{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Kim C"],"funding":["Government-wide R&D Fund project for infectious disease research (GFID)","Korea Health Industry Development Institute","National Research Foundation of Korea"],"pagination":["1860"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12735554"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["18(12)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<b>Background</b>: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are indicated for cardiovascular protection in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) but may differ in clinical effectiveness and safety. This study compared real-world cardiovascular and safety outcomes associated with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with T2D, with an emphasis on older adults. <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from 10 Korean hospitals standardized to the Common Data Model. Adults (≥18 years) with T2D who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin were included. After propensity score matching, primary outcomes (myocardial infarction [MI], heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital death), secondary outcomes (peripheral arterial disease [PAD] and glaucoma), and safety outcomes (acute kidney injury, cataract, and myalgia) were compared. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted among patients aged ≥65 years. <b>Results</b>: Among 49,034 patients (rosuvastatin, 16,123; atorvastatin, 32,911), baseline characteristics were well balanced. Across all participating hospitals, the comparative analyses showed no meaningful differences in cardiovascular or safety outcomes between the two statins. However, among patients aged ≥65 years, rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of PAD (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.38), and this finding was consistent in sensitivity analysis (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01-1.70). <b>Conclusions</b>: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin demonstrated comparable cardiovascular effectiveness and safety. Although rosuvastatin was associated with a modestly higher incidence of PAD in older adults, the difference was small. From a clinical perspective, these findings underscore the importance of individualized statin therapy tailored to patient-specific factors such as age, comorbidity, and vascular health. Overall, both statins provide overall therapeutic equivalence for cardiovascular prevention."],"journal":["Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)"],"pubmed_title":["Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin for Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Korean Cohort Study."],"pmcid":["PMC12735554"],"funding_grant_id":["HG22C0024, KH124685","2020R1A2C1009224","HR16C0001, RS-2024-00335936"],"pubmed_authors":["Kim C","Gan S","Park K","Rhie SJ","Park RW","Chang J","Park S","Kim HA"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin for Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Korean Cohort Study.","description":"<b>Background</b>: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are indicated for cardiovascular protection in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) but may differ in clinical effectiveness and safety. This study compared real-world cardiovascular and safety outcomes associated with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with T2D, with an emphasis on older adults. <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records from 10 Korean hospitals standardized to the Common Data Model. Adults (≥18 years) with T2D who were newly prescribed rosuvastatin or atorvastatin were included. After propensity score matching, primary outcomes (myocardial infarction [MI], heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrest, and in-hospital death), secondary outcomes (peripheral arterial disease [PAD] and glaucoma), and safety outcomes (acute kidney injury, cataract, and myalgia) were compared. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted among patients aged ≥65 years. <b>Results</b>: Among 49,034 patients (rosuvastatin, 16,123; atorvastatin, 32,911), baseline characteristics were well balanced. Across all participating hospitals, the comparative analyses showed no meaningful differences in cardiovascular or safety outcomes between the two statins. However, among patients aged ≥65 years, rosuvastatin was associated with a higher risk of PAD (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.38), and this finding was consistent in sensitivity analysis (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01-1.70). <b>Conclusions</b>: Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin demonstrated comparable cardiovascular effectiveness and safety. Although rosuvastatin was associated with a modestly higher incidence of PAD in older adults, the difference was small. From a clinical perspective, these findings underscore the importance of individualized statin therapy tailored to patient-specific factors such as age, comorbidity, and vascular health. Overall, both statins provide overall therapeutic equivalence for cardiovascular prevention.","dates":{"release":"2025-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2025 Dec","modification":"2026-05-27T03:18:25.197Z","creation":"2026-05-27T03:11:54.38Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC12735554","cross_references":{"pubmed":["41471348"],"doi":["10.3390/ph18121860"]}}