Despite growing interest in the preventive effects of statins, as lipid-lowering agents, on migraine attacks, comprehensive nationwide studies comparing migraine likelihood between statin users and controls are lacking. Our nested case-control study within the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort (2002-2019) investigated this association using 38,957 migraine patients and 155,828 controls, considering migraine subtypes (with/without aura) and statin types (lipophilic vs. hydrophilic). Using propensity score matching and adjusting for confounders, statin use was linked to reduced migraine likelihood overall (odds ratio (OR) 0.93), particularly for migraines with aura (OR 0.75) and without aura (OR 0.94). Lipophilic statins were effective for both subtypes, while hydrophilic statins mainly reduced the likelihood of migraines without aura. Subgroup analyses showed consistent benefits across demographics, but varied effectiveness based on weight, smoking, alcohol use, hemoglobin levels, and dyslipidemia history. In summary, this nationwide cohort study suggests that statin use may reduce migraine likelihood among Korean adults across diverse demographics and clinical profiles, but varied effectiveness based on certain lifestyle and comorbidity factors underscores the importance of considering individual patient profiles when assessing the potential benefits of statin therapy for migraine prevention.

We aimed to evaluate the survival benefits of coadministering statins and multityrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea (2010-2020) were utilized. Statin use (≥28 cumulative defined daily doses) was analyzed, with 1534 statin users matched to 6136 non-users (1:4 ratio) using propensity scores. Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Statin use significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-0.82, p < 0.001) and PFS (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.84, p < 0.001). Continuous or post-TKI statin users had better OS, while discontinuation after TKI use led to poorer OS. Both lipophilic and hydrophilic statins improved OS and PFS, particularly with ≥730 cumulative defined daily doses. In conclusion, combining statins and TKIs in patients with advanced HCC yielded significant survival benefits, influenced by statin dosage and duration. Continuous statin administration post-TKI treatment is crucial for improving outcomes in patients with HCC.

Canine oral melanoma is a highly malignant cancer with a poor prognosis. Statins, commonly used drugs for treating dyslipidemia, exhibit pleiotropic anticancer effects and marked anti-proliferative effects against melanoma cells. The anticancer effects among statins vary; in human cancers, lipophilic statins have shown stronger anticancer effects compared with hydrophilic statins. However, data on the differences in the effects of various statins on canine cancer cells are lacking, hence the optimal statins for treating canine melanoma remain unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the most effective statin by comparing the anticancer effects of hydrophilic rosuvastatin and lipophilic atorvastatin, simvastatin, fluvastatin and pitavastatin on three canine oral melanoma cell lines. Time-dependent measurement of cell confluence showed that lipophilic statins had a stronger anti-proliferative effect on all cell lines than hydrophilic rosuvastatin. Quantification of lactate dehydrogenase release, an indicator of cytotoxicity, showed that lipophilic statins more effectively induced cell death than hydrophilic rosuvastatin. Lipophilic statins affected both inhibition of cell proliferation and induction of cell death. The anticancer effects of statins on canine oral melanoma cells differed in the following ascending order of IC50 values: pitavastatin < fluvastatin = simvastatin < atorvastatin < rosuvastatin. The required concentration of pitavastatin was approximately 1/20th that of rosuvastatin. Among the statins used in this study, pitavastatin had the highest anticancer effect. Our results suggest lipophilic pitavastatin as the optimal statin for treating canine oral melanoma.

The correlation between statin use and the development of gallstone disease remains controversial. Existing data, primarily based on Caucasian populations, are biased, thus necessitating validation studies involving Asian cohorts. We conducted a nested case-control study using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service Health Screening Cohort (2002-2019) to determine the likelihood of gallstone disease according to periods of previous statin use and type of statin. Among the 514,866 participants, 22,636 diagnosed with gallstones at ≥2 clinic visits (using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, code K80) were matched 1:4 to 90,544 controls for age, sex, income, and residential area, and their statin prescription history for 2 years prior to the index date was examined. Propensity-score-weighted odds ratios (ORs) for gallstone disease were calculated using conditional logistic regression. Long-term use (>545 days) of any statin or lipophilic statins was associated with lower odds of incident gallstones (OR = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-0.96, p < 0.001 and OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.83-0.93, p < 0.001, respectively) after adjusting for confounders. Short-term use (180-545 days) of any statin or hydrophilic statins was not statistically related to incident gallstones. In summary, prior statin medication, particularly long-term lipophilic statin use, may confer a preventive advantage against gallstone disease.

Safety issues regarding the potential risk of statins and incident rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been raised, but the existing data are largely based on Caucasian populations, and continue to have biases and require further validation in Asian populations. Here, we aimed to verify the risk of RA depending on the duration of previous statin use and statin types using a large-scale, nationwide database. This study enrolled 3149 patients with RA and 12,596 matched non-RA participants from the national health insurance database (2002−2015), and investigated their statin prescription histories for two years before the index date. Propensity score overlap-weighted logistic regression was applied after adjusting for multiple covariates. The prior use of any statins and, specifically, the long-term use of lipophilic statins (>365 days) were related to a lower likelihood of developing RA ((odds ratio (OR) = 0.73; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.63−0.85, p < 0.001) and (OR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.61−0.84, p < 0.001), respectively). Subgroup analyses supported these preventive effects on RA in those with dyslipidemia, independent of sex, age, smoking, alcohol use, hypertension, and hyperglycemia. Hydrophilic statin use or short-term use showed no such associations. Our study suggests that prior statin use, especially long-term lipophilic statin use, appears to confer preventive benefits against RA.

Clinical studies have indicated that 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, also known as statins, can potentially inhibit chronic heart failure. In the Stat-LVDF study, a difference was noted in terms of the effect of lipophilic pitavastatin (PTV) and hydrophilic rosuvastatin (RSV) on plasma BNP, suggesting that statin lipophilicity and pharmacokinetics change the pleiotropic effect on heart failure in humans. Therefore, we assessed the beneficial effects of PTV on hypertrophy in cardiac myocytes compared with RSV at clinically used doses. Cultured cardiomyocytes were stimulated with 30 μM phenylephrine (PE) in the presence of PTV (250 nM) or RSV (50 nM). These doses were calculated based on the maximum blood concentration of statins used in clinical situations in Japan. The results showed that PTV, but not RSV, significantly inhibits the PE-induced increase in cell size and leucine incorporation without causing cell toxicity. In addition, PTV significantly suppressed PE-induced mRNA expression of hypertrophic response genes. PE-induced ERK phosphorylation was inhibited by PTV, but not by RSV. Furthermore, PTV significantly suppressed the angiotensin-II-induced proline incorporation in primary cultured cardiac fibroblasts. In conclusion, a clinical dose of PTV was noted to directly inhibit cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and cardiac fibrosis, suggesting that lipophilic PTV can be a potential drug candidate against chronic heart failure.

Nuclear transport and vesicle trafficking are key cellular functions involved in the pathogenesis of RNA viruses. Among other pleiotropic effects on virus-infected host cells, ivermectin (IVM) inhibits nuclear transport mechanisms mediated by importins and atorvastatin (ATV) affects actin cytoskeleton-dependent trafficking controlled by Rho GTPases signaling. In this work, we first analyzed the response to infection in nasopharyngeal swabs from SARS-CoV-2-positive and -negative patients by assessing the gene expression of the respective host cell drug targets importins and Rho GTPases. COVID-19 patients showed alterations in KPNA3, KPNA5, KPNA7, KPNB1, RHOA, and CDC42 expression compared with non-COVID-19 patients. An in vitro model of infection with Poly(I:C), a synthetic analog of viral double-stranded RNA, triggered NF-κB activation, an effect that was halted by IVM and ATV treatment. Importin and Rho GTPases gene expression was also impaired by these drugs. Furthermore, through confocal microscopy, we analyzed the effects of IVM and ATV on nuclear to cytoplasmic importin α distribution, alone or in combination. Results showed a significant inhibition of importin α nuclear accumulation under IVM and ATV treatments. These findings confirm transcriptional alterations in importins and Rho GTPases upon SARS-CoV-2 infection and point to IVM and ATV as valid drugs to impair nuclear localization of importin α when used at clinically-relevant concentrations.

BACKGROUND: Statins are proposed as a chemoprevention agent for breast cancer due to their anti-inflammatory effect. The effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on breast cancer risk might be different due to their different pharmacologic properties. Therefore, this study aimed to assess a casual-effect of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on breast cancer risk using a counterfactual framework approach.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 15,718 women who were screened for breast cancer at Mammographic center, Ramathibodi Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand, was conducted during September 2011 to 2012. A counterfactual framework approach was applied to assess causal effects of treatments (i.e., lipophilic and hydrophilic statins) on outcome (i.e. breast cancer). Multi-logit and logistic regression models were used for treatment and outcome models, respectively. An inverse probability weight regression analysis (IPWRA) was then applied to estimate potential outcome mean (POM) and average treatment effect (ATE) by combining the outcome and treatment models.
RESULTS: Breast cancer risks were 0.0072 (95% CI: 0.0055, 0.0089), 0.0051 (95% CI: 0.0008, 0.0095), and 0.0038 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.0056) for non-statin users, hydrophilic, and lipophilic statin users, respectively. The estimated risk differences were -0.0021 (95% CI: -0.0067, 0.0026) and -0.0034 (95% CI: -0.0059, -0.0009) for hydrophilic and lipophilic statins respectively. The number needed to treat for hydrophilic and lipophilic statins were 2.1 (95% CI: -2.6, 6.7) and 3.4 (95% CI: 1.0, 5.9) per 1000 subjected, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that using lipophilic statin could significantly reduce risk of breast cancer in Thai women.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy on clinical outcomes of heart failure (HF) using a systematic review and an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization and hospitalization for worsening HF.
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.

BACKGROUND: Statins are known to prevent heart failure (HF). However, it is unclear whether statins as class or type (lipophilic or hydrophilic) improve outcomes of established HF.
OBJECTIVE: The current meta-analysis was performed to compare the treatment effects of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on inflammation and cardiac function in HF. Outcomes were indicators of cardiac function [changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)] and inflammation [changes in highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and interluekin-6 (IL-6)].
METHODS: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases until December 31, 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) of statin versus placebo in patients with HF. RCTs with their respective extracted information were dichotomized into statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were pooled with random effect approach, producing standardized mean differences (SMD) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons for each outcome.
RESULTS: Data from 6214 patients from 19 trials were analyzed. Lipophilic statin was superior to hydrophilic statin treatment regarding follow-up LVEF (SMD, 4.54; 95% CI, 4.16-4.91; P < 0.001), BNP (SMD, -1.60; 95% CI, -2.56 to -0.65; P < 0.001), hsCRP (SMD, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.54 to -0.72; P < 0.001), and IL-6 (SMD, -3.75; 95% CI, -4.77 to -0.72; P < 0.001) in HF.
CONCLUSIONS: Lipophilic statin produces greater treatment effects on cardiac function and inflammation compared with hydrophilic statin in patients with HF. Until data from adequately powered head-to-head trial of the statin types are available, our meta-analysis brings clinicians and researchers a step closer to the quest on which statin--lipophilic or hydrophilic--is associated with better outcomes in HF.