Statin use in rheumatoid arthritis in relation to actual cardiovascular risk:evidence for substantial undertreatment of lipid-associated cardiovascular risk?

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is partially attributed to traditional cardiovascular risk factors, which can be identified and managed based on risk stratification algorithms (Framingham Risk Score, National Cholesterol Education Program, Systematic Cardiovascular Risk Evaluation and Reynolds Risk Score). We aimed to (a) identify the proportion of at risk patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requiring statin therapy identified by conventional risk calculators, and (b) assess whether patients at risk were receiving statins. Methods Patients at high CVD risk (excluding patients with established CVD or diabetes) were identified from a cohort of 400 well characterised patients with RA, by applying risk calculators with or without a ×1.5 multiplier in specific patient subgroups. Actual statin use versus numbers eligible for statins was also calculated. Results The percentage of patients identified as being at risk ranged significantly depending on the method, from 1.6% (for 20% threshold global CVD risk) to 15.5% (for CVD and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality) to 21.8% (for 10% global CVD risk) and 25.9% (for 5% CVD mortality), with the majority of them (58.1% to 94.8%) not receiving statins. The application of a 1.5 multiplier identified 17% to 78% more at risk patients. Conclusions Depending on the risk stratification method, 2% to 26% of patients with RA without CVD have sufficiently high risk to require statin therapy, yet most of them remain untreated. To address this issue, we would recommend annual systematic screening using the nationally applicable risk calculator, combined with regular audit of whether treatment targets have been achieved.

The impact of statin use on fetal development:a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Statin use inadvertently during pregnancy and proposed use of statins for the treatment of preeclampsia, led us to question the evidence behind their current contraindicated status. Several studies have evaluated the relationship between statin use in pregnancy with fetal outcome but their results have not been quantitatively assessed by meta-analysis. Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of all published clinical evidence to assess the effects of statin use in pregnancy on subsequent fetal wellbeing. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was performed of all electronic databases and the Merck reporting database for studies published from 1966 to 2014. Two reviewers independently screened citations and undertook study quality assessment and data extraction. We obtained summary estimates of adverse fetal events that were classified as potentially fatal, clinically significant morbidity or minor adverse event. We identified 602 titles and reviewed 30 articles for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed on seven studies (3 cohort, 3 case-series and 1 case-control). RESULTS: Of the 922 cases of statin exposure in pregnancy, 27 exposures were associated with lethal or clinically significant fetal morbidity and 10 with minor adverse events. Statin exposure was limited to the first trimester in all but two cases. The pooled rate of lethal or clinically significant fetal abnormalities in pregnant women exposed to statins was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00-0.04), less than the European rate of 0.026 (95% CI 2.54- 2.57)EUROCAT. The rate of fetal abnormality for simvastatin was 0.03 (95% CI 0.00-0.08), atorvostatin 0.11 (95% CI 0.00-0.52), pravastatin 0.01 (95% CI 0.00-0.2) and lovastatin use 0.04 (95% CI 0.00-0.28). Systems based anomalies were also calculated, congenital heart disease was 0.8 (95% CI 0.02-0.12) compared with the background rate of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78- 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The published data suggests that statins may not be teratogenic when given inadvertently during pregnancy and prospective studies such as The StAmP Trial may provide more data