Ibadete Bytyçi1, Gani Bajraktari2, Deepak L Bhatt3, Charity J Morgan4, Ali Ahmed5, Wilbert S Aronow6, Maciej Banach7. 1. Clinic of Cardiology, University Clinical Centre of Kosovo, Prishtina, Kosovo. 2. Clinic of Cardiology, University Clinical Centre of Kosovo, Prishtina, Kosovo; Medical Faculty, University of Prishtina, Prishtina, Kosovo. 3. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 4. VA Medical Center and George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 5. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA. 7. Department of Hypertension, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland; Polish Mother's Memorial Hospital Research Institute (PMMHRI), Lodz, Poland; Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Zielona Gora, Zielona Gora, Poland. Electronic address: maciejbanach@aol.co.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Some available experimental studies have reported that hydrophilic statins might have advantages compared with lipophilic statins in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the potential differences of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins in patients with CAD. METHODS: We systematically searched selected electronic databases up to September 2016 to select RCTs, which compared clinical outcomes of hydrophilic vs lipophilic statins. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular (CV) events: major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, cardiac revascularization, stroke, CV death, CV hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were safety parameters: drug discontinuation, statin-associated muscle symptoms and alanine aminotransferase level increase. RESULTS: A total of 11,697 patients from 11 RCTs, randomly allocated to lipophilic (n = 5736) or hydrophilic statins (n = 5961), with a mean follow-up 14 months, were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with hydrophilic, the lipophilic statins showed similar risk reduction for major adverse cardiac events (relative risk = 0.969, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.835-1.125, P = .682), myocardial infarction (0.880, 95% CI: 0.731-1.058, P = .174), CV death (0.757, 95% CI: 0.486-1.180, P = .219), and all-cause mortality (0.797, 95% CI: 0.590-1.075, P = .137), as well as cardiac revascularization, stroke, drug discontinuation, and statin-associated muscle symptoms. CV hospitalization was lower (0.789, 95% CI: 0.643-0.969, P = .024) and alanine aminotransferase elevation was higher (2.689, 95% CI: 1.841-3.954, P ≤ .001) in lipophilic than in hydrophilic-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, similarity between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins holds between various clinical CAD settings.
INTRODUCTION: Some available experimental studies have reported that hydrophilic statins might have advantages compared with lipophilic statins in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the potential differences of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins in patients with CAD. METHODS: We systematically searched selected electronic databases up to September 2016 to select RCTs, which compared clinical outcomes of hydrophilic vs lipophilic statins. Primary endpoints were cardiovascular (CV) events: major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, cardiac revascularization, stroke, CV death, CV hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were safety parameters: drug discontinuation, statin-associated muscle symptoms and alanine aminotransferase level increase. RESULTS: A total of 11,697 patients from 11 RCTs, randomly allocated to lipophilic (n = 5736) or hydrophilic statins (n = 5961), with a mean follow-up 14 months, were included in the meta-analysis. In comparison with hydrophilic, the lipophilic statins showed similar risk reduction for major adverse cardiac events (relative risk = 0.969, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.835-1.125, P = .682), myocardial infarction (0.880, 95% CI: 0.731-1.058, P = .174), CV death (0.757, 95% CI: 0.486-1.180, P = .219), and all-cause mortality (0.797, 95% CI: 0.590-1.075, P = .137), as well as cardiac revascularization, stroke, drug discontinuation, and statin-associated muscle symptoms. CV hospitalization was lower (0.789, 95% CI: 0.643-0.969, P = .024) and alanine aminotransferase elevation was higher (2.689, 95% CI: 1.841-3.954, P ≤ .001) in lipophilic than in hydrophilic-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, similarity between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins holds between various clinical CAD settings.
Authors: Zhen Zhou; Andrea J Curtis; Michael E Ernst; Joanne Ryan; Sophia Zoungas; Rory Wolfe; John J McNeil; Anne M Murray; Christopher M Reid; Enayet K Chowdhury; Robyn L Woods; Andrew M Tonkin; Mark R Nelson Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Gemma Ibáñez-Sanz; Elisabet Guinó; Caridad Pontes; Mª Ángeles Quijada-Manuitt; Luisa C de la Peña-Negro; María Aragón; Marga Domínguez; Lorena Rodríguez-Alonso; Alex Blasco; Ana García-Rodríguez; Rosa Morros; Victor Moreno Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ying Gong; Roel G J Klein Wolterink; Ian Janssen; Arjan J Groot; Gerard M J Bos; Wilfred T V Germeraad Journal: Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev Date: 2020-03-29 Impact factor: 6.698