Maaike C Gerards1, Ruben J Terlou2, Huixin Yu3, C H W Koks3, V E A Gerdes4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: maaike.gerards@slz.nl. 2. Department of Pathology, Academical Medical Centre (AMC), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pharmacy & Pharmacology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To verify the safety and effectiveness of traditional Chinese red yeast rice-extract (RYR) for reduction of LDL cholesterol. METHODS: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE were searched until November 2014. We selected randomized studies in which RYR with a known content of the active substance monacolin K was tested against placebo or an active control group. Outcome measures were the effect of RYR on LDL cholesterol and incidence of adverse reactions with emphasis on liver and kidney injury and muscle symptoms. RESULTS: Twenty studies were analyzed. Quality of safety assessment was low in the majority of studies. RYR lowered LDL cholesterol with 1.02 mmol/L [-1.20; -0.83] compared to placebo. Effect of RYR on LDL was not different from statin therapy (0.03 mmol/L [-0.36; 0.41]). The incidence of liver and kidney injury was 0-5% and the risk was not different between treatment and control groups (risk difference -0.01 [-0.01; 0.0] and 0.0 [-0.01; 0.02]). CONCLUSIONS: RYR exerts a clinically and statistically significant reduction of 1.02 mmol/L LDL cholesterol. Only when the mild profile of adverse reactions can be affirmed in studies with adequate methodology for safety assessment, RYR might be a safe and effective treatment option for dyslipidemia and cardiovascular risk reduction in statin intolerant patients.
OBJECTIVE: To verify the safety and effectiveness of traditional Chinese red yeastrice-extract (RYR) for reduction of LDL cholesterol. METHODS: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE were searched until November 2014. We selected randomized studies in which RYR with a known content of the active substance monacolin K was tested against placebo or an active control group. Outcome measures were the effect of RYR on LDL cholesterol and incidence of adverse reactions with emphasis on liver and kidney injury and muscle symptoms. RESULTS: Twenty studies were analyzed. Quality of safety assessment was low in the majority of studies. RYR lowered LDL cholesterol with 1.02 mmol/L [-1.20; -0.83] compared to placebo. Effect of RYR on LDL was not different from statin therapy (0.03 mmol/L [-0.36; 0.41]). The incidence of liver and kidney injury was 0-5% and the risk was not different between treatment and control groups (risk difference -0.01 [-0.01; 0.0] and 0.0 [-0.01; 0.02]). CONCLUSIONS: RYR exerts a clinically and statistically significant reduction of 1.02 mmol/L LDL cholesterol. Only when the mild profile of adverse reactions can be affirmed in studies with adequate methodology for safety assessment, RYR might be a safe and effective treatment option for dyslipidemia and cardiovascular risk reduction in statin intolerant patients.
Authors: Arrigo F G Cicero; Alessandro Colletti; Gani Bajraktari; Olivier Descamps; Dragan M Djuric; Marat Ezhov; Zlatko Fras; Niki Katsiki; Michel Langlois; Gustavs Latkovskis; Demosthenes B Panagiotakos; Gyorgy Paragh; Dimitri P Mikhailidis; Olena Mitchenko; Bernhard Paulweber; Daniel Pella; Christos Pitsavos; Željko Reiner; Kausik K Ray; Manfredi Rizzo; Amirhossein Sahebkar; Maria-Corina Serban; Laurence S Sperling; Peter P Toth; Dragos Vinereanu; Michal Vrablík; Nathan D Wong; Maciej Banach Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Ingrid E Lundberg; Manabu Fujimoto; Jiri Vencovsky; Rohit Aggarwal; Marie Holmqvist; Lisa Christopher-Stine; Andrew L Mammen; Frederick W Miller Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Isabel De Castro-Orós; Rosa Solà; Rosa María Valls; Angel Brea; Pilar Mozas; Jose Puzo; Miguel Pocoví Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240