40 mg/kg/day (HF-R40) of rosuvastatin for five weeks. The HF diet led to glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, weight gain, increased visceral adiposity with adipocyte hypertrophy, and hepatic steatosis (micro and macrovesicular). The rosuvastatin treatment decreased the adiposity and the adipocyte size in the HF-R10 and HF-R20 groups. In addition, rosuvastatin changed the pattern of fat distribution in the HF-R40 group because more fat was stored subcutaneously than in visceral depots. This redistribution improved the fasting glucose and the glucose intolerance. Rosuvastatin also improved the liver morphology and ultrastructure in a dose-dependent manner. In conclusion, rosuvastatin exerts pleiotropic effects through a dose-dependent improvement of glucose intolerance, insulin sensitivity and NAFLD and changes the fat distribution from visceral to subcutaneous fat depots in a mouse model of diet-induced obesity.

Effects of pravastatin and atorvastatin on HDL cholesterol and glucose metabolism in patients with dyslipidemia and glucose intolerance: the PRAT study

AIMS

While statins have the property of increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in addition to lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), a potential adverse effect on glucose metabolism has raised a concern over statin therapy. In a comparative trial, we investigated the effects of low-dose pravastatin and atorvastatin on HDL-C and glucose metabolism in patients with elevated LDL-C levels and glucose intolerance.

METHODS

Eligible patients were men aged ≥20 years or postmenopausal women who had LDL-C ≥140 mg/dL, HDL-C <80 mg/dL, and triglycerides <500 mg/dL and who had glucose intolerance. The patients were randomly allocated to either pravastatin (10 mg/day) or atorvastatin (10 mg/day) treatment for 12 months in an unblinded fashion. The percent changes from the baseline were compared between the treatments.

RESULTS

Of 202 patients who were randomized to either of the two treatments, 195 patients started the study medication, and 187 patients underwent the follow-up measurements at 6 or 12 months (pravastatin, n= 93; atorvastatin, n= 94). HDL-C increased by 4.3% (p= 0.03) in the pravastatin group and by 5.8% (p=0.0005) in the atorvastatin group and showed no between-group difference (p= 0.38). LDL-C decreased substantially in both groups (pravastatin, 21.5%; atorvastatin, 35.5%), and the decrease was much greater in the atorvastain group (p<0.0001). HbA1c slightly increased in both groups, but showed no measurable difference in the increase between the two treatments (p=0.30).

CONCLUSION

Pravastatin and atorvastatin of 10 mg per day each increased HDL-C by almost the same extent. These two statins did not show a differential effect on glucose metabolism.

Lipid lowering efficacy of atorvastatin

BACKGROUND

Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed statin in the world. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of atorvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of atorvastatin on blood lipids and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011, MEDLINE (1966 to November 2011), EMBASE (1980 to November 2011), ISI Web of Science (1899 to November 2011) and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to November 2011). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of atorvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of 3 to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. WDAE information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-four trials evaluated the dose-related efficacy of atorvastatin in 33,505 participants. Log dose-response data revealed linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol and triglycerides. Combining all the trials using the generic inverse variance fixed-effect model for doses of 10 to 80 mg/day resulted in decreases of 36% to 53% for LDL-cholesterol. There was no significant dose-related effects of atorvastatin on blood high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol. WDAE were not statistically different between atorvastatin and placebo for these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride lowering effect of atorvastatin was dependent on dose. Log dose-response data was linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Manufacturer-recommended atorvastatin doses of 10 to 80 mg/day resulted in 36% to 53% decreases of LDL-cholesterol. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with atorvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 37% of the placebo-controlled trials.

High HbA1c levels correlate with reduced plaque regression during statin treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: results of the coronary atherosclerosis study measuring effects of rosuvastatin using intravascular ultrasound in Japanese subjects (COSMOS)

Background

The incidence of cardiac events is higher in patients with diabetes than in people without diabetes. The Coronary Atherosclerosis Study Measuring Effects of Rosuvastatin Using Intravascular Ultrasound in Japanese Subjects (COSMOS) demonstrated significant plaque regression in Japanese patients with chronic coronary disease after 76 weeks of rosuvastatin (2.5 mg once daily, up-titrated to a maximum of 20 mg/day to achieve LDL cholesterol <80 mg/dl).

Methods

In this subanalysis of COSMOS, we examined the association between HbA1c and plaque regression in 40 patients with HbA1c ≥6.5% (high group) and 86 patients with HbA1c <6.5% (low group).

Results

In multivariate analyses, HbA1c and plaque volume at baseline were major determinants of plaque regression. LDL cholesterol decreased by 37% and 39% in the high and low groups, respectively, while HDL cholesterol increased by 16% and 22%, respectively. The reduction in plaque volume was significantly (p = 0.04) greater in the low group (from 71.0 ± 39.9 to 64.7 ± 34.7 mm³) than in the high group (from 74.3 ± 34.2 to 71.4 ± 32.3 mm³). Vessel volume increased in the high group but not in the low group (change from baseline: +4.2% vs −0.8%, p = 0.02). Change in plaque volume was significantly correlated with baseline HbA1c.

Conclusions

Despite similar improvements in lipid levels, plaque regression was less pronounced in patients with high HbA1c levels compared with those with low levels. Tight glucose control during statin therapy may enhance plaque regression in patients with stable coronary disease.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT00329160

Comparison of the effects of simvastatin vs. rosuvastatin vs. simvastatin/ezetimibe on parameters of insulin resistance

BACKGROUND

Statin treatment may be associated with adverse effects on glucose metabolism. Whether this is a class effect is not known. In contrast, ezetimibe monotherapy may beneficially affect insulin sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of three different regimens of equivalent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering capacity on glucose metabolism.

METHODS

A total of 153 patients (56 men), who had not achieved the LDL-C goal recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP-ATP III) despite a 3-month dietary and lifestyle intervention, were randomly allocated to receive open-label simvastatin 40 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg for 12 weeks. The primary end point was changes in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Secondary endpoints consisted of changes in fasting insulin levels, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c) ), the HOMA of β-cell function (HOMA-B) (a marker of basal insulin secretion by pancreatic β-cells), LDL-C and high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP).

RESULTS

  At week 12, all three treatment regimens were associated with significant increases in HOMA-IR and fasting insulin levels (p < 0.05 compared with baseline). No significant difference was observed between groups. No change in FPG, HbA(1c) and HOMA-B levels compared with baseline were noted in any of the three treatment groups. Changes in serum lipids and hsCRP were similar across groups.

CONCLUSION

To the extent that simvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg are associated with adverse effects on insulin resistance, they appear to be of the same magnitude.