Citations

AbstractStatins are the first line of treatment for both primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Despite the positive effects of statins on cardiovascular events, not all patients can use them at an optimized dose. The reason for this is the skeletal muscle side effects, termed statin‐associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Despite extensive research, the precise pathophysiology of SAMS remains unclear and multiple mechanisms may contribute to this phenomenon. Various therapeutic options are available for the management of SAMS, ranging from rechallenging with the same or a different statin to utilizing non‐statin therapeutic alternatives in patients intolerant to statins. However, the lack of consensus on the definition of SAMS, the absence of a definitive diagnostic test, and lack of a universally accepted management algorithm pose a great challenge in dealing with this entity. This review aims to explore the various pathophysiological mechanisms involved in SAMS and understand the difference between self‐limited toxic myopathy and immune‐mediated myopathy requiring immunomodulatory therapy. The conundrum of statin withdrawal, tapering, and rechallenge in SAMS will also be explored in detail along with the newer non‐statin therapies that are available.

Objective Heart failure (HF) imposes a substantial burden and the prevalence of HF is high in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). HF results in multiple hospital admissions, but whether HF subtypes worsen long-term outcomes and renal function in patients with CKD remains inconclusive. Methods The study comprised 10 904 patients with CKD aged ≥20 years who underwent echocardiography between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2018. The patients were stratified into four groups: non-HF, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The primary end points were all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and adverse renal outcomes. Results In inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted method, the risk of all-cause mortality and MACEs relative to the non-HF group was greatest in the HFrEF group (HR 3.18 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.93) and HR 3.83 (95% CI 3.20 to 4.59)), followed by the HFmrEF (HR 2.75 (95% CI 2.22 to 3.42) and HR 3.08 (95% CI 2.57 to 3.69)) and HFpEF (HR 1.85 (95% CI 1.59 to 2.15) and HR 2.43 (95% CI 2.16 to 2.73) groups. In addition, the HFrEF group had the greatest risks of end-stage renal disease (HR 2.58 (95% CI 1.94 to 3.44)) compared with other groups. Conclusions HF is associated with subsequent worse clinical outcomes, which may be more pronounced in patients with HFrEF, followed by those with HFmrEF and those with HFpEF relative to non-HF group.

Bone atrophy and its related fragility fractures are frequent, late side effects of radiotherapy in cancer survivors and have a detrimental impact on their quality of life. In another study, we showed that parathyroid hormone 1‐34 and anti‐sclerostin antibody attenuates radiation‐induced bone damage by accelerating DNA repair in osteoblasts. DNA damage responses are partially regulated by the ubiquitin proteasome pathway. In the current study, we examined whether proteasome inhibitors have similar bone‐protective effects against radiation damage. MG132 treatment greatly reduced radiation‐induced apoptosis in cultured osteoblastic cells. This survival effect was owing to accelerated DNA repair as revealed by γH2AX foci and comet assays and to the up‐regulation of Ku70 and DNA‐dependent protein kinase, catalytic subunit, essential DNA repair proteins in the nonhomologous end‐ joining pathway. Administration of bortezomib (Bzb) reversed the loss of trabecular bone structure and strength in mice at 4 wk after focal radiation. Histomorphometry revealed that Bzb significantly increased the number of osteoblasts and activity in the irradiated area and suppressed the number and activity of osteoclasts, regardless of irradiation. Two weeks of Bzb treatment accelerated DNA repair in bone‐lining osteoblasts and thus promoted their survival. Meanwhile, it also inhibited bone marrow adiposity. Taken together, we demonstrate a novel role of proteasome inhibitors in treating radiation‐induced osteoporosis.—Chandra, A., Wang, L., Young, T., Zhong, L., Tseng, W.‐J., Levine, M. A., Cengel, K., Liu, X. S., Zhang, Y., Pignolo, R. J., Qin, L. Proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is a novel therapeutic agent for focal radiation‐induced osteoporosis. FASEB J. 32, 52‐62 (2018). www.fasebj.org