Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Multi-institutional analysis evaluates cardiovascular and hospitalization outcomes in PBC patients using different statin types, suggesting hydrophilic benefits.
This large-scale, real-world study aimed to determine if high-intensity hydrophilic or high-intensity lipophilic statins more optimally reduced the incidence of all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, cardiovascular, liver, and symptom-related outcomes over a 5-year follow-up period in patients with Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). We conducted a retrospective, propensity score matched cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, comparing PBC patients receiving high-intensity hydrophilic (rosuvastatin ≥ 20 mg) versus high-intensity lipophilic (atorvastatin ≥ 40 mg) statins (778 patients per group). High-intensity hydrophilic and high-intensity lipophilic statins did not differ in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.960 [95% CI, 0.710–1.296]; p = 0.788), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (HR, 0.870 [95% CI, 0.740–1.023]; p = 0.091), liver, symptom-related, or the majority of cardiovascular outcomes (all p-values > 0.05). However, high-intensity hydrophilic statins showed significant advantages over high-intensity lipophilic statins in all-cause hospitalizations (HR, 0.595 [95% CI, 0.497–0.713]; p < 0.001) and cerebral infarction (HR, 0.400 [95% CI, 0.224–0.712]; p = 0.001). In PBC patients requiring high-intensity statin therapy, hydrophilic statins provide equivalent survival with significant advantages in all-cause hospitalization reduction (40% decrease) and stroke prevention (60% decrease). These results support the preferential use of hydrophilic statins for lipid-lowering therapy in PBC while still acknowledging that both classes represent suitable therapeutic options.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kawas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: