Chronotherapy versus conventional statins therapy for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia

Pravastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

Understanding the role of chronopharmacology for drug optimization: what do we know?

INTRODUCTION

Circadian rhythm influences the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a number of drugs and affects their therapeutic efficacy and toxicity depending on the time of day they are administered. Chronopharmacology is a method for incorporating knowledge about circadian rhythm into pharmacotherapy. Chronotherapy, which is the clinical application of chronopharmacology, is particularly relevant when the risk and/or severity of symptoms of a disease change in a predictable manner over time. Chronotherapy has potential benefits in the treatment of many diseases.

AREAS COVERED

Although a considerable amount of knowledge about chronopharmacology and chronotherapy has been accumulated, its therapeutic application in clinical practice remains limited in terms of therapy optimization. Resolution of these issues will improve our ability to deliver adequate drug treatment.

EXPERT OPINION

We propose four approaches for promoting chronotherapy-based drug treatment in clinical practice: targeting drug development and regulatory authorities; education about chronotherapy; drug information for both health professionals and consumers; and a chronotherapy network.

Impact of Chronotherapy on 6-Mercaptopurine Metabolites in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Pilot Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronotherapy is the timing of medication according to biological rhythms of the host to optimize drug efficacy and minimize toxicity. Efficacy and myelosuppression of azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine (AZA/6-MP) are correlated with the metabolite 6-thioguanine, while the metabolite 6-methylmercaptopurine correlates with hepatotoxicity.

METHODS

This was a single-center, 10-week prospective crossover trial involving 26 participants with inactive inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on a stable dose and time of AZA or 6-MP therapy. Participants were switched to the opposite delivery time (morning or evening) for 10 weeks, and metabolite measurements were at both time points.

RESULTS

In the morning vs evening dosing, 6-thioguanine levels were 225.7 ± 155.1 vs 175.0 ± 106.9 ( P < 0.01), and 6-methylmercaptopurine levels were 825.1 ± 1,023.3 vs 2,395.3 ± 2,880.3 ( P < 0.01), with 69% (18 out of 26) of participants had better metabolite profiles in the morning. Participants with optimal dosing in the morning had an earlier chronotype by corrected midpoint of sleep.

DISCUSSION

In the first study on a potential role of chronotherapy in IBD, we found (i) morning dosing of AZA or 6-MP resulted in more optimal metabolite profiles and (ii) host chronotype could help identify one-third of patients who would benefit from evening dosing. Circadian regulation of metabolic enzymes of AZA/6-MP activity in the liver is the likely cause of these differences. This pilot study confirms the need to incorporate chronotherapy in future multicenter clinical trials on IBD disease.

COVID-19: Sleep, Circadian Rhythms and Immunity - Repurposing Drugs and Chronotherapeutics for SARS-CoV-2

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has affected nearly 28 million people in the United States and has caused more than five hundred thousand deaths as of February 21, 2021. As the novel coronavirus continues to take its toll in the United States and all across the globe, particularly among the elderly (>65 years), clinicians and translational researchers are taking a closer look at the nexus of sleep, circadian rhythms and immunity that may contribute toward a more severe coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2-induced multi-organ failure affects both central and peripheral organs, causing increased mortality in the elderly. However, whether differences in sleep, circadian rhythms, and immunity between older and younger individuals contribute to the age-related differences in systemic dysregulation of target organs observed in SARS-CoV-2 infection remain largely unknown. Current literature demonstrates the emerging role of sleep, circadian rhythms, and immunity in the development of chronic pulmonary diseases and respiratory infections in human and mouse models. The exact mechanism underlying acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other cardiopulmonary complications in elderly patients in combination with associated comorbidities remain unclear. Nevertheless, understanding the critical role of sleep, circadian clock dysfunction in target organs, and immune status of patients with SARS-CoV-2 may provide novel insights into possible therapies. Chronotherapy is an emerging concept that is gaining attention in sleep medicine. Accumulating evidence suggests that nearly half of all physiological functions follow a strict daily rhythm. However, healthcare professionals rarely take implementing timed-administration of drugs into consideration. In this review, we summarize recent findings directly relating to the contributing roles of sleep, circadian rhythms and immune response in modulating infectious disease processes, and integrate chronotherapy in the discussion of the potential drugs that can be repurposed to improve the treatment and management of COVID-19.

Overcoming Compensatory Mechanisms toward Chronic Drug Administration to Ensure Long-Term, Sustainable Beneficial Effects

Chronic administration of drugs leads to the activation of compensatory mechanisms that may inhibit some of their activity and induce unwanted toxicity. These mechanisms are an obstacle for maintaining a sustainable effect for many chronic medications. Pathways that adapt to the burden induced by chronic drugs, whether or not related to the underlying disease, can lead to a partial or complete loss of effect. Variability characterizes many biological systems and manifests itself as large intra- and inter-individual differences in the response to drugs. Circadian rhythm-based chronotherapy is further associated with variability in responses noted among patients. This paper reviews current knowledge regarding the loss of effect of chronic medications and the range of variabilities that have been described in responses and loss of responses. Establishment of a personalized platform for overcoming these prohibitive mechanisms is presented as a model for ensuring long-term sustained medication effects. This novel platform implements personalized variability signatures and individualized circadian rhythms for preventing and opposing the prohibitive effect of the compensatory mechanisms induced by chronic drug administration.

Cerivastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Cerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of cerivastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of cerivastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in children and adults with and without cardiovascular disease. The aim of this review is to examine the pharmacology of cerivastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of cerivastatin on surrogate markers. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of cerivastatin compared to placebo on withdrawals due to adverse effects. To compare the relative potency of cerivastatin with respect to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for RCTs up to March 2019: CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.We also searched the European Patent Office, FDA.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of cerivastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for trials to be included and extracted data. We entered data from RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data respectively. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from the RCTs. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty trials (19 RCTs and 31 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of cerivastatin in 12,877 participants who had their LDL cholesterol measured. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease and the trials studied cerivastatin effects within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Cerivastatin 0.025 mg/day to 0.8 mg/day caused LDL cholesterol decreases of 11.0% to 40.8%, total cholesterol decreases of 8.0% to 28.8% and triglyceride decreases of 9.0% to 21.4%. We judged the certainty of evidence for these effects to be high. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglycerides. When compared to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol; 233-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 18-fold more potent than atorvastatin and six-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol; and 125-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 11-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 13-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of cerivastatin on HDL cholesterol, but overall cerivastatin increased HDL cholesterol by 5%. There was a high risk of bias for the outcome withdrawals due to adverse effects, but a low risk of bias for the lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not different between cerivastatin and placebo in 11 of 19 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.74).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride lowering effect of cerivastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Cerivastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin in reducing LDL cholesterol, and 233-fold greater potency than fluvastatin, 18-fold greater potency than atorvastatin and six-fold greater potency than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with cerivastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 42% of the RCTs.

When should I take my medicines?

Adherence to drug regimens is critical to optimise therapeutic outcomes. To aid adherence patient preferences must be discussed when considering the timing of doses, especially for chronic therapy

The appropriate timing of administration should maximise therapeutic effects and minimise adverse reactions. If possible, doses should fit with the patient’s daily routines

Check if drug absorption is affected by meals. Food may increase or decrease absorption, and may also improve gastric tolerance

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are usually taken with food. For patients with acute pain, administration without food may be acceptable

The best time to take antihypertensive drugs is uncertain. Chronotherapy studies may clarify any influence of evening or morning doses on clinical outcomes

Conduct and reporting of citation searching in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study

Background

The search for studies for a systematic review should be conducted systematically and reported transparently to facilitate reproduction. This study aimed to report on the conduct and reporting of backward citation searching (ie, checking reference lists) and forward citation searching in a cross section of Cochrane reviews. Citation searching uses the citation network surrounding a source study to identify additional studies.

Methods

Cochrane reviews were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the wildcard symbol and date limiting to the 3‐month period November 2016 to January 2017. Cochrane reviews thus identified were screened for mention of citation searching. Descriptive detail on the conduct and reporting of citation searching was captured in data extraction forms and described and evaluated.

Results

Two hundred fifteen Cochrane reviews were identified. One hundred seventy‐two reviews reported backward citation searching, and 18 reviews reported forward citation searching. Web of Science was the most frequently reported citation index. The studies used for backward citation searching consisted mainly of studies meeting the inclusion criteria. One‐third of reviews that reported forward citation searching used selected studies of importance. Reporting of citation searching was compliant with the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) standards, but full transparency requires additional detail that only a minority of reviews reported.

Conclusion

The conduct of backward citation searching was more uniform than forward citation searching. This might be due to lack of MECIR guidance for forward citation searching. Reporting was generally compliant with MECIR, but this is not always sufficient to ensure full transparency.

Diet-Induced Circadian Enhancer Remodeling Synchronizes Opposing Hepatic Lipid Metabolic Processes

Overnutrition disrupts circadian metabolic rhythms by mechanisms that are not well understood. Here, we show that diet-induced obesity (DIO) causes massive remodeling of circadian enhancer activity in mouse liver, triggering synchronous high-amplitude circadian rhythms of both fatty acid (FA) synthesis and oxidation. SREBP expression was rhythmically induced by DIO, leading to circadian FA synthesis and, surprisingly, FA oxidation (FAO). DIO similarly caused a high-amplitude circadian rhythm of PPARα, which was also required for FAO. Provision of a pharmacological activator of PPARα abrogated the requirement of SREBP for FAO (but not FA synthesis), suggesting that SREBP indirectly controls FAO via production of endogenous PPARα ligands. The high-amplitude rhythm of PPARα imparted time-of-day-dependent responsiveness to lipid-lowering drugs. Thus, acquisition of rhythmicity for non-core clock components PPARα and SREBP1 remodels metabolic gene transcription in response to overnutrition and enables a chronopharmacological approach to metabolic disorders.

Combined antihypertensive and statin therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension without complications: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

High blood pressure (BP) affects over 40% of adults over the age of 25 worldwide and is the leading global risk factor for death or disability. Hypertension is also the most important risk factor for endovascular atherosclerosis, which, when combined with other cardiovascular risk factors, leads to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of ASCVD. The recently announced study of Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 suggests that cholesterol-lowering agents combined with antihypertensive therapy can prevent cardiovascular events and reduce the combined endpoint. We plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether combined antihypertensive and statin therapy is more beneficial than antihypertensive therapy alone in patients with hypertension without complications.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials evaluating combined antihypertensive and statin therapy for the treatment of patients with hypertension. The following English electronic databases will be searched: The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and PubMed. Outcomes will be categorised as short-term (≤6 months) or long-term (>6 months). When evaluating the effects of combined antihypertensive and statin therapy, a short-term outcome is usually defined as a change in BP or lipid levels, while a long-term outcome is usually defined as cardiovascular benefits or risks. The data screening and extraction will be conducted by two different reviewers. The quality of the RCTs will be assessed according to the Cochrane handbook risk of bias tool.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethics approval and the results of the meta-analysis will be submitted to a peer-review journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017071935.

Fluvastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Chronotherapy versus conventional statins therapy for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases. Cholesterol biosynthesis follows a circadian rhythm and is principally produced at night (between 12:00 am and 6:00 am). The adjustment of hypolipaemic therapy to biologic rhythms is known as chronotherapy. Chronotherapy is based on the idea that medication can have different effects depending on the hour at which it is taken. Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular events. In usual clinical practice, statins are administered once per day without specifying the time when they should be taken. It is unknown whether the timing of statin administration is important for clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To critically evaluate and analyse the evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the effects of chronotherapy on the effectiveness and safety of treating hyperlipidaemia with statins.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, OpenSIGLE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, and various other resources including clinical trials registers up to November 2015. We also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling people with primary or secondary hyperlipidaemia. To be included, trials must have compared any chronotherapeutic lipid-lowering regimen with statins and any other statin lipid-lowering regimen not based on chronotherapy. We considered any type and dosage of statin as eligible, as long as the control and experimental arms differed only in the timing of the administration of the same statin. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted the key data from studies in relation to participants, interventions, and outcomes for safety and efficacy. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and we used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager to create 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes eight RCTs (767 participants analysed in morning and evening arms). The trials used different lipid-lowering regimens with statins (lovastatin: two trials; simvastatin: three trials; fluvastatin: two trials; pravastatin: one trial). All trials compared the effects between morning and evening statin administration. Trial length ranged from four to 14 weeks. We found a high risk of bias in the domain of selective reporting in three trials and in the domain of incomplete outcome data in one trial of the eight trials included. None of the studies included were judged to be at low risk of bias.None of the included RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, incidence of cardiovascular events, or deaths from any cause. Pooled results showed no evidence of a difference in total cholesterol (MD 4.33, 95% CI -1.36 to 10.01), 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD 4.85 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.87 to 10.57, 473 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 0.54, 95% CI -1.08 to 2.17, 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) or triglycerides (MD -8.91, 95% CI -22 to 4.17, 510 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) between morning and evening statin administration.With regard to safety outcomes, five trials (556 participants) reported adverse events. Pooled analysis found no differences in statins adverse events between morning and evening intake (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.15, 556 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited and low-quality evidence suggested that there were no differences between chronomodulated treatment with statins in people with hyperlipidaemia as compared to conventional treatment with statins, in terms of clinically relevant outcomes. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, cardiovascular clinical events or death. The review did not find differences in adverse events associated with statins between both regimens. Taking statins in the evening does not have an effect on the improvement of lipid levels with respect to morning administration. Further high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this review.