OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment patterns, goal attainment, and factors influencing treatment among patients in 6 Asian countries who were taking statins.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in China, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand, where 437 physicians (41% cardiologists) recruited adults with hypercholesterolemia newly initiated on statin monotherapy.
RESULTS: Of 2622 patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, approximately 66% had coronary heart disease (CHD)/diabetes mellitus, 24% had no CHD but > or =2 risk factors, and 10% had no CHD and <2 risk factors. Most patients ( approximately 90%) received statins at medium or lower equipotency doses. Across all cardiovascular risk categories, 48% of patients attained ATP III targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), including 38% of those with CHD/diabetes (goal: <100 mg/dL), 62% of those without CHD but with > or =2 risk factors (goal: <130 mg/dL), and 81% of those without CHD and <2 risk factors (goal: <160 mg/dL). Most patients who achieved goals did so within the first 3 months. Increasing age (odds ratio (OR)=1.015 per 1-year increment; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.005-1.206; p=0.0038) and initial statin potency (OR=2.253; 95% CI=1.364-3.722; p=0.0015) were directly associated with goal attainment, whereas increased cardiovascular risk (OR=0.085; 95% CI=0.053-0.134; p<0.0001 for CHD/diabetes mellitus at baseline compared with <2 risk factors,) and baseline LDL-C (OR=0.990; 95% CI=0.987-0.993); p<0.0001 per 1-mg/dL increment) were inversely associated with LDL-C goal achievement. Limitations of this study include potential differences in treatment settings and cardiovascular risk factors between different countries and centers. In addition, the effects on cholesterol goal achievement of concomitant changes in lifestyle were not assessed.
CONCLUSION: LDL-C goal attainment is low in Asians, particularly those with CHD/diabetes. More effective patient monitoring, treatments, including combining regimens and dose titration, and adherence to these treatments along with therapeutic lifestyle counseling may facilitate goal attainment.
AREAS COVERED: We searched PubMed and reviewed literatures related to statin intolerance published between February 2015 and February 2020. Important large-scale or landmark studies published before 2015 were also cited as key evidence.
EXPERT OPINION: Optimal lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with statins substantially reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. Muscle adverse events (AEs) were the most frequently reported AEs by statin users in clinical practice, but they usually occurred at a similar rate with statins and placebo in randomized controlled trials and had a spurious causal relationship with statin treatment. We proposed a rigorous definition for identifying true statin intolerance and present the criteria for defining different forms of muscle AEs and an algorithm for their management. True statin intolerance is uncommon, and every effort should be made to exclude false statin intolerance and ensure optimal use of statins. For the management of statin intolerance, statin-based approaches should be prioritized over non-statin approaches.
METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases until 31st December 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) in HF evaluating statins versus placebo. Identified RCTs and their respective abstracted information were grouped according to statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were initially pooled with the Peto's one-step method, producing odd ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin for each outcome.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies involving 10,966 patients were identified and analyzed. Lipophilic statins were superior to hydrophilic rosuvastatin regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0 · 50; 95 % CI, 0 · 11-0 · 89; p = 0 · 01), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0 · 61; 0 · 25-0 · 97; p = 0 · 009), and hospitalization for worsening HF (OR 0 · 52; 0 · 21-0 · 83; p = 0 · 0005). However, both statins were comparable with regards to cardiovascular hospitalization [OR 0 · 80 (0 · 31, 1 · 28); p = 0 · 36].
CONCLUSIONS: Lipophilic statin treatment shows significant decreases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for worsening HF compared with rosuvastatin treatment. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence that lipophilic statins offer better clinical outcomes in HF till data from head to head comparisons are available.