Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Simvastatin”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources

Enhanced acetylcholine-induced dilation in afferent arterioles in simvastatin-fed rats.

OBJECTIVE: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors have been shown to increase renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate independent of their lipid lowering effects. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of simvastatin on acetylcholine-induced vasodilation in the renal microcirculation. The hypothesis of the study was that simvastatin would increase acetylcholine-induced vasodilation in the renal microcirculation. METHODS: The hydronephrotic kidney preparation was used. On the day of the experiment the kidney was prepared for videomicroscopy and dose-response curves were done with acetylcholine and sodium nitroprusside (10(-10) M to 10(-5) M) in simvastatin-fed rats ??(n=8) and control rats (n=13). The vasodilator responses of afferent and efferent arterioles were directly quantitated using videomicroscopy. L-NAME; (N(omega)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester) was also given in a group of simvastatin-fed rats (10(-5) M) to determine if it would block the acetylcholine (Ach)-induced vasodilation. RESULTS: Simvastatin enhanced Ach-induced vasodilation in the afferent arteriole compared to control rat responses to Ach. At 10(-7) M, ACH caused a 31.6+/-7.2% increase from baseline diameter in the afferent arteriole in the simvastatin-fed rats compared to a 23+/-8.1% vasodilation in the control rats (p<0.05). There were no differences in the response to ACH in the efferent arteriole between the two groups. L-NAME completely abolished the ACH response in the simvastatin-fed rats. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate observed with simvastatin may be due to its preglomerular vasodilator effects. This may be due to an increase in nitric oxide production.

Acetylcholine↗

Simvastatin decreases aldehyde production derived from lipoprotein oxidation.

Treatment with statins are known to lower plasma and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels with resultant prevention and regression of atherosclerosis. It has been recently suggested that the action of the statins may also have a direct effect on other mechanisms involved in the atherosclerotic plaque formation. Thus, we investigated whether simvastatin could have an antioxidant effect on plasma lipoproteins. The rate of oxidation of LDL and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) was measured by conjugated diene formation with and without the addition of increasing concentrations of simvastatin (in vitro) and in patients with and without treatment with simvastatin (in vivo). A strong correlation was observed between increasing simvastatin concentration and the lag phase, a negative correlation was observed for maximal rate and maximum diene production in LDL samples (r2 = +0.97, p <0.0001; r2 = -0.92, p <0.0001; r2 = -0.98, p <0.0001, respectively). For HDL no clear correlation could be established with the lag phase, but a strong negative correlation was also observed between simvastatin concentration and maximal rate and maximum diene production (r2 = -0.69, p <0.01; r2 = -0.98, p <0.0001, respectively). After 6 hours of oxidation the production of aldehydes in LDL and HDL was lower (30% and 5%, respectively) in samples obtained during simvastatin therapy with respect to those obtained without treatment. The 2,4-decadienal showed a decrease of 37% and 64% (p <0.05) in both oxidized-LDL and oxidized-HDL particles, respectively, with simvastatin treatment. Our findings demonstrate that simvastatin acts as an antioxidant in lipoprotein particles and, together with its lipid-lowering properties, could play an important role in preventing atherosclerosis.

Aldehydes↗

Reducing the risk of coronary events: evidence from the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).

The Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) was designed to evaluate the effects of cholesterol reduction with simvastatin on mortality and morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). A total of 4,444 patients with angina pectoris or previous myocardial infarction and serum cholesterol levels of 213-310 mg/dl (5.5-8.0 mmol/liter) while treated with a lipid-lowering diet were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with simvastatin or placebo. Over the 5.4 years of median follow-up, simvastatin produced changes in total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol of -25%, -35%, and +8%, respectively, with minimal adverse effects. A total of 256 patients (12%) in the placebo group died compared with 182 (8%) in the simvastatin group, a risk reduction of 30% (p = 0.0003) attributable to a 42% reduction in the risk of coronary death. Noncardiovascular causes accounted for 49 and 46 deaths in the placebo and simvastatin groups, respectively. Major coronary events were experienced by 622 patients (28%) in the placebo group and 431 patients (19%) in the simvastatin group, corresponding to a risk reduction of 34% (p < 0.00001). This risk was also significantly reduced in subgroups consisting of women and patients of both sexes aged > or = 60 years. Other benefits of treatment included a 37% reduction (p < 0.00001) in the risk of undergoing myocardial revascularization procedures. Simvastatin was beneficial regardless of whether patients had a history of myocardial infarction or whether they were smokers or had hypertension.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Adult↗

Comparison of gemfibrozil versus simvastatin in familial combined hyperlipidemia and effects on apolipoprotein-B-containing lipoproteins, low-density lipoprotein subfraction profile, and low-density lipoprotein oxidizability.

We evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of 45 well-defined patients with familial combined hyperlipidemia, the effect of gemfibrozil (1,200 mg/day) or simvastatin (20 mg/day) on apolipoprotein-B (apo-B)-containing lipoproteins, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) subfraction profile, and LDL oxidizability. Although both drugs reduced plasma cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, gemfibrozil reduced plasma triglycerides more effectively and simvastatin reduced plasma cholesterol more effectively. LDL cholesterol was reduced with simvastatin. With both drugs, total serum apo-B concentration decreased. With gemfibrozil, this was due to an exclusive reduction (-46%) of very low/intermediate-density lipoprotein (VLDL + IDL) apo-B, whereas simvastatin decreased apo-B in both VLDL + IDL and LDL (34% and 15%, respectively). Initially, a dense LDL subfraction profile was present in all patients. The decrease in LDL cholesterol with simvastatin was due to a decrease in all isolated LDL subfractions except LDL2; gemfibrozil increased LDL1 and LDL2 cholesterol (p = 0.001) and reduced LDL4 cholesterol, resulting in a more buoyant LDL subfraction profile compared with simvastatin. In both groups, a predominance of small dense LDL remained despite therapy. LDL fatty acid composition showed a shift from oleic acid to linoleic acid after gemfibrozil; arachidonic acid increased after simvastatin. Vitamin E was lower after gemfibrozil. In the measurements of LDL oxidation, only the oxidation rate was significantly reduced with simvastatin. Thus, quantitative and qualitative changes of LDL cholesterol had only a small effect on total in vitro LDL oxidizability in this population with familial combined hyperlipidemia.

Adult↗

Efficacy and safety of combination simvastatin and colesevelam in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy and safety of colesevelam hydrochloride, a novel, nonsystemic, lipid-lowering agent, when coadministered with starting doses of simvastatin in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects with hypercholesterolemia (plasma low density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol level > 160 mg/dL and triglyceride level < or = 300 mg/dL) were randomly assigned to receive daily doses of placebo (n = 33), colesevelam 3.8 g (recommended dose, n = 37), simvastatin 10 mg (n = 35), colesevelam 3.8 g with simvastatin 10 mg (n = 34), colesevelam 2.3 g (low dose, n = 36), simvastatin 20 mg (n = 39), or colesevelam 2.3 g with simvastatin 20 mg (n = 37), for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Mean LDL cholesterol levels decreased relative to baseline in the placebo group (P < 0.05) and in all active treatment groups (P < 0.0001). For groups treated with combination therapy, the mean reduction in LDL cholesterol level was 42% (-80 mg/dL; P < 0.0001 compared with baseline), which exceeded the reductions for simvastatin 10 mg (-26%, -48 mg/dL) or 20 mg (-34%, -61 mg/dL) alone, or for colesevelam 2.3 g (-8%, -17 mg/dL) or 3.8 g (-16%, -31 mg/dL) alone (P < 0.001). The effects of combination therapy on serum HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels were similar to those for simvastatin alone. Side effects were similar among treatment groups, and there were no clinically important changes in laboratory parameters. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of colesevelam and simvastatin was effective and well tolerated, providing additive reductions in LDL cholesterol levels compared with either agent alone.

Adult↗

Animal safety and toxicology of simvastatin and related hydroxy-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors.

Simvastatin, a hydroxy-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitor intended for use as a hypocholesterolemic agent, has undergone a thorough preclinical toxicology evaluation. This review describes preclinical toxicology findings associated with simvastatin administration in animals and provides the rationale for our conclusion that these changes are not indicative of potential human toxicity. Although it was not surprising to find that a potent inhibitor of this key biochemical pathway produces toxicity at high dosages in animals, none of the observed changes poses a significant risk to humans at clinical dosages. Many of the toxicities produced by high dosage levels of simvastatin in animals are directly related to the drug's biochemical mechanism of action and are the result of a profound, sustained inhibition of the target enzyme that is not anticipated at clinical dosages. Furthermore, several of the simvastatin-induced changes are species-specific responses to this agent and are not relevant to human risk assessment. Of the treatment-related changes reported for simvastatin, the development of cataracts in dogs has received considerable attention. The available data demonstrate a wide margin of safety in terms of dosage levels required to elicit this response as well as the plasma concentrations associated with the development of these ocular lesions. The data suggest that the development of lenticular opacities at clinical doses of simvastatin is highly improbable. Overall, simvastatin is highly improbable. Overall, simvastatin was well-tolerated by animals in preclinical toxicology studies, and no findings contraindicating its use in humans were identified.

Animals↗

Mechanism of simvastatin on induction of heat shock protein in osteoblasts.

It has recently been reported that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) stimulate bone formation. However, the mechanism of stimulation of bone metabolism by statins is not precisely clarified. In this study, we investigated whether simvastatin induces heat shock protein (HSP) 27, HSP70, and HSP90 in osteoblast-like MC3T3-E1 cells. Simvastatin increased the levels of HSP27 while having little effect on the levels of HSP70 or HSP90. The effect of simvastatin on HSP27 accumulation was dose dependent. Cycloheximide reduced the accumulation. Simvastatin induced an increase in the levels of mRNA for HSP27. Actinomycin D suppressed the mRNA levels. Simvastatin induced the phosphorylation of p38 mitogen-activated protein (MAP) kinase among the MAP kinase superfamily. SB203580 and PD169316, inhibitors of p38 MAP kinase, suppressed the HSP27 accumulation by simvastatin while SB202474, a negative control of p38 MAP kinase inhibitor, had no effect. SB203580 reduced the simvastatin-increased mRNA levels for HSP27. Lovastatin, another statin, also induced the HSP27 accumulation and SB203580 suppressed the HSP27 accumulation. These results strongly suggest that statins such as simvastatin do not stimulate the induction of HSP70 and HSP90, but do stimulate the induction of HSP27 in osteoblasts and that p38 MAP kinase plays a role in this induction.

3T3 Cells↗

Simvastatin stimulates VEGF release via p44/p42 MAP kinase in vascular smooth muscle cells.

It has been shown that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) modulate vascular smooth muscle cell functions. In the present study, we investigated the effect of simvastatin on vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) release, and the underlying mechanism, in a rat aortic smooth muscle cell line, A10 cells. Administration of simvastatin increased the VEGF level in rat plasma in vivo. In cultured cells, simvastatin significantly stimulated VEGF release in a dose-dependent manner. Simvastatin induced the phosphorylation of p44/p42 MAP kinase but not p38 MAP kinase or SAPK (stress-activated protein kinase)/JNK (c-Jun N-terminal kinase). PD98059 and U-0126, inhibitors of the upstream kinase that activates p44/p42 MAP kinase, significantly reduced the simvastatin-induced VEGF release in a dose-dependent manner. The phosphorylation of p44/p42 MAP kinase induced by simvastatin was reduced by PD98059 or U-0126. Moreover, a bolus injection of PD98059 truly suppressed the simvastatin-increased VEGF level in rat plasma in vivo. These results strongly suggest that p44/p42 MAP kinase plays a role at least partly in the simvastatin-stimulated VEGF release in vascular smooth muscle cells.

Animals↗

Hypocholesterolemic effects of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors in the guinea pig: atorvastatin versus simvastatin.

Male Hartley guinea pigs were fed a hypercholesterolemic diet rich in lauric and myristic acids with 0, 10, or 20 mg/kg of simvastatin or atorvastatin for 21 days. Atorvastatin and simvastatin resulted in a lowering of plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in a dose-dependent manner by an average of 48 and 61% with 10 and 20 mg/kg, respectively. Both statins were equally effective in lowering plasma LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (apo-B) levels. Atorvastatin and simvastatin treatments yielded LDL particles that differed in composition from the control. Due to the relevance of LDL oxidation and cholesteryl ester transfer in plasma to the progression of atherosclerosis, these parameters were analyzed after statin treatment. Atorvastatin and simvastatin treatment decreased the susceptibility of LDL particles to oxidation by 95% as determined by the formation of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances. An 80% decrease in the transfer of cholesteryl ester between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and the apo-B-containing lipoproteins was observed after simvastatin and atorvastatin treatment. In addition, statin effects on plasma LDL transport were studied. Simvastatin- and atorvastatin-treated guinea pigs exhibited 125 and 175% faster LDL fractional catabolic rates, respectively, compared with control animals. No change in LDL apo-B flux was induced by either treatment; however, LDL apo-B pool size was reduced after statin treatment. Hepatic microsomal free cholesterol was lower in the atorvastatin and simvastatin groups. However, only atorvastatin treatment resulted in an 80% decrease of acyl-CoA:cholesterol acyltransferase activity (P < 0.001). In summary, atorvastatin and simvastatin had similar LDL cholesterol lowering properties, but these drugs modified LDL transport and hepatic cholesterol metabolism differently.

Analysis of Variance↗

Plasma lipoprotein distribution and lipid transfer activities in patients with type IIb hyperlipidemia treated with simvastatin.

The aim of the present study was to search in type IIb hyperlipidemic patients for putative concomitant effects of simvastatin on the physicochemical characteristics of low density lipoproteins (LDL) and high density lipoproteins (HDL), as well as on the activities of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) and the phospholipid transfer protein (PLTP) that were determined in both endogenous lipoprotein-dependent and endogenous lipoprotein-independent assays. In a double-blind, randomized trial, patients received either placebo (one tablet/day; n = 12) or simvastatin (20 mg/day; n = 12) for a period of 8 weeks after a 5-week run-in period. Simvastatin, unlike placebo, reduced the lipid and apolipoprotein B contents of the most abundant LDL-1, LDL-2, and LDL-3 subfractions without inducing significant changes in the overall size distribution of LDL and HDL. Whereas simvastatin significantly increased PLTP activity in an endogenous lipoprotein-dependent assay (P < 0.01), no variation was observed in a lipoprotein-independent assay. Simvastatin significantly decreased plasma CETP activity in an endogenous lipoprotein-dependent assay (P < 0.01), and the reduction in plasma cholesteryl ester transfer rates was explained by a 16% drop in CETP mass concentration (P < 0.01). In contrast, the specific activity of CETP was unaffected by the simvastatin treatment reflecting at least in part the lack of significant alteration in plasma triglyceride-rich lipoprotein acceptors. The simvastatin-induced changes in plasma CETP mass levels correlated positively with changes in plasma CETP activity (r = 0.483, P = 0.0561), in total cholesterol levels (r = 0.769; P < 0.01), and in LDL-cholesterol levels (r = 0.736; P < 0.01). Whereas the observations suggest that simvastatin might exert concomitant beneficial effects on plasma CETP and LDL levels, neither plasma cholesteryl ester transfer activity nor plasma phospholipid transfer activity appeared as the main determinants of the LDL and HDL distribution profiles in type IIb hyperlipidemic patients.

Adult↗

MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the usual LDL cholesterol range in Western populations, lower blood concentrations are associated with lower cardiovascular disease risk. In such populations, therefore, reducing LDL cholesterol may reduce the development of vascular disease, largely irrespective of initial cholesterol concentrations. METHODS: 20,536 UK adults (aged 40-80 years) with coronary disease, other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetes were randomly allocated to receive 40 mg simvastatin daily (average compliance: 85%) or matching placebo (average non-study statin use: 17%). Analyses are of the first occurrence of particular events, and compare all simvastatin-allocated versus all placebo-allocated participants. These "intention-to-treat" comparisons assess the effects of about two-thirds (85% minus 17%) taking a statin during the scheduled 5-year treatment period, which yielded an average difference in LDL cholesterol of 1.0 mmol/L (about two-thirds of the effect of actual use of 40 mg simvastatin daily). Primary outcomes were mortality (for overall analyses) and fatal or non-fatal vascular events (for subcategory analyses), with subsidiary assessments of cancer and of other major morbidity. FINDINGS: All-cause mortality was significantly reduced (1328 [12.9%] deaths among 10,269 allocated simvastatin versus 1507 [14.7%] among 10,267 allocated placebo; p=0.0003), due to a highly significant 18% (SE 5) proportional reduction in the coronary death rate (587 [5.7%] vs 707 [6.9%]; p=0.0005), a marginally significant reduction in other vascular deaths (194 [1.9%] vs 230 [2.2%]; p=0.07), and a non-significant reduction in non-vascular deaths (547 [5.3%] vs 570 [5.6%]; p=0.4). There were highly significant reductions of about one-quarter in the first event rate for non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death (898 [8.7%] vs 1212 [11.8%]; p<0.0001), for non-fatal or fatal stroke (444 [4.3%] vs 585 [5.7%]; p<0.0001), and for coronary or non-coronary revascularisation (939 [9.1%] vs 1205 [11.7%]; p<0.0001). For the first occurrence of any of these major vascular events, there was a definite 24% (SE 3; 95% CI 19-28) reduction in the event rate (2033 [19.8%] vs 2585 [25.2%] affected individuals; p<0.0001). During the first year the reduction in major vascular events was not significant, but subsequently it was highly significant during each separate year. The proportional reduction in the event rate was similar (and significant) in each subcategory of participant studied, including: those without diagnosed coronary disease who had cerebrovascular disease, or had peripheral artery disease, or had diabetes; men and, separately, women; those aged either under or over 70 years at entry; and--most notably--even those who presented with LDL cholesterol below 3.0 mmol/L (116 mg/dL), or total cholesterol below 5.0 mmol/L (193 mg/dL). The benefits of simvastatin were additional to those of other cardioprotective treatments. The annual excess risk of myopathy with this regimen was about 0.01%. There were no significant adverse effects on cancer incidence or on hospitalisation for any other non-vascular cause. INTERPRETATION: Adding simvastatin to existing treatments safely produces substantial additional benefits for a wide range of high-risk patients, irrespective of their initial cholesterol concentrations. Allocation to 40 mg simvastatin daily reduced the rates of myocardial infarction, of stroke, and of revascularisation by about one-quarter. After making allowance for non-compliance, actual use of this regimen would probably reduce these rates by about one-third. Hence, among the many types of high-risk individual studied, 5 years of simvastatin would prevent about 70-100 people per 1000 from suffering at least one of these major vascular events (and longer treatment should produce further benefit). The size of the 5-year benefit depends chiefly on such individuals' overall risk of major vascular events, rather than on their blood lipid concentrations alone.

Adult↗

Mortality and incidence of cancer during 10-year follow-up of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).

BACKGROUND: The effects of cholesterol-lowering treatment with statins on mortality and risk of cancer beyond the usual 5-6-year trial periods are unknown. We extended post-trial follow-up of participants in the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) to investigate cause-specific mortality and incidence of cancer 5 years after closure of the trial. METHODS: 4S was a randomised double-blind trial of simvastatin or placebo in patients with coronary heart disease, serum total cholesterol 5.5-8.0 mmol/L, and serum triglycerides 2.5 mmol/L or lower. The double-blind period lasted for a median of 5.4 years (range for survivors 4.9-6.3) and ended in 1994. After the trial, most patients in both groups received open-label lipid-lowering treatment. National registers were used to assess mortality and causes of death and cancer incidence in the original treatment groups for a median total follow-up time of 10.4 years (range for survivors 9.9-11.3). Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 414 patients originally allocated simvastatin and 468 assigned placebo died during the 10.4-year follow-up (relative risk 0.85 [95% CI 0.74-0.97], p=0.02), a difference largely attributable to lower coronary mortality in the simvastatin group (238 vs 300 deaths; 0.76 [0.64-0.90], p=0.0018). 85 cancer deaths arose in the simvastatin group versus 100 in the placebo group (0.81 [0.60-1.08], p=0.14), and 227 incident cancers were reported in the simvastin group versus 248 in the placebo group (0.88 [0.73-1.05], p=0.15). Incidence of any specific type of cancer did not rise in the simvastatin group. INTERPRETATION: Simvastatin treatment for 5 years in a placebo-controlled trial, followed by open-label statin therapy, was associated with survival benefit over 10 years of follow-up compared with open-label statin therapy for the past 5 years only. No difference was noted in mortality from and incidence of cancer between the original simvastatin group and placebo group.

Adult↗

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of titrate-to-goal regimens of simvastatin and fluvastatin: a randomized, double-blind study in adult patients at moderate to high risk for cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Use of cholesterol-lowering regimens has been shown to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), both in primary and secondary prevention. However, there have been few studies of the relative benefits and risks of the various cholesterol-lowering agents in patient groups with specific risk factors for CHD. OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to compare the proportions of adult patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and a moderate to high risk for CHD achieving National Cholesterol Education Program low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with titrate-to-goal regimens of simvastatin and fluvastatin. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study enrolling adult patients with type IIa or IIb primary hypercholesterolemia, LDL-C levels <6.0 mmol/L (<232.0 mg/dL), and triglyceride levels <4.5 mmol/L (<398.6 mg/dL), and either CHD or other atherosclerotic disease (the CHD, or high-risk, group), or multiple risk factors for CHD (the MRF, or moderate-risk, group). After a 6-week washout period, patients were randomized to 18 weeks of treatment at an initial dosage of simvastatin 10 mg once daily or fluvastatin 20 mg once daily. At 6- and 12-week titration visits, the dosage in patients who had not acheived the LDL-C goal could be increased to simvastatin 20 mg once daily and then 40 mg once daily, or to fluvastatin 40 mg once daily and then 40 mg twice daily. Lipid profiles were obtained at each titration visit and at the end of treatment. In addition to the comparison between treatments, secondary comparisons were made between the CHD and MRF subgroups within each treatment group. Statistical significance was assessed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients were enrolled, 237 in the simvastatin group and 241 in the fluvastatin group. There were no significant between-group differences in patients' characteristics at baseline. At the end of the study, 60.8% (135/222) of patients in the simvastatin group had reached target LDL-C goals, compared with 35.1% (76/216) in the fluvastatin group (P < 0.001). In the simvastatin CHD and MRF subgroups, 49% and 73%, respectively, reached the LDL-C target, compared with 19% and 50% in the corresponding fluvastatin subgroups (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring titration was higher in the fluvastatin group than in the simvastatin group (87.1% and 64.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, more patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and CHD or multiple risk factors for CHD reached LDL-C goals with simvastatin treatment and required less titration than those who received fluvastatin treatment.

Adult↗

Effects of simvastatin on the lipid profile and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals when added to thiazolidinedione therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the major cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Given the increasingly aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for patients with DM set by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and the American Diabetes Association, many patients remain above target. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) improves glycemic control but does not lower (and may raise) LDL-C concentrations. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability of adding the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A-reductase inhibitor simvastatin to existing TZD therapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with type 2 DM who were taking a stable dose of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value < or =9.0% and an LDL-C concentration > 100 mg/dL were randomized to receive simvastatin 40 mg (the recommended initial dose for patients with DM) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the effect of treatment on LDL-C concentrations. Other lipid, lipoprotein, and safety measures were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients (127 [50.2%] men, 126 [49.8%] women; mean age, 56 years) were randomized to treatment (123 simvastatin, 130 placebo). At the end of the study, mean LDL-C concentrations were reduced 34.)% from baseline (from 134.3 to 89.5 mg/dL) in the simvastatin group and were unchanged in the placebo group (P<0.001). Simvastatin produced significant reductions in concentrations of total cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B compared with placebo (all, P<0.001 ) and significant increases in concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ( P=0.002 ) and apo A-I ( P=0.006 ). In patients who had not attained target concentrations of LDL-C (<100 mg/dL), TG (<150 mg/dL), or HDL-C (>45 mg/dL) at baseline, significantly more simvastatin recipients had achieved these goals at the end of the study compared with placebo recipients (LDL-C: 67.3% vs 5.2%, respectively, P<0.001; HDL-C: 95.3% vs 83.6%, P<0.05; TG: 40.8% vs 11.0%, P<0.001 ). Simvastatin was well tolerated, and no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events were observed between groups. There were no significant between-group differences in glycemic control (HbA1c) or concentrations of fasting insulin, creatine phosphokinase, or hepatic transaminases. CONCLUSION: Simvastatin was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for hyperlipidemia when used in combination with TZD therapy in this population of patients with type 2 DM.

Adult↗

A comparative economic analysis of simvastatin versus atorvastatin: results of the Surrogate Marker Cost-Efficacy (SMaC) study.

Health care payers have become increasingly interested in economic analyses to guide the allocation of limited health care resources. The Surrogate Marker Cost-Efficacy (SMaC) study was undertaken to assess the economics of treatment with simvastatin versus treatment with atorvastatin in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients in 10 European countries, based on the results of a 1-year, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Participants were between 18 and 80 years of age (n = 177; median age, 57; 94 men and 83 women). Entry criteria were a baseline LDL-C value between 4.2 and 7.8 mmol/L (160 to 300 mg/dL) and a triglyceride value < or =4.5 mmol/L (400 mg/dL). Patients were randomly assigned to receive simvastatin 10 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg. At 16 weeks, any patients not reaching their appropriate LDL-C level received simvastatin 20 mg/d or atorvastatin 20 mg/d. Patients were then followed up for a total of 52 weeks. The overall euro cost analysis was based on the weighted average price of each product across all the independent pharmaceutical markets based on official euro conversion rates. Individual country analyses also were conducted in each local currency. Over the 52-week study, there were no significant differences in the percentage of patients achieving an appropriate LDL-C level (simvastatin 48%, atorvastatin 50%). In the overall euro cost analysis, the cumulative cost of atorvastatin (134 euros) was 33% more than for simvastatin (101 euros) during the first 16 weeks. After titration to 20 mg, the total cost of treatment during the 52-week study remained significantly lower in the simvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group (429 vs 538 euros; P<0.0001). In individual country analyses, therapy with simvastatin was significantly less expensive than therapy with atorvastatin in 8 of 10 countries (P = 0.001 to 0.003). In the remaining 2 countries, there was no significant difference in cost. Across the countries included in the evaluation, there was a significant reduction in the cost of getting patients to appropriate LDL-C levels with simvastatin compared with atorvastatin. These results should provide useful information for physicians and payers; however, additional long-term clinical trials are required to assess fully how treatment with atorvastatin affects patient outcomes, safety, and costs.

Adolescent↗

[Cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin against simvastatin as hypolipemic treatment in hypercholesterolemic patients in primary care].

OBJECTIVE: To perform an economics evaluation of lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin and simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in primary care setting. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) has been carried out by means of an open, random, prospective, "real world" study, with hypercholesterolemic patients (total cholesterol [TC] > 240 mg/dl and cLDL > 160 mg/dl). PATIENTS: A total of 92 patients were included (44.8% males), with a mean age of 64.9 +/- 9.4 years old (mean +/- standard deviation). 41.4% were diabetics, 62.1% hypertensives and 16.1% smokers. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were allocated to simvastatin 20 mg/day (44) and atorvastatin. 10 mg/day (48) for 6 months. ASSESSMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Both therapies reduced significantly cLDL, TC and triglycerides at the end of the study. Atorvastatin reduced lipids faster than simvastatin at 3 months (p < 0.05), but significant differences could not be observed at 6 months. Atorvastatin reduced cLDL levels by 21.5 +/- 13.2% and 23.8 +/- 13.9% at 3 and 6 months, respectively, versus 16.4 +/- 14.2% and 22.8 +/- 10.8% with simvastatin. By these reductions, 54.2% of patients treated with atorvastatin and 50.0% of those allocated to simvastatin reached therapeutic goals of cLDL control. Atorvastatin 10 mg was more cost-effective than simvastatin 20 mg; 95,406 versus 101,335 pts per patient reaching therapeutic goals, respectively, which means that simvastatin need an extra cost of 24,833 pts per patient reaching therapeutic goals to be as efficient as atorvastatin. Sensitivity analysis to control for uncertainty confirmed the results of cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Both statins were effective as lipid-lowering agents. However, atorvastatin 10 mg was more efficient than simvastatin 20 mg due to a better cost-effectiveness ratio.

Adult↗

Inhibition of thrombin generation by simvastatin and lack of additive effects of aspirin in patients with marked hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of aspirin compared with simvastatin on thrombin generation in hypercholesterolemic men, and to establish whether the reduction of elevated blood cholesterol by simvastatin would affect the action of aspirin on thrombin formation. BACKGROUND: Aspirin inhibits thrombin formation, but its performance is blunted in hypercholesterolemia. By virtue of altering lipid profile, statins could be expected to influence thrombin generation. METHODS: Thirty-three men, aged 34 to 61 years, with minimal or no clinical symptoms, serum total cholesterol >6.5 mmol/liter and serum triglycerides <4.6 mmol/liter, completed the study consisting of three treatment phases. First, they received 300 mg of aspirin daily for two weeks (phase I), which was then replaced by simvastatin at the average dose of 24 mg/d for three months (phase II). In phase III, aspirin, 300 mg/day, was added for two weeks to simvastatin, the dose of which remained unchanged. Thrombin generation was assessed: 1) in vivo, by measuring levels of fibrinopeptide A (FPA) and prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2) in venous blood; and 2) ex vivo, by monitoring the rates of increase of FPA and F1+2 in blood emerging from standardized skin incisions of a forearm. A mathematical model was used to describe the kinetics of thrombin formation at the site of microvascular injury. RESULTS: Two-week treatment with aspirin had no effect on thrombin markers in vivo, while ex vivo it depressed the total amount of thrombin formed, though not the reaction rate. After simvastatin treatment, serum cholesterol decreased by 31% and LDL cholesterol by 42%, while thrombin generation became markedly depressed. In venous blood, FPA was significantly reduced. Concomitantly, the initial thrombin concentration and total amount of thrombin generated decreased significantly. Addition of aspirin to simvastatin (phase III) had no further effect on any of these parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In men with hypercholesterolemia, lowering serum cholesterol level by a three-month simvastatin treatment is accompanied by a marked reduction of thrombin generation both at basal conditions in venous blood and after activation of hemostasis by microvascular injury. Once blood cholesterol became reduced, adding aspirin to simvastatin did not enhance dampening of thrombin formation.

Adult↗

Effect of simvastatin on cyclosporine unbound fraction and apparent blood clearance in heart transplant recipients.

AIMS: To investigate the effects of lipid lowering therapy on the fraction unbound and dosage requirement of cyclosporine in heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Cyclosporine fraction unbound (fu) was measured ex vivo in plasma obtained from heart transplant recipients (n=12) before and after lipid lowering treatment, using equilibrium dialysis. Cyclosporine trough concentration data were also collected from cardiac transplant recipients (n=32) who received simvastatin for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia. Cyclosporine daily dosage and total concentration (monoclonal FPIA method) were recorded for periods up to 6 months before and after simvastatin administration. The total number of dose rate-concentration observations was 172 before and 135 after simvastatin administration respectively. Using a population pharmacokinetic approach (implemented in P-PHARM software) the ratio of dose rate to trough concentration at steady state (DR/C[SS trough]), an estimation of apparent clearance, was determined. The posterior Bayesian estimate of DR/C(SS trough) was calculated for each patient before and after simvastatin administration. RESULTS: The mean fu increased by 29%, from 1.40 +/- 0.1% (mean +/- s.d.) to 1.82 +/- 0.22% after simvastatin administration (P < 0.01). Mean trough concentrations of cyclosporine in whole blood were 349 microg l-1 before and 242 microg l-1 after simvastatin administration (P < 0.0001). The mean cyclosporine daily dosage was 2.87 mg kg-1 and 2.33 mg kg-1 (NS), before and after simvastatin administration respectively. The average cyclosporine DR/C(SS trough) was significantly increased from 24.5 l h-1 before to 28.9 l h-1 after simvastatin administration (P < 0.05). Furthermore the median increase in cyclosporine DR/C(SS trough) was 18 l h-1 (-3.1 to 42.1 l h-1, interquartile range). CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine fraction unbound and clearance are increased following co-administration of lipid lowering agents, necessitating closer monitoring of cyclosporine total blood concentration when lipid lowering agents are administered concomitantly with cyclosporine.

Adult↗