Proof of concept, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the effect of simvastatin on the course of age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND: HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors are ubiquitous in our community yet their potential role in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) remains to be determined. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of simvastatin on AMD progression and the effect modification by polymorphism in apolipoprotein E (ApoE) and complement factor H (CFH) genes. DESIGN: A proof of concept double-masked randomized controlled study. PARTICIPANTS: 114 participants aged 53 to 91 years, with either bilateral intermediate AMD or unilateral non-advanced AMD (with advanced AMD in fellow eye), BCVA ≥ 20/60 in at least one eye, and a normal lipid profile. INTERVENTION: Simvastatin 40 mg/day or placebo, allocated 1:1. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Progression of AMD either to advanced AMD or in severity of non-advanced AMD. Results. The cumulative AMD progression rates were 70% in the placebo and 54% in the simvastatin group. Intent to treat multivariable logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, sex, smoking and baseline AMD severity, showed a significant 2-fold decrease in the risk of progression in the simvastatin group: OR 0.43 (0.18-0.99), p = 0.047. Post-hoc analysis stratified by baseline AMD severity showed no benefit from treatment in those who had advanced AMD in the fellow eye before enrolment: OR 0.97 (0.27-3.52), p = 0.96, after adjusting for age, sex and smoking. However, there was a significant reduction in the risk of progression in the bilateral intermediate AMD group compared to placebo [adjusted OR 0.23 (0.07-0.75), p = 0.015]. The most prominent effect was observed amongst those who had the CC (Y402H) at risk genotype of the CFH gene [OR 0.08 (0.02-0.45), p = 0.004]. No evidence of harm from simvastatin intervention was detected. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Simvastatin may slow progression of non-advanced AMD, especially for those with the at risk CFH genotype CC (Y402H). Further exploration of the potential use of statins for AMD, with emphasis on genetic subgroups, is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN1260500032065

Lack of effect of lowering LDL cholesterol on cancer: meta-analysis of individual data from 175,000 people in 27 randomised trials of statin therapy

<p>Background: Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials.</p> <p>Methods and Findings: Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76–1.10]).</p> <p>Conclusions: In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).</p&gt

Cardiovascular disease and the role of oral bacteria

In terms of the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) the focus has traditionally been on dyslipidemia. Over the decades our understanding of the pathogenesis of CVD has increased, and infections, including those caused by oral bacteria, are more likely involved in CVD progression than previously thought. While many studies have now shown an association between periodontal disease and CVD, the mechanisms underpinning this relationship remain unclear. This review gives a brief overview of the host-bacterial interactions in periodontal disease and virulence factors of oral bacteria before discussing the proposed mechanisms by which oral bacterial may facilitate the progression of CVD

Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials

Australian National Health and Medical Research CouncilMRCBritish Heart Foundation

Effect of rosuvastatin on insulin sensitivity in patients with familial combined hyperlipidaemia.

Contains fulltext : 48014.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: By influencing the mevalonate pathway, statins may have multiple effects besides lipid lowering. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of rosuvastatin on serum lipids and insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic subjects with familial combined hyperlipidaemia (FCH), a population characterized by decreased insulin sensitivity. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized crossover study, 18 subjects with FCH (without evident cardiovascular disease, mean age 54 +/- 7 years) were randomized to rosuvastatin 40 mg day(-1) or placebo for 12 weeks. Blood samples were taken at baseline and after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of both treatment periods. Insulin sensitivity was determined with euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp after 12 weeks of both treatment periods. RESULTS: Serum lipids and lipoproteins improved significantly. Mean total cholesterol after the rosuvastatin treatment period was 44% lower compared to the placebo treatment period (triglycerides -28%; LDL-c -50%; VLDL-c -56%, VLDL-TG -39%) and both parameters of low-grade inflammation (as measured by hsCRP, -16%) and oxidative stress (as measured by plasma-oxLDL, -55%) decreased markedly after rosuvastatin therapy as compared to placebo. However, the insulin sensitivity index was unchanged (41.7 +/- 17.4 vs. 40.6 +/- 11.1 L kg(-1) min(-1), placebo vs. rosuvastatin, P = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Despite marked improvements in lipid and lipoprotein values, low-grade inflammation and oxidative stress, a relatively high dose of rosuvastatin did not change insulin sensitivity in subjects with FCH