Effects Of Lipophilic Statins Research Articles

Identification of key upregulated genes involved in foam cell formation and the modulatory role of statin therapy

We aimed to investigate the possible effect of statins on important genes/proteins involved in foam cell formation. The gene expression profile of the GSE9874, GSE54666, and GSE7138from the Omnibus database were usedto identify genes involved in foam cell formation. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) network and MCODE analysis of the intersection of three databases were analyzed. We used molecular docking analysis to investigate the possible interaction of different statins with the overexpressed hub genes obtained from PPI analysis. The intersection among the three datasets showed 54 upregulated and 26 down-regulated genes. The most critical overexpressed genes/proteins obtained as hub genes included: G6PD, NPC1, ABCA1, ABCG1, PGD, PLIN2, PPAP2B, and TXNRD1 based on PPI analysis. Functional enrichment analysis of 81 intersection DEGs at the biological process level focusing on the cholesterol metabolic process, secondary alcohol biosynthetic process and the cholesterol biosynthetic process. Under cellular components, the analysis confirmed that these 81 intersection DEGs were mainly applied in endoplasmic reticulum membrane, lysosome and lytic vacuole. The molecular functions were identified as sterol binding, oxidoreductase activity and NADP binding. The molecular docking showed that all statins appear to affect important protein targets overexpressed in foam cell formation. However, lipophilic statins, especially pitavastatin and lovastatin, had a greater effect than hydrophilic statins. The most significant protein target of all the overexpressed genes interacting with all statin types was ABCA1. The effect of lipophilic statins was shown for several critical proteins in foam cell formation.

Abstract P1-15-01: Effect of concomitant statin treatment in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor positive early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant denosumab or placebo: A post-hoc analysis of ABCSG-18

Abstract Background Statins are a common class of cholesterol-lowering drugs prescribed for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Moreover, it was suggested that statins may possess anti-cancer properties and interact with RANK ligand expression. Therefore, we aimed at evaluating a hypothetical synergistic effect of statins with denosumab in early-stage breast cancer (BC) patients from the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group (ABCSG) trial 18. Methods ABCSG-18 (NCT00556374) is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III study; postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR) positive BC receiving a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor were randomly assigned to denosumab or placebo. In this post-hoc analysis, we investigated the potential effects of concomitant statin therapy on recurrence risk of BC, fracture risk and bone mineral density (BMD) using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Sensitivity analyses accounting for immortal time and confounding bias were performed. Results In the analysis of the study population (n=3,420), statin therapy (n=824) was associated with worse disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.35, 95%; CI 1.04-1.75; p=0.023). Sensitivity analysis relativized these results (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 - 1.59; p=0.14). While there was no significant effect of lipophilic statins (n=710) on recurrence risk (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.99 - 1.72; p=0.062), patients on hydrophilic statins (n=87) had worse DFS compared with patients not receiving any statins (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.09-3.66; p=0.026). This finding was mainly driven by the effect of hydrophilic statins on DFS in the denosumab arm (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.21 - 5.68; p=0.014). No association between statin use and fracture risk or osteoporosis was observed. Conclusion In this population of early-stage breast cancer patients from a prospective randomized study, an association of hydrophilic statins with increased recurrence risk was observed. According to this retrospective analysis hydrophilic statins may increase recurrence risk especially in patients treated with denosumab. Still, our data need to be interpreted with caution due to their retrospective nature and the low number of patients receiving hydrophilic statins. Therefore, no final conclusion is possible. This hypothesis generating result warrants further exploration. Citation Format: Christoph Minichsdorfer, Thorsten Fuereder, Michael Leutner, Christian F. Singer, Stephanie Kacerovsky-Strobl, Daniel Egle, Richard Greil, Marija Balic, Florian Fitzal, Georg Pfeiler, Sophie Frantal, Rupert A. Bartsch, Michael Gnant. Effect of concomitant statin treatment in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor positive early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant denosumab or placebo: A post-hoc analysis of ABCSG-18 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-15-01.

Effects of Lipophilic Statins for Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of 13 Randomised Controlled Trials

The effects of lipophilic statins in heart failure (HF) were controversial. The goal of the present study was to systematically review all randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of lipophilic statins in patients with HF. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify eligible trials that prospectively randomised patients with HF to lipophilic statins or control. Primary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalisation for worsening HF, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Risk ratios (RRs) and Weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated using fixed-effects models or random-effects models. A total of 13 randomised trials with 1,532 subjects were included in this analysis. Ten trials randomised patients to atorvastatin, two to simvastatin, and one to pitavastatin. Overall, lipophilic statins significantly decreased all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, P<0.001), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.66, P=0.04), and hospitalisation for worsening HF (RR 0.60, P<0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that the effects of lipophilic statins in HF were not modified by age, baseline LVEF, and cause of HF. In addition, patients randomised to lipophilic statins had a significant increase in LVEF (WMD 3.91%, P<0.001) and decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (WMD 0.90 mmol/L, P<0.001). It appears that further studies are needed to determine if lipophilic statins are beneficial for HF patients.

Lipophilic but not hydrophilic statins selectively induce cell death in gynecological cancers expressing high levels of HMGCoA reductase.

Recent reports have suggested that statins induce cell death in certain epithelial cancers and that patients taking statins to reduce cholesterol levels possess lower cancer incidence. However, little is known about the mechanisms of action of different statins or the effects of these statins in gynaecological malignancies. The apoptotic potential of two lipophilic statins (lovastatin and simvastatin) and one hydrophilic statin (pravastatin) was assessed in cancer cell lines (ovarian, endometrial and cervical) and primary cultured cancerous and normal tissues. Cell viability was studied by MTS assays and apoptosis was confirmed by Western blotting of PARP and flow cytometry. The expressions of key apoptotic cascade proteins were analysed. Our results demonstrate that both lovastatin and simvastatin, but not pravastatin, selectively induced cell death in dose- and time-dependent manner in ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers. Little or no toxicity was observed with any statin on normal cells. Lipophilic statins induced activation of caspase-8 and -9; BID cleavage, cytochrome C release and PARP cleavage. Statin-sensitive cancers expressed high levels of HMG-CoA reductase compared with resistant cultures. The effect of lipophilic statins was dependent on inhibition of enzymatic activity of HMG-CoA reductase since mevalonate pre-incubation almost completely abrogated the apoptotic effect. Moreover, the apoptotic effect involved the inhibition of synthesis of geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate rather than farnesyl pyrophosphate. In conclusion, lipophilic but not hydrophilic statins induce cell death through activation of extrinsic and intrinsic apoptotic cascades in cancerous cells from the human female genital tract, which express high levels of HMG-CoA reductase. These results promote further investigation in the use of lipophilic statins as anticancer agents in gynaecological malignancies.

Fluvastatin has biologic effects on stage 0 and 1 breast cancer.

Abstract Abstract #4122 Introduction: Statins are safe, reduce cardiovascular risk, and impact pathways critical to cancer progression. We and others have shown lipophilic statins cause apoptosis and growth suppression in vitro and in vivo, and though epidemiologic data are mixed, statin effect appears most evident in estrogen receptor (ER) negative or grade 3 disease. To look for a direct biologic effect of lipophilic statins, we conducted a perioperative pilot window trial in women with breast cancer (BC).&amp;#x2028; Methods: 40 subjects with stage 0,1 BC were randomized to high dose (80mg/day) or low dose (20mg/day) fluvastatin for 3-6 weeks prior to surgery. Paired tissue (core biopsy and surgical specimen), peripheral blood and MRI were obtained. Primary endpoint was Ki-67 (proliferation) change. Secondary endpoints included cleaved caspase-3 (CC3, apoptosis), longest diameter (LD) by MRI, and C-reactive protein (CRP) change. Subgroup analyses was planned by grade (3 vs. 1,2), statin dose; and ER status. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) on paraffin tissue used standard streptavidin biotin methods. A single breast pathologist reviewed all slides; a single radiologist read all MRIs, both blinded to timepoint.&amp;#x2028; Results: Median serum cholesterol decreased by 16% (-23% and -12% for high and low dose, respectively p=0.012), indicating drug effect and compliance. 29 patients had sufficient tumor for paired IHC, 14 and 15 were grade 3 and 1,2, and 10 and 19 were ER - and +, respectively. In grade 3 (73% of which were ER-) vs. 1,2 tumors, there was a significant decrease in Ki-67, -7.2% (interquartile range (IQR) -13.4%, 0% ) vs. -0.3% (IQR -3%, .8%), respectively, p=0.04. CC3 (apoptosis) increased, 60% vs. 13% for grade 3 vs. 1,2 tumors, respectively, p=0.015. ER- and ER+ cases had a similar reduction in Ki67 with a median drop of 2% (IQR -13.4%, 1%) and 1.2% (IQR -6.6%,0.8%), respectively, p=0.56. While CC3 was increased in ER- vs. + (55% vs. 29%), the difference was not statistically significant. There was no dose dependent effect on Ki-67or CC3.There was no evidence of Ki67 or CC3 change when all grades were analyzed together (median drop 1.2%) and no change in CRP. Of 14 subjects with paired MRIs, 4 grade 3 cases showed a significant decrease in LD, marked ductal dilatation and increased necrosis.with statin exposure.&amp;#x2028; Conclusions: A lipophilic statin, fluvastatin, reduced cholesterol and had measurable biologic changes (reduced proliferation, size and increased apoptosis) in stage 0,1 BC after only 3-6 weeks of exposure, specifically in the grade 3 subset. Results support the study of statins for chemoprevention for women at risk for or with stage 0 grade 3 BC, where new agents are needed. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 4122.

Abstract 3725: Simvastatin but Not Pravastatin Affects Sleep: Findings from the UCSD Statin Study

Background : Case reports have suggested possible effects of lipophilic statins on sleep in some subjects. Most randomized studies evaluating the effect of statins on sleep have had small sample size and short duration (≤ 6 weeks). Whether statins affect sleep on average, favorably or adversely, has been unclear. Goal : To assess the effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on sleep. Subjects : 1016 adult men and women without diabetes or heart disease, with LDL-cholesterol 115–190mg/dL. Design : Randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial of simvastatin 20mg, pravastatin 40mg or placebo for 6 months. Sleep was a prespecified secondary outcome. It was assessed by both an adaptation of the Leeds sleep scale (a visual analog scale of sleep quality); and a rating scale of sleep problems. Both items were measured at baseline and on-treatment. Analysis : Baseline comparability of randomization groups including sleep measures was affirmed. T-test of mean on-treatment sleep scores across randomization groups was performed. This complemented regression analyses, adjusted for baseline values of the respective sleep assessment. Results : Groups were comparable at baseline on variables including both sleep measures. Simvastatin use was associated with significantly worse sleep quality, and significantly greater reported sleep problems than either pravastatin or placebo, by t-test and regression analyses. Pravastatin did not differ significantly from placebo on any sleep outcome. Conclusion : Findings were compatible with the hypothesis that statins may impair sleep in some subjects, and that this impairment may arise selectively with lipophilic statins. Table 1. Effects of Statins on Sleep: Regression Analysis