-
1.
Efficacy of high-dose atorvastatin or rosuvastatin loading in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with GRADE qualification of available evidence.
Borovac, JA, Leth-Olsen, M, Kumric, M, D'Amario, D, Schwarz, K, Glavas, D, Bozic, J
European journal of clinical pharmacology. 2022;(1):111-126
Abstract
PURPOSE We aimed to summarize current evidence regarding the impact of a high-dose statin loading before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on short-term outcomes in patients presenting with the acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS This meta-analysis was based on a search of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Journals, and SCOPUS for randomized controlled trials that compared high-dose atorvastatin or rosuvastatin with no or low-dose statin administered before planned PCI in statin-naive patients with ACS. The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Prespecified subanalyses were performed with respect to statin and ACS type. RESULTS A total of eleven trials enrolling 6291 patients were included, of which 75.4% received PCI. High-dose statin loading was associated with an overall 43% relative risk (RR) reduction in MACCE at 30 days (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41-0.77) in whole ACS population. This effect was primarily driven by the 39% reduction in the occurrence of MI (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46-0.80). No significant effect on all-cause mortality reduction was observed (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67-1.26). In the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), atorvastatin loading was associated with a 33% reduction in MACCE (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.94), while in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction ACS (NSTE-ACS), rosuvastatin loading was associated with 52% reduction in MACCE at 30 days (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.66). The level of evidence as qualified with GRADE was low to high, depending on the outcome. CONCLUSION A high-dose loading of statins before PCI in patients with ACS reduces MACCE and reduces the risk of MI with no impact on mortality at 30 days. Atorvastatin reduces MACCE in STEMI while rosuvastatin reduces MACCE in NSTE-ACS at 30 days.
-
2.
Antihypertensive effects of rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia: A systemic review and meta-analysis of randomized studies.
Lee, S, Yang, S, Chang, MJ
PloS one. 2021;(11):e0260391
Abstract
Some studies have suggested the antihypertensive effects of statins, a class of lipid-lowering agents, particularly in patients with hypertension. However, the evidence for the role of statins in blood pressure (BP) lowering is controversial, and no meta-analysis of rosuvastatin therapy has been conducted to assess its BP-lowering effects. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to investigate the effects of rosuvastatin on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with hypertension. We systematically searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify RCTs in which patients were assigned to groups of rosuvastatin plus antihypertensive agents vs. antihypertensive agents. The three authors independently selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. We included five RCTs in this meta-analysis with 288 patients treated with rosuvastatin and 219 patients without rosuvastatin. The mean DBP in the rosuvastatin group was significantly lower than that in the non-rosuvastatin group by -2.12 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.72 to -0.52; Pfixed-effects model = 0.009; I2 = 0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.97). Rosuvastatin treatment also lowered the mean SBP compared with the non-rosuvastatin treatment by -2.27 mmHg, but not significantly (95% CI - 4.75 to 0.25; Pfixed-effects model = 0.08; I2 = 0%, Pheterogeneity = 0.82). In this study, we reviewed the antihypertensive effects of rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. We demonstrated a modest significant reduction of DBP and a trend toward a lowered SBP in patients with hypertension with rosuvastatin therapy. Rosuvastatin could be beneficial to control hypertension and, consequently, contribute toward reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia.
-
3.
Modeling Statin-Induced Reductions of Cardiovascular Events in Primary Prevention: A VOYAGER Meta-Analysis.
Karlson, BW, Nicholls, SJ, Lundman, P, Barter, PJ, Palmer, MK
Cardiology. 2018;(1):30-34
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We used individual patient data from the VOYAGER database to estimate cardiovascular (CV) risk reduction with commonly used high-intensity statins. METHODS In patients with known atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) treated with high-intensity statin therapy (n = 6,735), the predicted risk reduction was estimated using the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis, which determined risk reduction per 38.7 mg/dL statin-mediated reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. RESULTS The greatest reductions in risk were seen in major vascular events (estimated rate ratios ranged from 0.55 with rosuvastatin [RSV] 40 mg to 0.60 with atorvastatin [ATV] 40 mg) and coronary heart disease death (estimated rate ratios ranged from 0.58 with RSV 40 mg to 0.64 with ATV 40 mg). CONCLUSIONS Our results show that, in individuals without clinical ASCVD, statin therapy has the potential to reduce the frequency of CV events.
-
4.
Effect of statins on blood pressure: Analysis on adverse events released by FDA.
You, T, Liu, XG, Hou, XD, Wang, XK, Xie, HH, Ding, F, Yi, K, Zhang, P, Xie, XD
Clinical and experimental hypertension (New York, N.Y. : 1993). 2017;(4):325-329
Abstract
OBJECTIVE As a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins have been reported to cause unexpected decrease in blood pressure (BP). However, most studies in this issue were subject to inadequate study design or very small sample size. The present study was designed to examine the BP-lowering effect of various statins. METHODS Here we retrieved 5.9 million clinical reports submitted to FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2004 to 2015. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall reporting odds ratio (ROR) of hypotension adverse events concurrent with various statins (i.e., atorvastatin, simvastatin, and rosuvastatin). RESULTS Comparing the reporting rate of hypotension event between statins and other drugs found that atorvastatin (pooled ROR = 1.26, adjusted p-value = 8.60 × 10-4) and simvastatin (pooled ROR = 1.94, adjusted p-value = 4.16 × 10-45) were significantly associated with reduction in BP. On the other hand, the association between rosuvastatin and hypotension was observed to be nonsignificant (adjusted p-value = 0.65). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first pooled analysis on large-scale data of adverse events to identify the BP-lowering effect of statins. The results will contribute to the development of novel statin-based antihypertensive therapies. In addition, the differential effects of individual statins can warrant subsequent research on the underlying mechanisms of BP control.
-
5.
Efficacy of short-term moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy: A meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials.
Liang, M, Yang, S, Fu, N
Medicine. 2017;(27):e7384
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prophylactic efficacy of statin pretreatment for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. The aim of the study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effectiveness of short-term moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin pretreatment in preventing CIN. METHODS We included RCTs comparing short-term moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin treatment versus low-dose rosuvastatin treatment or placebo for preventing CIN. The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN within 2 to 5 days after contrast administration, and related-parameters including serum creatinine (SCr), cystatin C (CysC), hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), urine microalbumin (mALB) were also extracted. RESULTS Fifteen RCTs with a total of 2673 patients were identified and analyzed. Patients who received moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin pretreatment had a 55% lower risk of CIN compared with low-dose rosuvastatin pretreatment or placebo group based on a fixed effect model (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.58, P < .0001). The benefit of moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin was consistent in both comparisons with low-dose rosuvastatin (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.59, P < .0001) or placebo (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.58, P < .0001). And moderate (20 mg) or high dose (≥40 mg) rosuvastatin significantly reduced the incidence of CIN compared with the control (RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.29-0.54, P < .0001, RR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.85, P = .006, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin pretreatment could decrease the incidence of CIN in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (RR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.93, P = .03) or diabetes mellitus (DM) (RR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.86, P = .01) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing PCI (RR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.76, P = .0009) or in studies which received mean contrast volume ≥110 mL (RR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.32-0.58, P < .0001). The SCr, CysC, hs-CRP, and mALB after the operation in the moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin group were lower than those of low-dose rosuvastatin group. CONCLUSION This meta-analysis demonstrated that moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin treatment could reduce the incidence of CIN in patients undergoing CAG or PCI. Moreover, moderate or high-dose rosuvastatin would be beneficial in high-risk patients with CKD or DM or undergoing PCI.
-
6.
Doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin and simvastatin that induce equal reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C: Results from the VOYAGER meta-analysis.
Karlson, BW, Palmer, MK, Nicholls, SJ, Lundman, P, Barter, PJ
European journal of preventive cardiology. 2016;(7):744-7
Abstract
BACKGROUND Achieving the greatest reduction in atherogenic lipoproteins requires the optimum dose and potency of statin. Using data from the VOYAGER meta-analysis, we determined doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin and simvastatin that induce equal reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C). METHODS Least squares mean percentage change in LDL-C and non-HDL-C was calculated using 38,052 patient exposures to rosuvastatin 5-40 mg, atorvastatin 10-80 mg and simvastatin 10-80 mg. Equipotent doses were estimated by linear interpolation between actual adjacent doses. RESULTS Rosuvastatin 5 mg reduced LDL-C by 39% and non-HDL-C by 35%. Equivalent reductions in LDL-C required atorvastatin 15 mg or simvastatin 39 mg. Equivalent reductions in non-HDL-C required atorvastatin 14 mg or simvastatin 42 mg. Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C by 44% and non-HDL-C by 40%. Equivalent reductions in LDL-C required atorvastatin 29 mg or simvastatin 72 mg. Equivalent reductions in non-HDL-C required atorvastatin 27 mg or simvastatin 77 mg. Rosuvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C by 50% and non-HDL-C by 45%. Equivalent reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C required atorvastatin 70 mg and atorvastatin 62 mg, respectively, and were not achieved with the maximum 80 mg dose of simvastatin. Rosuvastatin 40 mg reduced LDL-C by 55% and non-HDL-C by 50%. Comparable reductions were not achieved with the maximum 80 mg doses of atorvastatin or simvastatin. CONCLUSIONS Regarding reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C, each rosuvastatin dose is equivalent to doses 3-3.5 times higher for atorvastatin and 7-8 times higher for simvastatin.
-
7.
Pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy.
Martí-Carvajal, AJ, Kwong, JS
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(7):CD009077
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chagas disease-related cardiomyopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Latin America. Despite the substantial burden to the healthcare system, there is uncertainty regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical benefits and harms of current pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas cardiomyopathy. SEARCH METHODS We updated the searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid; 1946 to to February Week 1 2016), EMBASE (Ovid; 1947 to 2016 Week 07), LILACS (1982 to 15 February 2016), and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; 1970 to 15 February 2016). We checked the reference lists of included papers. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of pharmacological interventions to treat heart failure in adult patients (18 years or older) with symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association classes II to IV), regardless of the left ventricular ejection fraction stage (reduced or preserved), with Chagas cardiomyopathy. We did not apply limits to the length of follow-up. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality at 30 days, time-to-heart decompensation, disease-free period (at 30, 60, and 90 days), and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction. We estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We used a fixed-effect model to synthesize the findings. We contacted authors for additional data. We developed 'Summary of findings' (SoF) tables and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS In this update, we identified one new trial. Therefore, this version includes three trials (108 participants). Two trials compared carvedilol against placebo and another assessed rosuvastatin versus placebo. All trials had a high risk of bias.Meta-analysis of two trials showed a lower proportion of all-cause mortality in the carvedilol groups compared with the placebo groups (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.12 to 3.88, I² = 0%; 69 participants; very low-quality evidence). Neither of the trials reported on cardiovascular mortality, time-to-heart decompensation, or disease-free periods.One trial (30 participants) found no difference in hospital readmissions (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.31 to 3.28; very low-quality of evidence) or reported adverse events (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27; very low-quality of evidence) between the carvedilol and placebo groups.There was very low-quality evidence from two trials of inconclusive effects on quality of life (QoL) between the carvedilol and placebo groups. One trial (30 participants) assessed QoL with the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (21 items; item scores range from 0 to 5; a lower MLHFQ score is better). The MD was -14.74; 95% CI -24.75 to -4.73. The other trial (39 participants) measured QoL with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36; item scores range from 0 to 100; higher SF-36 score is better). Data were not provided.One trial (39 participants) assessed the effect of rosuvastatin versus placebo. The trial did not report on any primary outcomes or adverse events. There was very low-quality evidence of uncertain effects on QoL (no data were provided). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This first update of our review found very low-quality evidence for the effects of either carvedilol or rosuvastatin, compared with placebo, for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease. The three included trials were underpowered and had a high risk of bias. There were no conclusive data to support or reject the use of either carvedilol or rosuvastatin for treating Chagas cardiomyopathy. Unless randomised clinical trials provide evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, policy-makers, clinicians, and academics should be cautious when recommending or administering either carvedilol or rosuvastatin to treat heart failure in people with Chagas disease. The efficacy and safety of other pharmacological interventions for treating heart failure in people with Chagas disease remains unknown.
-
8.
Efficacy of high-dose rosuvastatin preloading in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of fourteen randomized controlled trials.
Pan, Y, Tan, Y, Li, B, Li, X
Lipids in health and disease. 2015;:97
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous studies have evidenced that statins can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease. However, the effects of high-dose rosuvastatin (RSV) preloading in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are controversial. OBJECTIVE We attempted to identify and quantify the potential cardioprotective benefits of high-dose RSV preloading on final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and peri-procedural myocardial injury (PMI) in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ISI Web of Science databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to June 2015. We assessed the incidence of MACE and PMI in all enrolled patients for subgroups stratified by clinical presentation and previous statin therapy during the follow-up period. RESULTS Fourteen trials with 3368 individuals were included in our meta-analysis. High-dose RSV preloading before PCI lead to a 58 % reduction in MACE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.42, 95 % confidence intervals [CI]: 0.29-0.61, P < 0.00001) and a 60 % reduction in PMI (OR = 0.40, 95 % CI: 0.25-0.63, P < 0.0001). This procedure also improved the final TIMI flow grade in patients undergoing PCI (OR = 1.61, 95 % CI: 1.09-2.38, P = 0.02). The benefits on MACE were significant for both stable angina patients (OR = 0.42, 95 % CI: 0.21-0.87, P = 0.02) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients (OR = 0.42, 95 % CI: 0.27-0.65, P < 0.0001); and for both statin naïve patients (OR = 0.42, 95 % CI: 0.28-0.64, P < 0.0001) and previous statin therapy patients (OR = 0.28, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.73, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION High-dose RSV preloading can significantly improve myocardial perfusion and reduce both MACE and PMI in patients undergoing PCI. The cardioprotective benefits of RSV preloading were significant in not only stable angina and ACS patients but also statin naïve and previous statin therapy patients. The cardioprotective benefits of RSV preloading in the follow-up period mainly resulted from a reduction in spontaneous MI and TVR, especially for ACS and statin naïve patients.
-
9.
Meta-analysis comparing the effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin on regression of coronary atherosclerotic plaques.
Qian, C, Wei, B, Ding, J, Wu, H, Cai, X, Li, B, Wang, Y
The American journal of cardiology. 2015;(10):1521-6
Abstract
Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin both are high-intensity statins. However, which statin is more effective for the reversion of coronary atherosclerotic plaques remains inconclusive. We, therefore, conducted a meta-analysis to provide further evidence for proper statin selection. Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Chinese BioMedicine, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were systematically searched for eligible publications. We also manually reviewed the references from all relevant literature for more trials. Only studies that met our predefined inclusion criteria up to March 31, 2015, were enrolled. Five randomized controlled trials, 4 published in English and 1 in Chinese, were finally included in our study with a total of 1,556 participants, of whom 772 were in the rosuvastatin group and 784 in the atorvastatin group. The dose ratios of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin were 1:2 in all included trials. Pooling across the studies demonstrated that compared with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin administration further reduced the total atheroma volume (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.61 mm(3), 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.70 to -0.52; p = 0.004) and percent atheroma volume (WMD -0.34%, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.03; p = 0.03) and improved the lumen volume more significantly (WMD 2.10 mm(3), 95% CI 0.04 to 4.17; p = 0.046). The comparative regression of plaques was not different across subgroups. In conclusion, rosuvastatin is superior to atorvastatin in the reversion of coronary atherosclerotic plaques.