The JUPITER lipid lowering trial and vitamin D: Is there a connection?

Faculty of Science (Emeritus)
Dermato-Endocrinology 04/2010; 2(2):50-4. DOI: 10.4161/derm.2.2.13235
Source: PubMed


There is growing evidence that vitamin D deficiency significantly increases the risk of adverse cardiovascular events and that a vitamin D status representing sufficiency or optimum is protective. Unfortunately, in clinical trials that address interventions for reducing risk of adverse cardiovascular events, vitamin D status is not generally measured. Failure to do this has now assumed greater importance with the report of a study that found rosuvastatin at doses at the level used in a recent large randomized lipid lowering trial (JUPITER) had a large and significant impact on vitamin D levels as measured by the metabolite 25-hydroxyvitamin D. The statin alone appears to have increased this marker such that the participants on average went from deficient to sufficient in two months. The difference in cardiovascular risk between those deficient and sufficient in vitamin D in observational studies was similar to the risk reduction found in JUPITER. Thus it appears that this pleiotropic effect of rosuvastatin may be responsible for part of its unusual effectiveness in reducing the risk of various cardiovascular endpoints found in JUPITER and calls into question the interpretation based only on LDL cholesterol and CRP changes. In addition, vitamin D status is a cardiovascular risk factor which up until now has not been considered in adjusting study results or in multivariate analysis, and even statistical analysis using only baseline values may be inadequate.

Download full-text


Available from: William Ware, Oct 04, 2015
9 Reads
  • Source
    Dermato-Endocrinology 04/2010; 2(2):43-5. DOI:10.4161/derm.2.2.13813
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An observational study and a "clinical trial" seem to prove that rosuvastatin (but not fluvastatin) dramatically increases serum levels of 25-(OH)-D3 (three-fold above starting values). A critical analysis of the two publications, presented below, raises serious concerns. Conclusions from these two studies have already been drawn in the scientific literature.It is argued that claiming or believing in a "novel pleiotropic effect of rosuvastatin" may be misleading and premature.
    Dermato-Endocrinology 08/2012; 4(1):2-7. DOI:10.4161/derm.18681
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Low levels of 25(OH) vitamin D [25(OH)VitD] have been recognized as a new cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor. Statins seem to increase 25(OH)VitD concentration. Aim: To investigate whether combined treatment with the usual dose of rosuvastatin plus fenofibrate or omega-3 fatty acids would increase 25(OH)VitD levels compared with the high-dose rosuvastatin monotherapy in participants with mixed dislipidemia. Methods: We randomly allocated 60 patients with mixed dyslipidemia (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: >160 mg/dL plus triglycerides: >200 mg/dL) to receive rosuvastatin 40 mg (n = 22), rosuvastatin 10 mg plus fenofibrate 200 mg (n = 21), or rosuvastatin 10 mg plus omega-3 fatty acids 2 g (n = 17) daily for 3 months. Our primary end point was changes in the levels of serum 25(OH)VitD. Results: Rosuvastatin monotherapy was associated with a 53% increase in 25(OH)VitD (from 14.6 [1.0-38.0] to 17.8 [5.3-49.6] ng/mL; P = .000). Rosuvastatin plus micronized fenofibrate and rosuvastatin plus omega-3 fatty acids were associated with increases of 64% (from 14.1 [1.0-48.0] to 18.4 [6.7-52.4] ng/mL, P = .001) and 61% (from 10.4 [6.6-38.4] to 14.0 [9.6-37.6] ng/mL, P = .04), respectively. The changes in 25(OH)VitD after treatment were comparable in the 3 groups. Conclusion: High-dose rosuvastatin monotherapy and the usual dose of rosuvastatin plus fenofibrate or omega-3 fatty acids are associated with significant and similar increases in the 25(OH)VitD levels. This increase may be relevant in terms of CVD risk prevention.
    Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics 03/2012; 17(4). DOI:10.1177/1074248412439470 · 2.09 Impact Factor
Show more