Colourised scanning electron micrograph of HIV (yellow) infecting a human T9 cell (blue). Credit: NIH
A large randomised controlled trial into using statins in people with HIV and low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk was stopped early due to clear benefits, according to an update posted online in JAMA Network. Participants, who were taking 4mg pitavastatin calcium daily, saw a 35% reduction in risk with no significant difference in adverse events compared to placebo, according to the National Institutes of Health.
This recommendation came after a planned interim analysis of data from the Randomized Trial to Prevent Vascular Events in HIV (REPRIEVE) study, which enrolled 7769 participants, across 12 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, South America and Africa. Participants were aged 40–75 years, had 100 cells/mm3 of blood at enrollment, and had low-to-moderate traditional cardiovascular disease risk that would not typically be considered for statin treatment.
It was not clear if statins would have the same effect in people living with HIV and who have premature cardiovascular disease despite having low-to-moderate traditional risk. The interim analysis was compelling enough that the study’s independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board recommended at its latest regular meeting that it be halted early given adequate evidence of efficacy.
The study participants are being notified of the findings and will continue to be monitored for several months. Study results from the review are expected to be published in the coming weeks.
Bempedoic acid, a new cholesterol-lowering drug, has the potential to be an effective substitute for patients who can’t tolerate statins. Bempedoic acid is an ATP citrate lyase inhibitor that reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and is associated with a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Its effects on cardiovascular outcomes were uncertain, so researchers used a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to determine outcomes on a variety of cardiovascular measures in statins-intolerant patients.
The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, recruited patients aged 18–85 years at increased cardiovascular risk and unable or unwilling to take statins due to adverse effects. Patients were first tested with placebo over a 4-week run-in period, and were not randomised if they experience unacceptable adverse effects or if adherence was less than 80%. The 13 970 patients who successfully completed run-in were randomised to receive bempedoic acid 180mg orally per day or matching placebo.
The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139.0mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2mg/dL; the observed difference in the percent reductions was 21.1 percentage points in favour of bempedoic acid.
Compared to placebo, risk of fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause after significantly were lower by 13%, after a median of 40.6 months of follow-up. The risk of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal stroke, or nonfatal myocardial infarction was 15% lower with bempedoic acid than with placebo, and the risks of fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation were 23% lower and 19% lower, respectively.
The researchers noted that the LDL-cholesterol lowering effects were similar in magnitude and predicted reduction in cardiovascular risks to that observed with statins. In addition, bempedoic acid did not increase glycated haemoglobin levels or the incidence of new-onset diabetes, unlike statins. Due to the demonstrated benefits, those taking placebo were offered the chance to transition to taking bempedoic acid.
A trial limitation was that it only included patients with statins intolerance, and who therefore had higher LDL cholesterol levels at baseline.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, and statins are a vital medication against it – but they are notoriously unpopular, leading to poor adherence. Investigators from Brigham and Women’s Hospital conducted the first population-based study on patients’ nonacceptance of statin therapy recommendations, and published their results in JAMA Network Open.
The study found that in patients at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, over 20% refused to take statin medications. They were particularly surprised to see that women were about 20% more likely than men to refuse statin therapy when it was first suggested by their physician, and 50% more likely than men to never accept the recommendation. The study also showed that all patients who refused statin therapy developed higher LDL cholesterol levels, likely increasing their risk even further.
“Our study highlights the alarming number of patients who refuse statins and signals that physicians must have discussions with patients about why,” says Alex Turchin, MD, MS, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and director of quality in the Brigham’s Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Hypertension. “We need to better understand what our patients’ preferences are and to be able to provide more patient-centered care.”
After Turchin began noticing that many of his patients with high cholesterol, including those with diabetes, were opting not to take safe and beneficial medications like statins that can lower cholesterol and bring down the risk of heart attack and stroke, he developed a system to more closely study the phenomenon by analysing the text of provider notes.
The study focused on high-risk patients who either had coronary artery or vascular disease, diabetes, very high cholesterol, or had suffered a stroke. All were recommended statin medications by their physicians to reduce their risk of heart attack and stroke and reduce cholesterol levels. The retrospective study included more than 24 000 patients who were seen at Mass General Brigham between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2018.
“Even in this higher-risk patient population, so many people did not accept statin therapy,” Turchin said. The study found that while about two-thirds of the patients who were being recommended statin therapy eventually tried it, about one-third never did. And it took three times as long for people in the study who initially said no to taking statin medications to reduce their LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100, compared to people who initially said yes.
The study’s biggest surprise, however, was the much higher rate of refusal by women than men. Turchin and his colleagues wonder if this might be due in part to a false misconception that heart disease impacts men more than women, and plan to further research the reasons underlying these results.
“Ultimately, we need to talk to our patients and find out in more detail why they would prefer not to take statins,” Turchin says. He is currently looking at the impacts of nonacceptance of statin therapy on outcomes that matter to most to patients including heart attacks, strokes, and death. “I think people underestimate how much of a difference modern medicine has made in extending people’s lives, and their quality of life, and medications can play a big role in that.”
People taking statins may have a lower risk of having an intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH), according to a new study published in the journal Neurology.
It has been suggested that statins increase the risk of ICH in people with a history of stroke, which has led to a precautionary principle of avoiding statins in patients with prior intracerebral haemorrhage. Recent research suggests that such prescribing reticence may be unfounded and potentially harmful when considering the well-established benefits of statins.
“While statins have been shown to reduce the risk of stroke from blood clots, there has been conflicting research on whether statin use increases or decreases the risk of a person having a first intracerebral haemorrhage,” said study author David Gaist, MD, PhD, of the University of Southern Denmark in Odense. “For our study, we looked at the lobe and non-lobe areas of the brain to see if location was a factor for statin use and the risk of a first intracerebral haemorrhage. We found that those who used a statin had a lower risk of this type of bleeding stroke in both areas of the brain. The risk was even lower with long-term statin use.”
The lobe area of the brain includes most of the cerebrum, including the frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes. The non-lobe area primarily includes the basal ganglia, thalamus, cerebellum and brainstem.
For the study, researchers looked at health records in Denmark and identified 989 people, average age 76, who had an ICH in the lobe area of the brain. They were compared to 39 500 matched controls.
They also looked at 1175 people, average age of 75, who had an ICH in the non-lobe parts of the brain. They were compared to 46 755 matched controls. Prescription data was used to determine information on statin use.
Of the total participants, 6.8% who had a stroke had been taking statins for five or more years, compared to 8.6% of those who did not have a stroke.
After adjusting for factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and alcohol use, researchers found that people currently using statins had a 17% lower risk of having a stroke in the lobe areas of the brain and a 16% lower risk of stroke in the non-lobe areas of the brain.
In addition, longer use of statins was associated with a lower risk of stroke in both areas of the brain. With more than five years of statin use, people had a 33% lower risk of having a stroke in the lobe area of the brain and a 38% lower risk of stroke in the non-lobe area of the brain.
“It’s reassuring news for people taking statins that these medications seem to reduce the risk of bleeding stroke as well as the risk of stroke from blood clots,” Gaist added. “However, our research was done in only the Danish population, which is primarily people of European ancestry. More research should be conducted in other populations.”
Some clinicians have recommended vitamin D supplements to ease the muscle aches of patients taking a statin, but a new study published in the journal JAMA Cardiology shows the vitamin appears to have no substantial impact.
While non-randomised studies have reported vitamin D to be an effective treatment for statin-associated muscle symptoms, the new study, which is the first randomised clinical trial to look at the effect of vitamin D on statin-associated muscle symptoms, was large enough to rule out any important benefits.
In the randomised, double-blind trial, 2083 participants took either 2000 units of vitamin D supplements daily or a placebo. The study found participants in both categories were equally likely to develop muscle symptoms and discontinue statin therapy.
Over 4.8 years of follow-up, statin-related muscle pain was reported by 31% of the participants assigned vitamin D and 31% assigned a placebo.
“We had high hopes that vitamin D would be effective because in our clinic and across the country, statin-associated muscle symptoms were a major reason why so many patients stopped taking their statin medication,” said senior author Dr Neil Stone, professor at Northwestern University. “So, it was very disappointing that vitamin D failed a rigorous test. Nevertheless, it’s important to avoid using ineffective treatments and instead focus on research that can provide an answer.”
Statins and vitamin D supplements are two of the most commonly used medications in American adults. About 30 to 35 million Americans are prescribed statins, and about half of the population aged 60 and older take a vitamin D supplement.
“We took advantage of a large placebo-controlled randomised trial to test whether vitamin D would reduce statin-associated muscle symptoms and help patients keep taking their statins,” said lead study author Dr Mark Hlatky, a professor of health policy and cardiovascular medicine at Stanford. “The placebo control in the study was important because if people think vitamin D is supposed to reduce their muscle pains, they just might feel better while taking it, even if vitamin D has no specific effect.”
Trial was a sub study within a larger clinical trial
The 2083 patients were among the larger cohort of participants in the VITamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL), which randomised nearly 26 000 participants to double-blind vitamin D supplementation to determine whether it would prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer. This provided researchers a unique opportunity to test whether vitamin D reduces muscle symptoms among participants who initiated statins during the follow-up period of the larger VITAL trial. The mean age of the study participants was 67, and 51% were women.
“Randomised clinical trials are important because many very good ideas don’t work as well as we had hoped when they are put to the test,” Hlatky said. “Statistical associations do not prove a cause-and-effect relationship. Low levels of vitamin D are associated with many medical problems, but it turns out that giving people vitamin D does not generally fix those problems.”
For patients who report statin-associated muscle pains
Dr Stone noted that sometimes the secret for understanding patients who have difficulty with statins is analysing other medications they’re taking, determining whether or not they have associated metabolic or inflammatory conditions, counselling them on their ability to hydrate adequately and, importantly, discussing “pill anxiety.”
“For those who have difficulties with statins, a systematic appraisal by a physician with experience in dealing with these matters is still very important,” Stone said.
Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) is often given to heart disease patients with symptomatic COVID to prevent progression to severe disease – but it can interact with some previously prescribed medications. A review paper published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology examines the potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between Paxlovid and commonly used cardiovascular medications, as well as potential options to mitigate severe adverse effects.
“Awareness of the presence of drug-drug interactions of Paxlovid with common cardiovascular drugs is key. System-level interventions by integrating drug-drug interactions into electronic medical records could help avoid related adverse events,” said Sarju Ganatra, MD, senior author of the review.
He continued: “The prescription of Paxlovid could be incorporated into an order set, which allows physicians, whether it be primary care physicians or cardiology providers, to consciously rule out any contraindications to the co-administration of Paxlovid. Consultation with other members of the health care team, particularly pharmacists, can prove to be extremely valuable. However, a health care provider’s fundamental understanding of the drug-drug interactions with cardiovascular medications is key.”
In December 2021, Paxlovid received emergency use authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration as an oral antiviral agent for the treatment of symptomatic, non-hospitalised adults with mild to moderate COVID infection who are at high risk for progression to severe disease. Patients with heart disease and other risk factors, including diabetes, high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease and smoking make up a large portion of the high-risk population for whom Paxlovid is beneficial.
According to the authors, Paxlovid has been shown to be very effective in patients with existing heart disease, but it has significant DDIs with commonly used cardiovascular medications, highlighting the importance for all clinicians to be familiar with these DDIs. As there is limited clinical information regarding DDI-related adverse events, the authors used existing knowledge and data regarding how therapies like Paxlovid typically react with other medications to provide guidance regarding potential interactions and the associated likely consequences based on the degree of interaction.
The review provides an in-depth overview of a variety of cardiovascular medications used to treat many forms of heart disease. Five of the most important cardiovascular drug interactions with Paxlovid to be aware of include:
Anti-arrhythmic agents
Many anti-arrhythmic agents are metabolised in a way that increases plasma levels when co-administered with Paxlovid. While it may be possible to start Paxlovid after 2–2.5-day temporary discontinuation of the anti-arrhythmic agents, this may not be feasible from a practical standpoint. Clinicians are advised to consider alternative COVID therapies and avoid co-administration of these agents with Paxlovid. Sotalol, another anti-arrhythmic agent, is renally cleared and does not interact with Paxlovid.
Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants
Antiplatelet agents are used for the treatment of coronary artery disease, particularly if a patient has received a stent. Aspirin and prasugrel are safe to co-administer with Paxlovid. There is an increased risk of blood clots when Paxlovid is given alongside clopidogrel and an increased risk of bleeding when given with ticagrelor. When possible, these agents should be switched to prasugrel. If patients have contraindication to taking prasugrel, then co-administration of Paxlovid should be avoided and alternative COVID therapies should be considered.
Anticoagulants such as warfarin may be co-administered with Paxlovid but require close monitoring of clotting factors in bloodwork. The plasma levels of all direct oral anticoagulants increase when co-administered with Paxlovid, therefore dose adjustment or temporary discontinuation and use of alternative anticoagulants may be required.
Certain statins
Co-administration of simvastatin or lovastatin with Paxlovid can lead to increased plasma levels and subsequent myopathy and rhabdomyolysis, a condition in which the breakdown of muscle tissue releases a damaging protein into the bloodstream. These agents should be stopped prior to initiation of Paxlovid. A dose reduction of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin is reasonable when co-administered with Paxlovid. The other statins are considered safe when given along with Paxlovid.
Ranolazine
Plasma concentration of ranolazine, used to treat angina and other heart-related chest pain, is exponentially increased in the presence of CPY450 inhibitors like Paxlovid, thereby increasing the risk of clinically significant QT prolongation and torsade de pointes (a type of arrhythmia). Co-administration of Paxlovid is therefore contraindicated. Temporary discontinuation of ranolazine is advised if prescribing Paxlovid.
Immunosuppressive agents
The plasma levels of immunosuppressive agents prescribed for patients who have undergone heart transplantation exponentially rise to toxic levels when co-administered with Paxlovid. Temporary reduction of dosing of immunosuppressive agents would require frequent monitoring and be logistically difficult. Therefore, alternative COVID therapies should be considered in these patients.
The authors conclude awareness and availability of other COVID therapies enable clinicians to offer alternative treatment options to patients who are unable to take Paxlovid due to DDIs.
New research has shown that the link between low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and cardiovascular disease may not be as strong as previously thought.
The study, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, provides evidence that calls into question the efficacy of statins when prescribed with the goal of lowering LDL-C and consequently cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.
Numerous prior studies have suggested that using statins to lower LDL-C positively affects cardiovascular health outcomes, findings which are reflected in the various iterations of expert guidelines for the prevention of CVD. Several large clinical trials have indicated that for every 1-mmol/l reduction in LDL-C levels there is a 23% reduction in CVD risk.
The new findings contradict this theory, finding that this relationship was weaker than previously thought. Lowering LDL-C with statins in fact was found to have an inconsistent and inconclusive impact on CVD outcomes such as myocardial infarction (MI), stoke, and all-cause mortality.
Additionally, it indicates that the overall benefit of taking statins may be small and will vary depending on an individual’s personal risk factors.
Commenting on the findings, the paper’s lead author Dr Paula Byrne said: “The message has long been that lowering your cholesterol will reduce your risk of heart disease, and that statins help to achieve this. However, our research indicates that, in reality, the benefits of taking statins are varied and can be quite modest.”
The researchers go on to suggest that this updated information should be communicated to patients through informed clinical decision-making and updated clinical guidelines and policy.
Melanoma cells. Source: National Cancer Institute.
By screening various drugs to inhibit a cancer-driving gene, researchers have hit upon a familiar drug – statins.
Cancer patients rarely die from the primary tumour, but rather from the metastases – even after successful tumour surgery. This is because cancer cells sometimes metastasise when the tumour is still very small and may not have even been discovered yet. To do this, they must break away from the extracellular matrix and migrate into neighbouring lymphatic vessels or blood vessels that transport them to new tissue, where they settle and proliferate.
Understanding the molecular mechanisms of metastasis is therefore a key piece of the puzzle in the fight against cancer. More than a decade ago, Professor Ulrike Stein and her lab discovered an important driver of this process in human colorectal cancer: the metastasis-associated in colon cancer 1 (MACC1) gene.
When cancer cells express MACC1, their ability to proliferate, move around the body, and invade other tissues is enhanced. “Many types of cancers spread only in patients with high MACC1 expression,” Prof Stein explained. MACC1’s role as a key factor and biomarker of tumour growth and metastasis – in many solid tumours beside colorectal cancer – has since been studied by many other researchers worldwide and confirmed in more than 300 publications. Now together with Dr Robert Preißner of Charité, Stein has discovered what could disrupt metastatic progression in such cases: statins, normally prescribed for lowering cholesterol, can inhibit MACC1 expression in tumour cells. The scientists are presenting their findings in the journal Clinical and Translational Medicine.
In their search for MACC1 inhibitors, the researchers conducted high-throughput drug screening, and independently arrived at statins. Tests on various tumour cell lines were favourable: All seven drugs tested reduced MACC1 expression in the cells, but to varying degrees. The scientists then administered the cholesterol inhibitors to genetically modified mice with increased MACC1 expression. This almost completely suppressed the formation of tumours and metastases in the animals. “What is particularly remarkable is that the benefits continued in the animals even after we reduced the animal dose to a human equivalent dose,” Stein said.
Dr Preißner and collaborators also examined data from a total of 300 000 patients who had been prescribed statins. This analysis found a correlation: “Patients taking statins had only half the incidence of cancer compared to the general population,” Preißner explains.
Prof Stein warned against taking statins as a preventive measure without consulting a doctor and having their lipid levels checked.
“We are still at the very beginning,” Dr Stein cautioned. “Cell lines and mice are not human beings, so we cannot directly transfer the results.” The experimental studies and retrospective data analysis will now be followed up by a clinical trial, she said. Only after that will it be possible to say with certainty whether statins actually prevent or reduce metastasis in patients with high MACC1 expression.
Though small studies have suggested that statins, which lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL), may also reduce COVID severity or mortality, findings from a large study suggest that it has no effect and may even worsen the disease.
In the effort to fight COVID, researchers have attempted to find existing medications that might have an effect on the outcome of the disease, and statins were one readily available candidate that appeared to have some effect. However, a new study published in the journal PLOS ONE suggests they may not be suitable.
“Despite the apparent beneficial effect of statins on the outcomes of various infectious diseases, our study revealed that their specific use to treat COVID is probably not merited,” said senior study author Petros Karakousis, MD, professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “Compared with earlier research, we looked at a larger and more widely varied inpatient population, and had better criteria for defining disease severity, thereby enabling our results to be more relevant for predicting the impact of statins on COVID outcomes in hospitalised patients.”
In the study, researchers reviewed the records of 4447 hospitalised patients, ages 18 years or older, who had been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 1 and June 30, 2020. Of these, 594 (13%) were receiving statins at admission, with most statin users being men (57%) and older (ages 52–78 compared with ages 29–62) than the non-statin users. The highest percentage of statin users were black (47%), had hypertension (74%) or diabetes (53%), and were more likely to take medications for lowering blood pressure – along with statins to reduce their LDL cholesterol.
After accounting for confounding factors, statin use was found to have no significant effect on COVID mortality. However, they did find that patients hospitalised with COVID and taking statins had an 18% increased risk for having a more severe form of the disease.
“One plausible explanation for this finding is that statins increase cellular production of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 [ACE2], the receptor on a cell’s surface through which SARS-CoV-2 gains entry,” said Prof Karakousis. “Therefore, statins may lower a cell’s resistance to infection and in turn, increase the odds that the patient will have a more severe case of COVID.”
Prof Karakousis said future studies should attempt to better define the relationship between statin use and COVID, noting that all previous ones were retrospective and had factors that could not be eliminated, such as many statin users being overweight.
The only way to definitively determine if statins have any benefit for patients with COVID is to conduct a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.
A new study has found that statin use in adults 65 years old or older is not associated with incident dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or decline in individual cognition domains.
Major health concerns in the elderly, cognitive decline and dementia affect about 10% of people over 60 years old. Statins are used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and are a fundamental treatment for prevention of primary and secondary cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. In 2012 the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning about cases of apparent short-term cognitive impairment with statin use, while acknowledging that the cardiovascular benefits outweigh their risks. Systematic reviews have since shown insufficient evidence on the impact of statins, and research has shown mixed results, with some showing a neurocognitive benefit of statins and others reporting a null effect.
“With statins being increasingly prescribed to older adults, their potential long-term effects on cognitive decline and dementia risk have attracted growing interest,” said lead author Zhen Zhou, PhD, Menzies Institute for Medical Research at the University of Tasmania. “The present study adds to previous research by suggesting that statin use at baseline was not associated with subsequent dementia incidence and long-term cognitive decline in older adults.”
Researchers of this study analysed data from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial. ASPREE was a large prospective, randomized placebo-controlled trial of daily low-dose aspirin with adults 65 or older. One of the key selection criteria of ASPREE was that participants had to have a score of 78 for the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination test, a screening test for cognitive abilities, at enrollment.
The study had 18 846 participants, grouped by their baseline statin use (31.3% of participants) versus non-statin use. The study aimed to measure outcomes including incident dementia and its subclassifications (probable Alzheimer’s disease [AD], mixed presentations); MCI and its subclassifications (MCI consistent with AD, MCI-other); changes in domain-specific cognition including global cognition, memory, language and executive function, and psychomotor speed; and in the composite of these domains.
After a median of 4.7 years of follow-up, researchers found 566 incident cases of dementia (including probable AD and mixed presentations). Compared with no statin use, statin use was not associated with risk of all-cause dementia, probable AD or mixed presentations of dementia. There were 380 incident cases of MCI found (including MCI consistent with AD and MCI-other). Compared to no statin use, statin use was not associated with risk of MCI, MCI consistent with AD or other MCI. No statistically significant difference in the change of composite cognition and any individual cognitive domains between statin users versus non-statin users was seen. However, researchers did find interaction effects between baseline cognitive ability and statin therapy for all dementia outcomes.
The researchers acknowledged several limitations, including observational study bias and lack of data on the length of prior use of statins; and the dose of statins was not recorded in the ASPREE trial, so their effects could not be fully explored. Researchers conclude the study must be interpreted with caution and will require confirmation by randomized clinical trials designed to explore the neurocognitive effects of statins in older populations.
In an accompanying editorial comment, Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, noted study limitations that the authors address, but agreed the findings suggest statins do not contribute to cognitive decline.
“Overall, the analysis was well done, and its main strengths are a large cohort with a battery of standardised tests that allowed the investigators to track both cognition and incidence of dementia and its subtypes over time,” Ballantyne said. “Lingering questions such as the one raised by this analysis regarding potential adverse effects of statins in individuals with mildly impaired cognition can only be answered in randomised controlled trials in the appropriate age group and population and with appropriate testing and adequate follow-up. In the meantime, practising clinicians can have confidence and share with their patients that short-term lipid lowering therapy in older individuals, including with statins, is unlikely to have a major impact on cognition.”
