-
European Journal of Internal Medicine Apr 2017
Meta-Analysis Review
Topics: Atorvastatin; Child; Cholesterol, LDL; Drug Administration Schedule; Dyslipidemias; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Myalgia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium
PubMed: 28063659
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.014 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology Aug 2022Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequently reported postcardiac surgery complication leading to increased in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. Many... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a frequently reported postcardiac surgery complication leading to increased in-hospital and long-term mortality rates. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have recently suggested using statins to protect against POAF. Therefore, we performed a systematic literature search and meta-analysis in electronic databases for eligible studies published between January 2006 and January 2022. The principal inclusion criteria were as follows: RCTs' study design, statin-naive patients, total study participants ≥50 units, and statin pretreatment started no more than 21 days before cardiac surgery. In the primary analysis, statin pretreatment reduced the incidence of POAF compared with placebo. Analyzing different molecules, atorvastatin was associated with lower incidence of POAF but rosuvastatin was not. We therefore performed a sensitivity analysis excluding RCTs affected by important risk of biases. Thus, studies whose participants were ≥199 were those eligible for the secondary analysis. No statistically significant difference between statin pretreatment and placebo (OR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.71-1.07, P = 0.18) as well as for atorvastatin (OR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.61-1.28; P = 0.48; I 2 = 84%) and rosuvastatin (OR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68-1.12, P = 0.29) was observed. To conclude, statin pretreatment before cardiac surgery is not associated with a significant reduction in POAF occurrence.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Atrial Fibrillation; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Postoperative Complications; Rosuvastatin Calcium
PubMed: 35580320
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0000000000001294 -
Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology Jul 2021: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with lipid-lowering therapies has been associated with a decrease in the frequency of cardiovascular events.: A...
: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with lipid-lowering therapies has been associated with a decrease in the frequency of cardiovascular events.: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), using the MeSH terms [Rosuvastatin] + [Ezetimibe] + [Dyslipidemia] + [treatment]. Original data from clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies and more useful reviews were selected.: While statins continue to be the cornerstone of dyslipidemia management, many patients do not attain LDL-C targets with high-intensity statins alone. Rosuvastatin is a high-intensity statin with a low risk of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions and proven benefits in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe have complementary mechanisms of action that enhance their ability to reduce LDL-C levels. Various studies have shown that the combination of rosuvastatin 10-40 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg enables considerable reductions in LDL-C (up to 60-75%) with a good safety profile in a broad spectrum of patients with hypercholesterolemia, including those at high risk and those with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In addition, a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe may improve adherence to medication. In this review, the available evidence on the combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is updated.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Cholesterol, LDL; Drug Combinations; Ezetimibe; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Medication Adherence; Rosuvastatin Calcium
PubMed: 33970743
DOI: 10.1080/17512433.2021.1925539 -
Oncotarget Apr 2016Usage of statins is suggested to decrease the incidence of HCC. When it comes to different statin subtypes, the chemopreventive action remains controversial. We aim to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Usage of statins is suggested to decrease the incidence of HCC. When it comes to different statin subtypes, the chemopreventive action remains controversial. We aim to compare the usage of different statins and reduction of HCC risk.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase.com and Cochrane Library database up to August 10, 2015. Duplicated or overlapping reports were eliminated. We performed a traditional pair-wise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare different treatments with a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We reviewed five observational studies enrolling a total of 87127 patients who received at least two different treatment strategies including rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, cerivastatin, and lovastatin or observation alone. Direct comparisons showed that usage of atorvastatin (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89) and fluvastatin (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.40-0.85) could significantly cut the risk of liver cancer. The difference of indirect comparisons between the included regimens is not statistically significant. However, usage of all types of statins, such as fluvastatin (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.26-1.11), atorvastatin (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.30-1.16), simvastatin (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.38-1.25), cerivastatin (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.19-2.70), pravastatin (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.37-1.45), lovastatin (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.34-1.96) and rosuvastatin (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.44-1.80), appeared to be superior to observation alone. Notably, fluvastatin was hierarchically the best when compared with the six other statins.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses indicate the superiority of usage of statins in reduction of liver cancer. Available evidence supports that fluvastatin is the most effective strategy for reducing HCC risk compared with other statin interventions.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatty Acids, Monounsaturated; Fluvastatin; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Indoles; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Lovastatin; Observational Studies as Topic; Pravastatin; Pyridines; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Simvastatin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26943041
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7832 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020Pitavastatin is the newest statin on the market, and the dose-related magnitude of effect of pitavastatin on blood lipids is not known. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pitavastatin is the newest statin on the market, and the dose-related magnitude of effect of pitavastatin on blood lipids is not known.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of pitavastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without cardiovascular disease. To compare the effect of pitavastatin on surrogate markers with other statins. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of pitavastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for trials up to March 2019: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 2, 2019), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization 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
RCT and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pitavastatin 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 studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from RCT and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. Withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE) information was collected from the RCTs. We assessed all included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of allocation (selection bias), blinding (performance bias and detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective reporting (reporting bias), and other potential sources of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-seven studies (five RCTs and 42 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pitavastatin in 5436 participants. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease, and pitavastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 mg to 16 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pitavastatin on blood HDL cholesterol, which was increased by 4% on average by pitavastatin. Pitavastatin 1 mg/day to 16 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 33.3% to 54.7%, total cholesterol by 23.3% to 39.0% and triglycerides by 13.0% to 28.1%. For every two-fold dose increase, there was a 5.35% (95% CI 3.32 to 7.38) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 3.93% (95% CI 2.35 to 5.50) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 3.76% (95% CI 1.03 to 6.48) decrease in blood triglycerides. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to other statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. For the placebo group, there were no participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 109 subjects and for all doses of pitavastatin, there were three participants who withdrew due to an adverse effect per 262 subjects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pitavastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, pitavastatin is about 6-fold more potent than atorvastatin, 1.7-fold more potent than rosuvastatin, 77-fold more potent than fluvastatin and 3.3-fold less potent than cerivastatin. There were not enough data to determine risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects due to pitavastatin.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Controlled Before-After Studies; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Fluvastatin; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Lipids; Male; Pyridines; Quinolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Sex Factors; Triglycerides
PubMed: 32557581
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012735.pub2 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Feb 2021Rosuvastatin is a lipid-lowering drug that works by inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme responsible for producing...
BACKGROUND
Rosuvastatin is a lipid-lowering drug that works by inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme responsible for producing cholesterol in humans. The pharmacokinetic data of rosuvastatin are considerably variable across studies.
OBJECTIVE
To review the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults.
METHODS
A review of the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin was performed using systematic search strategies. The Sheiner method was used to summarise the pharmacokinetics of the drug.
RESULTS
Randomised controlled studies (n = 70) involving healthy subjects (n = 2355) that examined the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin following single and multiple doses were included in the review. Rosuvastatin is given once daily in the dose range of 5-80 mg, with 40 mg being the maximum approved daily dose. Rosuvastatin achieves maximum plasma concentration at a median of 5 h (range: 0.5-6 h) under fasting conditions following single and multiple doses. Following single doses, rosuvastatin has a mean absolute oral availability of 20%, an overall mean total clearance of 28.3 L/h and an average terminal elimination half-life of approximately 20 h. The overall mean total clearance of the drug in Caucasian subjects was 1.7-fold higher than that in healthy Chinese subjects. The systemic exposure of rosuvastatin is characterised by a large coefficient of variation (48%.) There is a small accumulation with repeated dosing. The interaction of rosuvastatin with darunavir/ritonavir was considered statistically and clinically relevant. Interactions of rosuvastatin single doses with erythromycin, fluconazole, itraconazole and antacid were statistically significant.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
There is considerable variation in the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin between races. The clinical relevance of the statistically significant drug interactions is yet to be investigated following repeated co-administration for at least 15 days, consistent with a half-life of low-density lipoprotein of 3 days.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Area Under Curve; Cross-Over Studies; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium
PubMed: 33428168
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-020-00978-9 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2017To evaluate the effect of local and/or systemic statin use as an adjunct to non-surgical and/or surgical periodontal therapy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of local and/or systemic statin use as an adjunct to non-surgical and/or surgical periodontal therapy.
DATA
Literature search according to PRISMA guidelines with the following eligibility criteria: (a) English or German language; (b) interventional studies; (c) statins as monotherapy or as an adjunct to non-surgical and/or surgical treatment of periodontitis; (d) clinical and/or radiographic treatment effect size of statin intake reported.
SOURCES
Medline (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Ovid).
STUDY SELECTION
Thirteen clinical studies regarding local application and 2 with systemic administration of statins as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment (SRP) and 4 studies regarding intrasurgical statin application with a maximum follow-up of 9 months could be included; simvastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin were used. Local but not systemic statin application as an adjunct to SRP yielded significantly larger probing pocket depth (PD), radiographic defect depth (RDD), and bleeding index reduction, and larger clinical attachment level gain, and less residual PD and RDD (p≤0.016); rosuvastatin appeared as the most efficacious. Three of 4 studies reported a significant positive effect of intrasurgical statin application. No adverse events were reported after statin use. The vast majority of the included studies were from the same research group.
CONCLUSIONS
Significant additional clinical and radiographic improvements are obtained after local, but not systemic, statin use as an adjunct to SRP in deep pockets associated with intrabony defects and seemingly with furcation defects; intrasurgical statin application seems similarly beneficial. Confirmation of these results, and especially of the effect size, from other research groups is warranted.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Databases, Factual; Drug Administration Routes; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontal Index; Periodontal Pocket; Periodontitis; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Simvastatin
PubMed: 28855141
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.08.011 -
PloS One 2021Some studies have suggested the antihypertensive effects of statins, a class of lipid-lowering agents, particularly in patients with hypertension. However, the evidence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Antihypertensive Agents; Dyslipidemias; Humans; Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium
PubMed: 34818350
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260391 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in clinical practice. The efficacy of statins in the primary prevention of VTE remains unproven. This is an update of the review... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in clinical practice. The efficacy of statins in the primary prevention of VTE remains unproven. This is an update of the review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of statins in the primary prevention of VTE.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 1).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed statins in the primary prevention of VTE were considered. The outcomes we evaluated were the rates of VTE, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, death and adverse events. Two authors (L Li, JH Tian) independently selected RCTs against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third author (KH Yang).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction was independently carried out by two authors (L Li, JH Tian). Disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third author (PZ Zhang). Two authors (L Li, JH Tian) independently assessed the risk of bias according to a standard quality checklist provided by the PVD Group.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update we included one RCT with 17,802 participants that assessed rosuvastatin compared with placebo for the prevention of VTE. The quality of the evidence was moderate because of imprecision, as the required sample size for the outcomes of this review was not achieved. Analysis showed that when compared with placebo rosuvastatin reduced the incidence of VTE (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.86) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.79), the risk of any (fatal and non-fatal) myocardial infarction (MI) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.69), and any (fatal and non-fatal) stroke (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.78). There was no difference in the incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.46), fatal MI (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.53 to 4.22), fatal stroke (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.09) or death after VTE (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.24). The incidence of any serious adverse events was no different between the rosuvastatin and placebo groups (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.20).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence showed that rosuvastatin was associated with a reduced incidence of VTE, but the evidence was limited to a single RCT and any firm conclusions and suggestions could be not drawn. Randomised controlled trials of statins (including rosuvastatin) are needed to evaluate their efficacy in the prevention of VTE.
Topics: Female; Fluorobenzenes; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Stroke; Sulfonamides; Venous Thromboembolism; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 25518837
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008203.pub3 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Mar 2023To evaluate the effect of subgingival administration of various antimicrobials and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as an adjunct to scaling and root planing... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of subgingival administration of various antimicrobials and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) compared to SRP alone or combined with placebo.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out using MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles up to October 2022 in addition to hand searches. All longitudinal studies that evaluated the effect of subgingival application of antimicrobial and host-modulating agents in furcation defects as adjuncts to SRP compared to SRP alone or SRP + placebo with at least 3 months of follow-up were eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
A total of eight studies were included. Superior clinical treatment outcomes were shown when alendronate, rosuvastatin, boric acid, simvastatin, and tetracycline (only at 3 months) were utilized in furcation defects in conjunction with SRP alone or SRP + placebo. Significant improvement was reported in radiographic bone defect depth and defect depth reduction when SRP was supplemented with alendronate, rosuvastatin, boric acid, and simvastatin.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive subgingival administration of medications and host-modulating agents in furcation defects may confer additional clinical and radiographic benefits than non-surgical periodontal treatment alone. Future investigations are needed to confirm their long-term effectiveness.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Local host modulators and antimicrobials may be used supplementary to enhance the clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes of conventional periodontal therapy in furcation defects.
Topics: Humans; Furcation Defects; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Alendronate; Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Root Planing; Treatment Outcome; Simvastatin
PubMed: 36729235
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04871-0