Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About AAC
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • AAC Podcast
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
Minireviews

Is There Potential for Repurposing Statins as Novel Antimicrobials?

Emma Hennessy, Claire Adams, F. Jerry Reen, Fergal O'Gara
Emma Hennessy
aBIOMERIT Research Centre, School of Microbiology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Claire Adams
aBIOMERIT Research Centre, School of Microbiology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
F. Jerry Reen
aBIOMERIT Research Centre, School of Microbiology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fergal O'Gara
aBIOMERIT Research Centre, School of Microbiology, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland
bSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00192-16
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Statins are members of a class of pharmaceutical widely used to reduce high levels of serum cholesterol. In addition, statins have so-called “pleiotropic effects,” which include inflammation reduction, immunomodulation, and antimicrobial effects. An increasing number of studies are emerging which detail the attenuation of bacterial growth and in vitro and in vivo virulence by statin treatment. In this review, we describe the current information available concerning the effects of statins on bacterial infections and provide insight regarding the potential use of these compounds as antimicrobial therapeutic agents.

INTRODUCTION

One of the major undisputed clinical breakthroughs of the 20th century was the discovery of the statin family of drugs. These compounds are renowned for their ability to lower cholesterol levels and are used to treat approximately 40 million individuals with high cholesterol levels worldwide. Since the discovery of mevastatin as a metabolic product of Penicillium citrinum in 1976 (1, 2), a total of nine statins have been characterized, seven of which are approved by the FDA to treat patients with high cholesterol. Structurally, statins are characterized by the presence of a conserved lactone ring (3). This structure is present as a hydrolyzed (active) form in all statins except for mevastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin; in those statins, the lactone ring is hydrolyzed in the liver (4). Statins can be divided into two broad classes (Fig. 1). Type 1 statins are lipophilic and possess a butyryl side chain—they are said to structurally resemble mevastatin (3). Lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin are type 1 statins. Type 2 statins are classically lipophobic and are distinguished from type 1 by the replacement of the butyryl side chain with a fluorophenol group and typically possess larger side chains than type 1 statins (3). Atorvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin, and rosuvastatin are type 2 statins.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

Chemical structures of statins. (A) Type 1 statins are characterized by a conserved lactone ring (blue), a decahydronaphthalene (Decalin) structure (black), and a butyryl side chain which is different in each statin (red). (B) Type 2 statins differ from type 1 statins due to the replacement of the butyryl side chain with a fluorophenyl group (green), and although the lactone ring structure is conserved in all statins, the decahydronaphthalene group of type 1 statins is replaced by a longer distinct side chain. Statins marked with an asterisk (*) are licensed for treatment of high cholesterol.

Statins exert their cholesterol-lowering effect by binding to the active site of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase (HMGR), a rate-limiting enzyme involved in cholesterol biosynthesis (3). HMGR is an integral part of the mevalonate pathway, which not only is essential for cholesterol biosynthesis but also contributes to the production of isoprenoids, lipid compounds that are essential for cell signaling and structure. As well as inhibition of cholesterol, statins have also been found to have a number of cholesterol-independent, so-called “pleiotropic” effects. Statins have been reported to confer anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and anticancer effects on host cells, and these effects are well characterized (5 – 9). Furthermore, several studies have explored the pleiotropic effects of statins in combating multisystem microbial infections, such as sepsis and pneumonia, and a growing number of studies are demonstrating that statins can directly influence the growth and virulence of bacterial pathogens. With the global increase in antibiotic resistance to existing antibiotics and the search for new antimicrobial strategies reaching a critical stage, there is increasing interest in the possibility of repurposing existing drugs that have already been approved to treat different clinical conditions but that also possess antimicrobial activity. The repurposing of these drugs would significantly reduce the lead time from bench to bedside. Given their pleiotropic activities, statins are strong potential candidates to be repurposed as novel antimicrobial agents. However, the evidence for this remains controversial owing to the number of apparently contradictory studies. This review evaluates and discusses the effects of individual statins on bacterial growth and virulence and bacterial infections in the context of pathogen-host interactomes (summarized in Fig. 2).

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Statins modulate bacterial growth and virulence. (A) In vitro effects of statins on bacterial species. Statins reduce in vitro bacterial growth, motility, and attachment. (B) Key antivirulence mechanisms of statins. At physiological concentrations, statin treatment can reduce bacterial invasion and translocation in addition to inhibiting lipid raft production. The inhibition of Rho GTPase activity and cholesterol production by statins contributes to reduced bacterial virulence, decreased toxicity, and impaired intracellular survival. (C) At physiological concentrations, statin treatment can reduce bacterial load and dissemination and increase bacterial clearance in mouse models of infection.

CLINICAL EVIDENCE THAT STATINS INFLUENCE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY OF PATIENTS WITH MICROBIAL INFECTIONS

The clinical potential of statins as antimicrobial agents has been the subject of several studies and reviews. A number of meta-analyses of cohort studies on the impact of overall statin use on different infection outcomes showed positive findings, albeit while highlighting the limitations and heterogeneity of the studies (10 – 13). These reviews included studies on infections such as bacteremia, pneumonia, sepsis, and some acute infections, and the patient populations received several different statins. For instance, two single-center retrospective studies showed that patients with bacteremia who had undergone prior statin treatment have significantly decreased risks of in-hospital mortality of 6% versus 28% (P = 0.002) and 13% versus 24% (P = 0.001), respectively (14, 15). The latter study also showed that there was an inverse correlation between the duration of statin treatment and the risk of mortality in comparisons of statin use ≥12 and <12 weeks prior to infection (11% versus 14%, P = 0.04) (15). A meta-analysis of available published data found that the use of statins was specifically associated with a reduced risk of morbidity and mortality resulting from pneumonia (12). A retrospective study of patients in the United Kingdom found that current statin treatment (i.e., treatment administered within the previous 30 days) reduced pneumonia-associated mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.88) (16), while prior statin treatment also reduced mortality rates in patients in the United States with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) (adjusted OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.92) (17). Furthermore, data from the Justification for the Use of Statin in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) study, which was initially undertaken to determine whether rosuvastatin could reduce the risk of cardiac disease in people without hyperlipidemia (18), were retrospectively analyzed in 2012. The results of the analysis suggested that rosuvastatin treatment may decrease the occurrence of pneumonia before (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.97) or after (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.00) a cardiac event (19). In contrast, however, an earlier prospective cohort study which examined adults in six Canadian hospitals had concluded that, after adjusting for confounding factors such as the “healthy user effect,” prior statin treatment does not result in reduced mortality from pneumonia (20). The latter study encompassed 3,415 patients >17 years of age with pneumonia admitted to a hospital, while the JUPITER randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 17,802 healthy patients was restricted to men >50 and women >60 years of age. Indeed, the JUPITER study was designed to address the healthy user effect, suggesting that the differences in study design, in addition to age differences between the cohorts, may underpin the contrasting observations.

Sepsis is a serious infection-induced whole-body inflammatory state, and, due to the immunomodulatory activity of statins, several studies have been carried out to evaluate the benefit of statin therapy in the prevention or treatment of the disease. While the type, design, size, and measured outcomes of the studies have been varied and overall results conflicting, in recent years extensive reviews evaluating these clinical studies have been published (21 – 27). The majority of clinical studies to date have been retrospective cohort studies evaluating the impact of prior treatment with statins on disease progression and mortality. Many of these, plus several meta-analysis reviews, showed promising results in which prior use of statins significantly reduced disease progression and/or mortality associated with sepsis (25, 28 – 32). For instance, studies by Almog et al. and Martin et al. demonstrated a reduced risk of developing severe sepsis in patients pretreated with statins (2.4% versus 19% [P < 0.001] and 56% versus 86% [P < 0.02], respectively), while Mortensen et al. showed a reduced risk of 30-day mortality in patients using statins (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64). One of the main limitations attributed to these studies was limited sample size, and, to address this limitation, a recent population-based, propensity score-matched analysis of the effects of low and high doses of statins on sepsis outcomes was performed that involved a cohort of 27,792 statin users compared with an equal number of nonusers (33). That extensive study demonstrated a significant reduction of 1-year mortality (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.85) and of adverse consequences of sepsis such as in-hospital death (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.89) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.98) in patients pretreated with statins. The results also showed that the benefits of pretreatment with statins increased significantly with higher doses.

Therefore, several studies have shown the promising potential of the prior use of statins in reducing the initiation or progression of infections. Nevertheless, it is difficult to draw conclusions on whether the effects of these statins were directly antibacterial/anti-inflammatory or were due to pleitropic effects on comorbidities associated with the infections. For example, it is estimated that cardiovascular events account for up to 30% of deaths in patients with CAP and it could therefore be argued that prior statin use could improve cardiovascular health and thus reduce mortality rather than having any direct effect on the infection. Against this, a study indicated that, while prior statin use was significantly associated with decreased 90-day mortality in CAP patients, there was no significant association with cardiovascular events (34). In order to fully understand the mechanistic effects of prior statin use on infections, similar studies targeting, for example, specific comorbidities and/or inflammatory markers would be required.

In contrast to prior use of statins, however, studies investigating the benefits of de novo treatment of infections with statins have generally not shown favorable results. A recent randomized control trial (RCT) investigating the effect of rosuvastatin on the clinical outcome of patients with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome was discontinued because of futility (35). Moreover, a number of recent meta-analyses of RCTs suggested that there is no significant evidence to suggest that statin use improves the mortality outcome of patients with sepsis (25 – 27).

Further large-scale RCT research is also recommended to evaluate the efficacy of using de novo statin therapy to treat specific infections. Of particular note is that the majority of the studies reviewed so far did not adjust for the type of statin used or the type of bacteria causing the infection. An interesting study of the effect of prior statin use on mortality in patients with bloodstream infections found a significant reduction in 90-day mortality in statin users with Gram-negative infections (adjusted OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.72; P = 0.003) but no significant difference in statin users with Gram-positive infections (adjusted OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.69 to 2.17; P = 0.49) (36), suggesting that the type of bacterial infection may be a significant factor.

EFFECTS OF STATINS ON IN VITRO BACTERIAL GROWTH

There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that statins have direct antibacterial effects on the in vitro growth of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial pathogens responsible for a wide range of infections (Table 1), although there have been conflicting reports on MICs (ranging from 15 mg/liter to 500 mg/liter), and strain specificity may be a factor (Table 1). The growth of the Gram-positive nosocomial pathogens Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pneumoniae has been shown to be inhibited by atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin (37 – 43), while fluvastatin has also been reported to inhibit the growth of S. aureus (37). In addition, both type 1 (simvastatin) and type 2 (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, and rosuvastatin) statins have demonstrated a bacteriostatic effect against other Gram-positive cocci, notably, Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Enterococcus, and Bacillus spp. (37 – 39, 41). Promisingly, simvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin have also been shown to have antibacterial effects on the growth of antibiotic-resistant species such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant S. aureus (VRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), although the MICs are typically higher than against antibiotic-sensitive strains (Table 1) (37 – 42).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

MIC of statins against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria

Both type 1 and type 2 statins have also been found to inhibit the growth of a number of clinically important Gram-negative species, including several respiratory pathogens. The growth of the nosocomial respiratory pathogens Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Klebsiella pneumoniae is inhibited by atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin (MICs ranging from 15 to 333 mg/liter) (38, 39), and simvastatin was reportedly bactericidal against Moraxella catarrhalis (MIC, 15 mg/liter) (43). In addition to respiratory pathogens, statins have also been reported to inhibit other Gram-negative nosocomial pathogens. Masadeh et al. reported that atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin have bacteriostatic effects on a range of pathogens, including Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter aerogenes, Haemophilus influenzae, and Proteus mirabilis (MICs ranging from 15 to 166 mg/liter) (38). Simvastatin and lovastatin (10 mg/liter) are also reportedly bactericidal against the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi (the causative agent of Lyme disease) (45), and atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin were found to inhibit the growth of Escherichia coli, a prominent cause of gastroenteritis and urinary tract infections (38). In contrast, however, Bergman et al., using a maximum concentration of 250 mg/liter, observed that simvastatin did not inhibit the growth of H. influenzae (43), while Graziano et al. found that simvastatin, atorvastatin, and pravastatin at concentrations up to 250 mg/liter did not inhibit the growth of P. aeruginosa, E. coli, or Enterococcus faecalis (42). Furthermore, a study by Thangamani et al. (41) indicated that, while the growth of Gram-positive species was inhibited by statins, the growth of P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442 was not inhibited by simvastatin, atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, mevastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin, or rosuvastatin. They also reported that simvastatin did not inhibit the growth of a range of other Gram-negative pathogens, including different strains of P. aeruginosa, K. pneumoniae, A. baumannii, E. coli, and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Interestingly, they did show that, in combination with subinhibitory concentrations of colistin, which compromises outer membrane integrity, simvastatin had antibacterial activity against the range of Gram-negative pathogens at MICs of 8 to 32 mg/liter. While the activity shown by simvastatin against E. coli ATCC 35218 (38) is in direct contrast to the lack of activity of simvastatin against E. coli ATCC 35150, ATCC 700728, ATCC 25922, and ATCC 10536 (41, 42), it is worth noting that the E. coli ATCC 3218 assays were performed on solid agar while the other studies were performed using the broth microdilution method, perhaps explaining the apparent differences in activity.

Taken together, the data suggest that the antibacterial activity of statins may be statin specific and/or strain/species specific or both. Simvastatin and atorvastatin generally appear to be more effective against S. aureus, S. pneumoniae, and enterococci than other statins (37 – 39, 43), while three distinct simvastatin MICs were reported against S. aureus clinical isolates from the United Kingdom and Jordan as well as against typed reference strains (Table 1) (37, 38, 41, 42). It is also noteworthy that, while the MICs of statins varied according to the statin and pathogen tested, the in vitro MICs ranged from circa 15 to 400 mg/liter, far exceeding the range of typical peak plasma concentrations of patients on oral statins, which generally range from circa 10 to 300 μg/liter. Moreover, in the majority of cases, the in vitro statin MICs against multidrug-resistant pathogens were even greater than those against equivalent antibiotic-susceptible strains. As such, at these MICs, it is unlikely that they would qualify as lead molecules in drug discovery programs. This variability in MICs could be considered somewhat unexpected for what is essentially a novel antibiotic compound being administered to a naive population. However, recent studies have reported significant phenotypic and genotypic diversity within clinical populations, suggesting that adaptation to environmental or host-related factors may be widespread (46 – 48). While the mechanism of action of statin antimicrobial and antivirulence activity remains to be elucidated, some reports suggest the involvement of isoprenoids and membrane integrity (49). Further deciphering the interaction between statins and the microbial membrane may provide answers to explain this apparent heterogeneity, although other targets within the microbial cell must also be considered.

However, two studies have recently demonstrated the in vivo clinical efficacy of locally high concentrations of statins, whereby topical applications of simvastatin at MIC/sub-MICs significantly enhanced bacterial clearance and healing of methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA)- and MRSA-contaminated wounds in mouse wound models (40, 41). Wang et al. showed that application of simvastatin (62.5 mg/liter) reduced the MSSA wound size by over 50% at day 7 and significantly reduced (>60% reduction) the bacterial load visible in the wound histology (40), while Thangamani et al. showed that topical simvastatin at concentrations of 1% and 3% significantly reduced the bacterial load in MRSA wounds by 75% and 90%, respectively (41). The latter study also showed that this topical application of simvastatin had an additive healing effect and that it reduced the production of proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin-6 [IL-6], tumor necrosis factor alpha [TNF-α], and IL-1β) in MRSA-infected wound lesions.

The mechanism by which statins inhibit bacterial growth is unclear. As previously described, statins inhibit the mevalonate pathway in human cells. This pathway is present in higher eukaryotes, as well as in several bacterial species, including staphylococci and streptococci. However, not all bacteria possess a mevalonate pathway, and in these species (and in plants), isoprenoid metabolism is mediated through the 2-C-methyl-d-erythritol 4-phosphate/1-deoxy-d-xylulose 5-phosphate (MEP-DOXP) pathway, which is mevalonate independent (50, 51). The MEP-DOXP and mevalonate pathways both feed into the production of isoprenoid intermediates. Generally, it appears that Gram-positive bacteria tend to possess a mevalonate pathway, while Gram-negative species utilize mevalonate-independent isoprenoid biosynthesis, although there are some exceptions to this observation. Statins have been shown to inhibit the growth of S. aureus by binding to and inhibiting the activity of its HMGR enzyme (52), and this may to some extent explain why Gram-positive bacteria tend to be more sensitive to statins. However, statins can attenuate the growth of bacteria irrespective of the presence of HMGR, although the mechanism is unknown and studies have reported equivalent statin MICs in species with and without HMGR (38, 39).

EFFECTS OF STATINS ON INTRACELLULAR GROWTH OF BACTERIA

The effects of statins on the intracellular growth of pathogens have also been studied, and, at drug concentrations closer to physiological levels, they have been shown to reduce the growth of several obligate intracellular bacterial pathogens. Recent reports demonstrated that lovastatin at 0.4 mg/liter (53) and both atorvastatin and simvastatin, in a dose-dependent fashion (0.08 to 0.8 mg/liter), reduced the survival of the leprosy-causing species Mycobacterium leprae (by up to 90% and 75%, respectively) in in vitro macrophage models, but in a cholesterol-dependent manner (54), suggesting an indirect effect on cholesterol levels, as the intracellular growth of these pathogens requires cholesterol. Prior but not concurrent treatment of murine fibroblast (L929) cells with lovastatin at 0.4 mg/liter also reduced both the intracellular growth of the respiratory pathogen Coxiella burnetii (which causes Q fever) (by 43%, P = 0.064) (55) and plaque formation by the causative agent of Rocky mountain spotted fever, Rickettsia conorii (by 64%, P = 0.003) (56). Interestingly, in in vivo studies, administration of the hydrophobic statin simvastatin, at a physiological concentration (0.5 mg/kg of body weight), but not administration of the hydrophilic statin pravastatin, significantly decreased (up to 83%) the levels of the respiratory pathogen Chlamydiae pneumoniae in lung cells of infected mice (57, 58). It was also found that cerivastatin (0.1 mg/liter) reduced the cross-infection of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) by C. pneumoniae-infected macrophages (57, 59). In those studies, the authors also suggested that the reduced growth may have been an indirect effect due to cholesterol inhibition.

A number of studies have resulted in reports of inhibition of the nonobligate intracellular growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and macrophages. Parihar et al. demonstrated that M. tuberculosis growth was significantly reduced (circa 2-fold, P < 0.05) in human mononuclear cells and macrophages taken from atorvastatin-treated patients with familial hypercholesterolemia compared with the results seen with healthy donors while also showing that treatment with simvastatin (20.6 mg/liter) significantly reduced (circa 3-fold, P < 0.01) M. tuberculosis growth in murine macrophages and that treatment with both simvastatin and rosuvastatin significantly decreased (circa 2-fold to 10-fold, P < 0.05/0.01) the bacterial load in the liver, spleen, and lungs of infected mice (20 mg/kg) (60). The study further demonstrated that the simvastatin-mediated decrease in bacterial growth was reversed by the presence of mevalonate, the product of HMG-CoA reductase, and suggested that statins control infection by phagolysosomal arrest of M. tuberculosis. These results were corroborated by those from a study by Lobato et al. in which they showed that atorvastatin and simvastatin (2 μM) significantly inhibited M. tuberculosis growth (circa 60% reduction) in macrophages and that this was again reversed by the presence of mevalonate (54). A previous study by Parihar et al. also demonstrated that simvastatin treatment (20.6 mg/liter) could significantly reduce, by up to 4-fold (P < 0.001), the ability of the foodborne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes to grow inside mouse and primary macrophages, in a cholesterol-dependent manner, and could significantly reduce bacterial burden and dissemination (by 100-fold) to the liver (P < 0.001) and spleen (P < 0.05) in infected mice (61). The intracellular growth of another foodborne bacterium, gastroenteritis-causing Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, was also attenuated more than 10-fold by lovastatin (50 nM and 30 μM) treatment of murine macrophages, at least in part due to attenuation of the mevalonate pathway (62). A key mechanism behind the attenuation of internalized bacterial infections by statins appears to be the statin-mediated inhibition of lipid raft formation. Lipid rafts are glycoprotein domains present in the cell membrane, which are formed as a result of cholesterol spontaneously interacting with sphingoglycolipids. Bacteria can manipulate lipid rafts in order to invade and survive within cells and induce apoptosis (63). However, statins are known to inhibit the formation of lipid rafts due to inhibition of cholesterol biosynthesis (44). Two studies investigating the effects of statins on intracellular growth of L. monocytogenes and plaque formation of R. conorii suggest that their findings were due to the inhibition of lipid raft formation by statins (56, 61).

As well as inhibiting intracellular growth, statin treatment at physiological concentrations promotes increased bacterial killing in host cells. Simvastatin treatment significantly reduced the burden of S. pneumoniae in the lungs of infected mice (dose = 1/10 mg/kg/day, 50-fold/100-fold reduction, P = 0.02/0.002) (64) and significantly increased bacterial clearance (65% reduction, P = 0.01) and reduced dissemination (90% reduction, P = 0.01) of S. aureus in a mouse model of pneumonia (dose = 0.25 mg/kg/day) (65). Simvastatin (∼41.7 mg/kg/day) treatment also reduced S. aureus recovery by circa 35% from mouse peritoneal cells (P < 0.005) and by 2-fold in lung cells (P < 0.05), and mevastatin (50 μM) treatment significantly reduced (40% reduction, P < 0.005) the amount of S. aureus recovered from intracellular infection of human neutrophils and mouse macrophages (66). In the latter study, evidence suggested that there was no direct effect on bacterial viability but that statins promoted bacterial killing by inducing the formation of phagocyte extracellular traps.

Therefore, the evidence indicates that, while the mechanisms by which physiological concentrations of statins influence intracellular or in vivo bacterial infections are not fully understood, most studies suggest a mechanism of indirect action mainly due to pleiotropic effects of modulating the mevalonate pathway in the host.

EFFECTS OF STATINS ON BACTERIAL VIRULENCE

An interesting development in the field of statins and bacterial infection is the discovery that sublethal doses of statins may influence bacterial virulence, raising the possibility that statins may be repurposed as specific antivirulence therapeutics. A number of studies have investigated the impact of statin treatment on in vitro bacterial virulence (Table 2). Wang et al. and Graziano et al. both showed that S. aureus biofilm formation is inhibited by simvastatin treatment (40, 42), while Hennessy et al. demonstrated that both the in vitro motility and early biofilm formation of the predominant cystic fibrosis-associated pathogen P. aeruginosa are attenuated by statin concentrations subinhibitory to growth (4 and 40 mg/liter, respectively) (67). Graziano and colleagues also showed that simvastatin (4× MIC) treatment could disrupt established S. aureus biofilms, and Thangamani et al. demonstrated that simvastatin treatment at 2× and 4× MICs reduced the levels of established biofilms of both S. aureus and S. epidermidis by approximately 40% (41, 42). The latter study by Thangamani et al. also showed that simvastatin treatment suppressed the production of the S. aureus toxins Panton-Valentine leucocidin (PVL) and α-hemolysin (Hla) produced by MRSA. They also showed that simvastatin inhibited bacterial protein synthesis and suggested that the reduction in toxin production may be a reflection of this.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Effect of statins on bacterial virulence

In cell culture studies, simvastatin (4 mg/liter) treatment significantly (P ≤ 0.05) increased the adhesion of P. aeruginosa to lung cells (68) but the translocation of P. aeruginosa across the apical membrane of kidney cells was significantly (P < 0.05) inhibited by simvastatin treatment (5 μM [2 mg/liter]) (70). Neither of these studies showed an alteration in the invasive potential of P. aeruginosa in the presence of statin; however, the invasion of other pathogens is inhibited by statins. Horn et al. demonstrated reduced invasion of S. aureus into vascular epithelial cells in the presence of physiological concentrations of simvastatin (0.04 to 0.4 mg/liter) (69), while mevastatin (4 mg/liter) treatment completely inhibited the internalization of group B Streptococcus, a common cause of meningitis, in HeLa cells (71) and attenuated the invasion of E. coli into bladder epithelial cells (72). In the latter studies, inhibition of bacterial invasion was proposed to be due to the ability of simvastatin and mevastatin to inhibit the activation of Rho GTPase proteins as a result of the inhibition of the production of the isoprenoid intermediates farnesyl-pyrophosphate and geranylgeranyl-pyrophosphate, which are required for the prenylation and activation of Rho GTPases (73).

Therefore, there is promising evidence that statins may influence the invasiveness and/or biofilm formation of some pathogens; however, a number of studies have observed the absence of statins affecting other bacterial virulence factors (Table 2). Bacterial cell-cell communication may not be impacted by statins, as simvastatin, lovastatin, and mevastatin failed to alter N-acyl-homoserine lactone (AHL) or Pseudomonas quinolone signal (PQS) quorum sensing by P. aeruginosa and mevastatin failed to alter AHL signaling by Burkholderia cenocepacia, both prominent causes of respiratory infections in cystic fibrosis patients (67, 74). In the same studies, transcription of the exoS type three secretion toxin and protease production, respectively, were not altered by the statins tested. Furthermore, an in-depth study carried out using S. pneumoniae demonstrated that subinhibitory concentrations of simvastatin (1 mg/liter) did not directly influence the activity of the pneumolysin toxin against red blood cells (75). However, the same study showed that simvastatin did protect vascular endothelial cells from pneumolysin-induced cytotoxicity in vitro. This protective effect was reversed by the presence of mevalonate, again suggesting an indirect effect. The protection was confirmed in vivo, with results showing that it extended to reduced lung damage and increased survival in a mouse model of infection.

Indeed, several studies have shown that statins can reduce the impact of bacterial toxins on host cells. In a study that utilized S. aureus alpha toxin, leukocyte recruitment and adhesion in mice were attenuated by simvastatin pretreatment (100 μg/kg) by >70% (P < 0.01) (76). This finding is significant as it suggests that statins may reduce alpha-toxin-mediated inflammation and cardiovascular damage. In addition, lovastatin (1 mg/liter) treatment improved the survival of mice exposed to another S. aureus toxin, enterotoxin B, by 50% (77) and the cytotoxicity of Bacillus anthracis lethal toxin against macrophages was reduced >60% by treatment with fluvastatin, mevastatin, and simvastatin (78).

The protective mechanism(s) of statins against bacterial virulence has not been established; however, the impact of statins on host cell isoprenoid metabolism appears to include regulation of at least some of the effects on bacterial virulence observed in cell culture and infection models. Several studies have shown that the observed effect of statin on bacterial virulence can be reversed by the addition of exogenous mevalonate (54, 59 – 61, 66, 69, 75, 77, 79), while statin-mediated cholesterol depletion is protective against bacterial toxins (61, 75) and contributes to the killing of intracellular bacteria (45, 54, 60 – 62, 66). In addition, the regulation of the inflammatory response by statins may account for some of these protective effects. For instance, cerivastatin treatment attenuated the production of proinflammatory mediators and superoxide in macrophages infected with C. pneumoniae, and this was associated with a reduced bacterial infection rate (79). The inflammatory response in lipopolysaccharide-treated mice was also reduced by cerivastatin treatment, leading to improved survival (80), while simvastatin treatment reduced both lung injury and the production of proinflammatory chemokines in a mouse sepsis model (81).

COPRESCRIPTION OF STATINS WITH ANTIBIOTICS

It has been hypothesized that physiological or subinhibitory doses of statins could be used in combination with antibiotics to increase the efficacy of treatment. Many researchers have proposed dual-action combinations that remove the virulence threat, i.e., the toxin or biofilm, facilitating clearance by the antibiotic. Indeed, the optimism prompted by the growing evidence for the effectiveness of novel antivirulence approaches has been tempered by the realization that conventional antibiotics will still be required to clear the infecting pathogen and resolve the infection. Current information on the synergistic relationship between statins and antibiotics is limited and conflicting (Table 3). A significant synergistic effect resulting in increased bacterial lysis has been reported with sublethal doses of penicillin and simvastatin (7.8 mg/liter) against pneumococcal growth in vitro (43), while atorvastatin and simvastatin (0.2 μM) treatment increased the efficacy of rifampin against M. tuberculosis and M. leprae infection in vitro by approximately 50% (54). In addition, in vivo mouse studies showed that atorvastatin (80 mg/kg/day) treatment increased the efficacy of rifampin against M. leprae infection (P < 0.05) (54) and that simvastatin (25 mg/kg) treatment increased the in vivo activity of first-line anti-TB antibiotics, reducing the lung bacillary burden by >1 log10 (P < 0.01) (82). Thangamani and colleagues demonstrated a positive synergistic effect of simvastatin on the antimicrobial effect of four topical antibiotics, mupirocin, fusidic acid, retapamulin, and daptomycin, against clinical isolates of multidrug-resistant S. aureus. However, Graziano et al. showed that there was no synergistic effect between simvastatin and vancomycin against S. aureus (42). A recent study which examined the in vitro effects of five statins, at concentrations equivalent to recommended physiological doses (for simvastatin, lovastatin, atorvastatin, and pravastatin, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 mg/liter; for fluvastatin, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 mg/liter), on the MICs of six antibiotics against four clinically important Gram-negative strains—P. aeruginosa, A. baumannii, E. coli, and K. pneumoniae—found that the statin treatments did not significantly change the susceptibility of any of those bacteria to any of the antibiotics tested (83). However, the results of that in vitro study may not reflect the true activity in an in vivo setting; therefore, further in vivo investigations are warranted. This is particularly relevant given that the majority of the studies reviewed here that looked at the mechanism by which statins influence bacterial growth or virulence in vivo suggest indirect effects as a result of interactions with host cells. In addition, the antibiofilm activity of statins toward Gram-negative pathogens, which would be expected to reduce the MIC of antibiotics in biofilm-forming populations (accounting for approximately 80% of all infections), would not be reflected in the planktonic in vitro MIC assays performed.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Effect of statins on antibiotic activity

Note, however, that the repurposing of statins for use as combinatorial antibiotics would rely on their compatibility with currently administered antibiotics. While data concerning this aspect of antimicrobial therapy are limited, certain antibiotics may interfere with the metabolism of statins, which can lead to increased serum levels and thus to an increased risk of adverse effects (84). For instance, certain statins, including simvastatin, lovastatin, and atorvastatin, are metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) isoenzymes and studies have shown that coprescription with drugs that inhibit CYP3A, such as macrolide antibiotics, can lead to increased adverse effects, including rhabdomyolysis, in elderly patients (85 – 92). In light of this, the U.S. FDA has stated that “caution should be exercised when prescribing clarithromycin with statins” and, in particular, that “concomitant use of clarithromycin with lovastatin or simvastatin is contraindicated” (95). In contrast, they suggest that the concomitant use of statins not dependent on CYP3A metabolism (e.g., fluvastatin) could be considered. However, a recent study by Li and colleagues demonstrated significantly increased adverse effects when clarithromycin was coprescribed with statins not metabolized by CYP3A4 (93), suggesting additional mechanisms of drug interactions independent of the CYP3A4 pathway, possibly related to impaired hepatic uptake of statins. In contrast to studies on macrolide-statin interactions, no additive harmful effects have been attributed to the combined use of statins and the lipopeptide antibiotic daptomycin, despite both agents being associated with muscle injury (94).

SUMMARY

The repurposing of statins as antimicrobial agents was shown to hold potential promise when clinical studies revealed that patients on cholesterol-lowering statins showed improved outcomes from bacterial infections. However, as outlined in this review, the most convincing evidence of significantly improved infection outcomes is seen when patients are pretreated with statins, and the antimicrobial effect is probably indirect. There is little evidence of significantly improved outcomes when infections are treated with de novo statins. However, while the evidence for statin effectiveness thus far has been provided from prophylactic studies, the evidence of antivirulence activity emerging for statins, whereby pathogens may be silenced rather than killed, offers an alternative perspective on their potential clinical utility. In addition, statins may also offer selectivity in targeting pathogenesis rather than the microbial population or microbiome as a whole, which is a major factor in maintaining host homeostasis. This could have the added advantage of removing the selective pressure that underpins the continued spread of antibiotic resistance among populations. Thus, further RCTs and prospective studies have been recommended and, on the basis of this review, the design of these new studies will be crucial, as in vitro and mouse studies clearly show that the most gain may be achieved by matching particular statins with particular infecting pathogens. Moreover, one of the most limiting factors is the concentration of statins required for the inhibition of bacterial growth in vitro. In almost all cases cited, the in vitro MICs far exceed the general plasma levels found in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering statins, and the feasibility of raising the dose is questionable due to cytotoxicity and increased risk of debilitating side effects. One area where specific targeted studies may be particularly beneficial is in the treatment of infections caused by intracellular pathogens. Many of the in vitro cellular studies outlined here showed significant results by the use of statins at physiological concentrations, while again suggesting that the effect is indirect. It would be interesting to see if these beneficial effects could be mimicked in in vivo clinical studies.

The effect of statins on in vitro virulence of some pathogens is interesting but again is hindered by the high concentrations required for significant results. However, this hindrance may be overcome by using subinhibitory concentrations of statins in combination with existing antibiotics. The evidence presented here regarding the repurposing of statins in combination therapies is promising but again may be statin/pathogen specific. While the most significant results have again been against intracellular bacteria, there are few in vivo/clinical studies available describing such therapies against extracellular pathogens. In designing such studies, however, the possibility of adverse effects associated with drug-drug interactions should be an important consideration.

Therefore, while the results of clinical studies regarding the repurposing of statins as antimicrobials have been inconclusive overall, the evidence presented here suggests that further prospective studies focusing on statin and pathogen specificity, bacterial virulence, combinatorial therapy, and/or means of drug administration are warranted.

  • Copyright © 2016, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Endo A,
    2. Kuroda M,
    3. Tanzawa K
    . 1976. Competitive inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase by ML-236A and ML-236B fungal metabolites, having hypocholesterolemic activity. FEBS Lett 72:323–326. doi:10.1016/0014-5793(76)80996-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Endo A,
    2. Kuroda M,
    3. Tsujita Y
    . 1976. ML-236A, ML-236B, and ML-236C, new inhibitors of cholesterogenesis produced by Penicillium citrinium. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 29:1346–1348. doi:10.7164/antibiotics.29.1346.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Istvan ES,
    2. Deisenhofer J
    . 2001. Structural mechanism for statin inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase. Science 292:1160–1164. doi:10.1126/science.1059344.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hamelin BA,
    2. Turgeon J
    . 1998. Hydrophilicity/lipophilicity: relevance for the pharmacology and clinical effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Trends Pharmacol Sci 19:26–37. doi:10.1016/S0165-6147(97)01147-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Rodriguez AL,
    2. Wojcik BM,
    3. Wrobleski SK,
    4. Myers DD,
    5. Wakefield TW,
    6. Diaz JA
    . 2012. Statins, inflammation and deep vein thrombosis: a systematic review. J Thromb Thrombolysis 33:371–382. doi:10.1007/s11239-012-0687-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Quist-Paulsen P
    . 2010. Statins and inflammation: an update. Curr Opin Cardiol 25:399–405. doi:10.1097/HCO.0b013e3283398e53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Chow SC
    . 2009. Immunomodulation by statins: mechanisms and potential impact on autoimmune diseases. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 57:243–251. doi:10.1007/s00005-009-0038-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Swanson KM,
    2. Hohl RJ
    . 2006. Anti-cancer therapy: targeting the mevalonate pathway. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 6:15–37. doi:10.2174/156800906775471743.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dulak J,
    2. Józkowicz A
    . 2005. Anti-angiogenic and anti-inflammatory effects of statins: relevance to anti-cancer therapy. Curr Cancer Drug Targets 5:579–594. doi:10.2174/156800905774932824.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. 10.↵
    1. Tleyjeh IM,
    2. Kashour T,
    3. Hakim FA,
    4. Zimmerman VA,
    5. Erwin PJ,
    6. Sutton AJ,
    7. Ibrahim T
    . 2009. Statins for the prevention and treatment of infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 169:1658–1667. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.↵
    1. Janda S,
    2. Young A,
    3. Fitzgerald JM,
    4. Etminan M,
    5. Swiston J
    . 2010. The effect of statins on mortality from severe infections and sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care 25:656.e7–656.e22. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.02.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. 12.↵
    1. Chopra V,
    2. Rogers MAM,
    3. Buist M,
    4. Govindan S,
    5. Lindenauer PK,
    6. Saint S,
    7. Flanders SA
    . 2012. Is statin use associated with reduced mortality after pneumonia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med 125:1111–1123. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.04.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ma J,
    2. Wen X,
    3. Peng J,
    4. Lu Y,
    5. Guo Z,
    6. Lu J
    . 2012. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between outpatient statins use and infectious disease-related mortality. PLoS One 7:e51548. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Liappis AP,
    2. Kan VL,
    3. Rochester CG,
    4. Simon GL
    . 2001. The effect of statins on mortality in patients with bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 33:1352–1357. doi:10.1086/323334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Nseir W,
    2. Mograbi J,
    3. Khateeb J,
    4. Abu-Elheja O,
    5. Bishara J,
    6. Jihad B,
    7. Assy N
    . 2012. The impact of prior long-term versus short-term statin use on the mortality of bacteraemic patients. Infection 40:41–48. doi:10.1007/s15010-011-0190-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Schlienger RG,
    2. Fedson DS,
    3. Jick SS,
    4. Jick H,
    5. Meier CR
    . 2007. Statins and the risk of pneumonia: a population-based, nested case-control study. Pharmacotherapy 27:325–332. doi:10.1592/phco.27.3.325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mortensen EM,
    2. Restrepo MI,
    3. Anzueto A,
    4. Pugh J
    . 2005. The effect of prior statin use on 30-day mortality for patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Respir Res 6:82. doi:10.1186/1465-9921-6-82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Ridker PM,
    2. Danielson E,
    3. Fonseca FAH,
    4. Genest J,
    5. Gotto AM,
    6. Kastelein JJP,
    7. Koenig W,
    8. Libby P,
    9. Lorenzatti AJ,
    10. MacFadyen JG,
    11. Nordestgaard BG,
    12. Shepherd J,
    13. Willerson JT,
    14. Glynn RJ
    ; JUPITER Study Group. 2008. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 359:2195–2207. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0807646.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Novack V,
    2. MacFadyen J,
    3. Malhotra A,
    4. Almog Y,
    5. Glynn RJ,
    6. Ridker PM
    . 2012. The effect of rosuvastatin on incident pneumonia: results from the JUPITER trial. CMAJ 184:E367–E372. doi:10.1503/cmaj.111017.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Majumdar SR,
    2. McAlister FA,
    3. Eurich DT,
    4. Padwal RS,
    5. Marrie TJ
    . 2006. Statins and outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with community acquired pneumonia: population based prospective cohort study. BMJ 333:999. doi:10.1136/bmj.38992.565972.7C.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Mermis JD,
    2. Simpson SQ
    . 2012. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors for prevention and treatment of severe sepsis. Curr Infect Dis Rep 14:484–492. doi:10.1007/s11908-012-0277-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Dobesh PP,
    2. Swahn SM,
    3. Peterson EJ,
    4. Olsen KM
    . 2010. Statins in sepsis. J Pharm Pract 23:38–49. doi:10.1177/0897190009356548.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Kouroumichakis I,
    2. Papanas N,
    3. Proikaki S,
    4. Zarogoulidis P,
    5. Maltezos E
    . 2011. Statins in prevention and treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. Eur J Intern Med 22:125–133. doi:10.1016/j.ejim.2010.12.004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Dobesh PP,
    2. Olsen KM
    . 2014. Statins role in the prevention and treatment of sepsis. Pharmacol Res 88:31–40. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2014.04.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Wan YD,
    2. Sun TW,
    3. Kan QC,
    4. Guan FX,
    5. Zhang SG
    . 2014. Effect of statin therapy on mortality from infection and sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Crit Care 18(2):R71. doi:10.1186/cc13828.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Tralhão AF,
    2. Cés de Souza-Dantas V,
    3. Salluh JI,
    4. Póvoa PM
    . 2014. Impact of statins in outcomes of septic patients: a systematic review. Postgrad Med 126(7):45–58. doi:10.3810/pgm.2014.11.2832.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Thomas G,
    2. Hraiech S,
    3. Loundou A,
    4. Truwit J,
    5. Kruger P,
    6. McAuley DF,
    7. Papazian L,
    8. Roch A
    . 18 February 2015. Statin therapy in critically-ill patients with severe sepsis: a review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Minerva Anestesiol 81:921–930.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Almog Y,
    2. Shefer A,
    3. Novack V,
    4. Maimon N,
    5. Barski L,
    6. Eizinger M,
    7. Friger M,
    8. Zeller L,
    9. Danon A
    . 2004. Prior statin therapy is associated with a decreased rate of severe sepsis. Circulation 110:880–885. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000138932.17956.F1.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Mortensen EM,
    2. Restrepo MI,
    3. Copeland LA,
    4. Pugh JA,
    5. Anzueto A,
    6. Cornell JE,
    7. Pugh MJ
    . 2007. Impact of previous statin and angiotensin II receptor blocker use on mortality in patients hospitalized with sepsis. Pharmacotherapy 27:1619–1626. doi:10.1592/phco.27.12.1619.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. Martin CP,
    2. Talbert RL,
    3. Burgess DS,
    4. Peters JI
    . 2007. Effectiveness of statins in reducing the rate of severe sepsis: a retrospective evaluation. Pharmacotherapy 27:20–26. doi:10.1592/phco.27.1.20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Schmidt H,
    2. Hennen R,
    3. Keller A,
    4. Russ M,
    5. Müller-Werdan U,
    6. Werdan K,
    7. Buerke M
    . 2006. Association of statin therapy and increased survival in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Intensive Care Med 32:1248–1251. doi:10.1007/s00134-006-0246-y.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  32. 32.↵
    1. Mekontso Dessap A,
    2. Ouanes I,
    3. Rana N,
    4. Borghi B,
    5. Bazin C,
    6. Katsahian S,
    7. Hulin A,
    8. Brun-Buisson C
    . 2011. Effects of discontinuing or continuing ongoing statin therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care 15:R171. doi:10.1186/cc10317.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Ou SY,
    2. Chu H,
    3. Chao PW,
    4. Ou SM,
    5. Lee YJ,
    6. Kuo SC,
    7. Li SY,
    8. Shih CJ,
    9. Chen YT
    . 2014. Effect of the use of low and high potency statins and sepsis outcomes. Intensive Care Med 40:1509–1517. doi:10.1007/s00134-014-3418-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Wu A,
    2. Good C,
    3. Downs JR,
    4. Fine MJ,
    5. Pugh MJ,
    6. Anzueto A,
    7. Mortensen EM
    . 2014. The association of cardioprotective medications with pneumonia-related outcomes. PLoS One 9:e85797. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085797.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Papazian L,
    2. Roch A,
    3. Charles PE,
    4. Penot-Ragon C,
    5. Perrin G,
    6. Roulier P,
    7. Goutorbe P,
    8. Lefrant JY,
    9. Wiramus S,
    10. Jung B,
    11. Perbet S,
    12. Hernu R,
    13. Nau A,
    14. Baldesi O,
    15. Allardet-Servent J,
    16. Baumstarck K,
    17. Jouve E,
    18. Moussa M,
    19. Hraiech S,
    20. Guervilly C,
    21. Forel JM
    ; STATIN-VAP Study Group. 2013. Effect of statin therapy on mortality in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 310:1692–1700. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.280031.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. 36.↵
    1. Mehl A,
    2. Harthug S,
    3. Lydersen S,
    4. Paulsen J,
    5. Åsvold BO,
    6. Solligård E,
    7. Damås JK,
    8. Edna TH
    . 2015. Prior statin use and 90-day mortality in Gram-negative and Gram-positive bloodstream infection: a prospective observational study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 34:609–617.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Jerwood S,
    2. Cohen J
    . 2008. Unexpected antimicrobial effect of statins. J Antimicrob Chemother 61:362–364.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Masadeh M,
    2. Mhaidat N,
    3. Alzoubi K,
    4. Al-Azzam S,
    5. Alnasser Z
    . 7 May 2012. Antibacterial activity of statins: a comparative study of atorvastatin, simvastatin, and rosuvastatin. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob doi:10.1186/1476-0711-11-13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Welsh A-M,
    2. Kruger P,
    3. Faoagali J
    . 2009. Antimicrobial action of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Pathology 41:689–691. doi:10.3109/00313020903305860.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.↵
    1. Wang CC,
    2. Yang PW,
    3. Yang SF,
    4. Hsieh KP,
    5. Tseng SP,
    6. Lin YC
    . 8 March 2015. Topical simvastatin promotes healing of Staphylococcus aureus-contaminated cutaneous wounds. Int Wound J doi:10.1111/iwj.12431.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    1. Thangamani S,
    2. Mohammad H,
    3. Abushahba MF,
    4. Hamed MI,
    5. Sobreira TJ,
    6. Hedrick VE,
    7. Paul LN,
    8. Seleem MN
    . 2015. Exploring simvastatin, an antihyperlipidemic drug, as a potential topical antibacterial agent. Sci Rep 5:16407. doi:10.1038/srep16407.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Graziano TS,
    2. Cuzzullin MC,
    3. Franco GC,
    4. Schwartz-Filho HO,
    5. de Andrade ED,
    6. Groppo FC,
    7. Cogo-Müller K
    . 2015. Statins and antimicrobial effects: Simvastatin as a potential drug against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. PLoS One 10:e0128098. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128098.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Bergman P,
    2. Linde C,
    3. Putsep K,
    4. Pohanka A,
    5. Normark S,
    6. Henriques-Normark B,
    7. Andersson J,
    8. Bjorkhem-Bergman L
    . 2011. Studies on the antibacterial effects of statins—in vitro and in vivo. PLoS One 6:e24394. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024394.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Hansen GH,
    2. Niels-Christiansen LL,
    3. Thorsen E,
    4. Immerdal L,
    5. Danielsen EM
    . 2000. Cholesterol depletion of enterocytes. Effect on the Golgi complex and apical membrane trafficking. J Biol Chem 275:5136–5142.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Van Laar TA,
    2. Lin YH,
    3. Miller CL,
    4. Karna SL,
    5. Chambers JP,
    6. Seshu J
    . 2012. 2012. Effect of levels of acetate on the mevalonate pathway of Borrelia burgdorferi. PLoS One 7:e38171.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Fothergill JL,
    2. Mowat E,
    3. Ledson MJ,
    4. Walshaw MJ,
    5. Winstanley C
    . 2010. Fluctuations in phenotypes and genotypes within populations of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the cystic fibrosis lung during pulmonary exacerbations. J Med Microbiol 59:472–481. doi:10.1099/jmm.0.015875-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Cullen L,
    2. Weiser R,
    3. Olszak T,
    4. Maldonado RF,
    5. Moreira AS,
    6. Slachmuylders L,
    7. Brackman G,
    8. Paunova-Krasteva TS,
    9. Zarnowiec P,
    10. Czerwonka G,
    11. Reilly J,
    12. Drevinek P,
    13. Kaca W,
    14. Melter O,
    15. De Soyza A,
    16. Perry A,
    17. Winstanley C,
    18. Stoitsova SR,
    19. Lavigne R,
    20. Mahenthiralingam E,
    21. Sá-Correia I,
    22. Coenye T,
    23. Drulis-Kawa Z,
    24. Augustyniak D,
    25. Valvano MA,
    26. McClean S
    . 2015. Phenotypic characterization of an international Pseudomonas aeruginosa reference panel: strains of cystic fibrosis (CF) origin show less in vivo virulence than non-CF strains. Microbiology 161:1961–1977. doi:10.1099/mic.0.000155.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Hovey JG,
    2. Watson EL,
    3. Langford ML,
    4. Hildebrandt E,
    5. Bathala S,
    6. Bolland JR,
    7. Spadafora D,
    8. Mendz GL,
    9. McGee DJ
    . 2007. Genetic microheterogeneity and phenotypic variation of Helicobacter pylori arginase in clinical isolates. BMC Microbiol 7:26. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-7-26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Haeri MR,
    2. White K,
    3. Qharebeglou M,
    4. Ansar MM
    . 2015 December 2005. Cholesterol suppresses antimicrobial effect of statins. Iran J Basic Med Sci 18:1253–1256.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Heuston S,
    2. Begley M,
    3. Gahan CGM,
    4. Hill C
    . 2012. Isoprenoid biosynthesis in bacterial pathogens. Microbiology 158:1389–1401. doi:10.1099/mic.0.051599-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  51. 51.↵
    1. Eisenreich W,
    2. Bacher A,
    3. Arigoni D,
    4. Rohdich F
    . 2004. Biosynthesis of isoprenoids via the non-mevalonate pathway. Cell Mol Life Sci 61:1401–1426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    1. Wilding EI,
    2. Kim DY,
    3. Bryant AP,
    4. Gwynn MN,
    5. Lunsford RD,
    6. McDevitt D,
    7. Myers JE,
    8. Rosenberg M,
    9. Sylvester D,
    10. Stauffacher CV,
    11. Rodwell VW
    . 2000. Essentiality, expression, and characterization of the class II 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase of Staphylococcus aureus. J Bacteriol 182:5147–5152. doi:10.1128/JB.182.18.5147-5152.2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. 53.↵
    1. Mattos KA,
    2. Oliveira VCG,
    3. Berrêdo-Pinho M,
    4. Amaral JJ,
    5. Antunes LCM,
    6. Melo RCN,
    7. Acosta CCD,
    8. Moura DF,
    9. Olmo R,
    10. Han J,
    11. Rosa PS,
    12. Almeida PE,
    13. Finlay BB,
    14. Borchers CH,
    15. Sarno EN,
    16. Bozza PT,
    17. Atella GC,
    18. Pessolani MCV
    . 21 March 2014. Mycobacterium leprae intracellular survival relies on cholesterol accumulation in infected macrophages: a potential target for new drugs for leprosy treatment. Cell Microbiol doi:10.1111/cmi.12279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Lobato LS,
    2. Rosa PS,
    3. da Silva Ferreira J,
    4. Neumann da Silva A,
    5. Gomes da Silva M,
    6. do Nascimento DC,
    7. Soares CT,
    8. Pedrini SC,
    9. Oliveira DS,
    10. Monteiro CP,
    11. Pereira GM,
    12. Ribeiro-Alves M,
    13. Hacker MA,
    14. Moraes MO,
    15. Pessolani MC,
    16. Duarte RS,
    17. Lara FA
    . 2014. Statins increase rifampin mycobactericidal effect. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58:5766–5774. doi:10.1128/AAC.01826-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Botelho-Nevers E,
    2. Espinosa L,
    3. Raoult D,
    4. Rolain J-M
    . 2008. Lovastatin, but not pravastatin, limits in vitro infection due to Coxiella burnetii. J Antimicrob Chemother 62:845–847. doi:10.1093/jac/dkn282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Botelho-Nevers E,
    2. Rolain JM,
    3. Espinosa L,
    4. Raoult D
    . 2008. Statins limit Rickettsia conorii infection in cells. Int J Antimicrob Agents 32:344–348. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2008.04.027.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Erkkilä L,
    2. Jauhiainen M,
    3. Laitinen K,
    4. Haasio K,
    5. Tiirola T,
    6. Saikku P,
    7. Leinonen M
    . 2005. Effect of simvastatin, an established lipid-lowering drug, on pulmonary Chlamydia pneumoniae infection in mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 49:3959–3962. doi:10.1128/AAC.49.9.3959-3962.2005.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. 58.↵
    1. Tiirola T,
    2. Jauhiainen M,
    3. Erkkilä L,
    4. Bloigu A,
    5. Leinonen M,
    6. Haasio K,
    7. Laitinen K,
    8. Saikku P
    . 2007. Effect of pravastatin treatment on Chlamydia pneumoniae infection, inflammation and serum lipids in NIH/S mice. Int J Antimicrob Agents 29:741–742. doi:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.02.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Dechend R,
    2. Gieffers J,
    3. Dietz R,
    4. Joerres A,
    5. Rupp J,
    6. Luft FC,
    7. Maass M
    . 2003. Hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibition reduces Chlamydia pneumoniae-induced cell interaction and activation. Circulation 108:261–265. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000083367.93022.78.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Parihar SP,
    2. Guler R,
    3. Khutlang R,
    4. Lang DM,
    5. Hurdayal R,
    6. Mhlanga MM,
    7. Suzuki H,
    8. Marais AD,
    9. Brombacher F
    . 2014. Statin therapy reduces the mycobacterium tuberculosis burden in human macrophages and in mice by enhancing autophagy and phagosome maturation. J Infect Dis 209:754–763. doi:10.1093/infdis/jit550.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    1. Parihar SP,
    2. Guler R,
    3. Lang DM,
    4. Suzuki H,
    5. Marais AD,
    6. Brombacher F
    . 2013. Simvastatin enhances protection against Listeria monocytogenes infection in mice by counteracting Listeria-induced phagosomal escape. PLoS One 8:e75490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075490.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Catron DM,
    2. Lange Y,
    3. Borensztajn J,
    4. Sylvester MD,
    5. Jones BD,
    6. Haldar K
    . 2004. Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium requires nonsterol precursors of the cholesterol biosynthetic pathway for intracellular proliferation. Infect Immun 72:1036–1042. doi:10.1128/IAI.72.2.1036-1042.2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Riethmüller J,
    2. Riehle A,
    3. Grassmé H,
    4. Gulbins E
    . 2006. Membrane rafts in host-pathogen interactions. Biochim Biophys Acta 1758:2139–2147. doi:10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.07.017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  64. 64.↵
    1. Boyd AR,
    2. Hinojosa CA,
    3. Rodriguez PJ,
    4. Orihuela CJ
    . 15 May 2012. Impact of oral simvastatin therapy on acute lung injury in mice during pneumococcal pneumonia. BMC Microbiol doi:10.1186/1471-2180-12-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  65. 65.↵
    1. McDowell SA,
    2. Ma Y,
    3. Kusano R,
    4. Akinbi HT
    . 2011. Simvastatin is protective during Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 12:1455–1462. doi:10.2174/138920111798281027.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. 66.↵
    1. Chow OA,
    2. von Kockritz-Blickwede M,
    3. Bright AT,
    4. Hensler ME,
    5. Zinkernagel AS,
    6. Cogen AL,
    7. Gallo RL,
    8. Monestier M,
    9. Wang Y,
    10. Glass CK,
    11. Nizet V
    . 2010. Statins enhance formation of phagocyte extracellular traps. Cell Host Microbe 8:445–454. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2010.10.005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.↵
    1. Hennessy E,
    2. Mooij MJ,
    3. Legendre C,
    4. Reen FJ,
    5. O'Callaghan J,
    6. Adams C,
    7. O'Gara F
    . 2013. Statins inhibit in vitro virulence phenotypes of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Antibiot (Tokyo) 66:99–101. doi:10.1038/ja.2012.95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Hennessy E,
    2. O'Callaghan J,
    3. Mooij MJ,
    4. Legendre C,
    5. Camacho-Vanegas O,
    6. Camacho SC,
    7. Adams C,
    8. Martignetti JA,
    9. O'Gara F
    . 2014. the impact of simvastatin on pulmonary effectors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. PLoS One 9:e102200. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0102200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. 69.↵
    1. Horn MP,
    2. Knecht SM,
    3. Rushing FL,
    4. Birdsong J,
    5. Siddall CP,
    6. Johnson CM,
    7. Abraham TN,
    8. Brown A,
    9. Volk CB,
    10. Gammon K,
    11. Bishop DL,
    12. McKillip JL,
    13. McDowell SA
    . 2008. Simvastatin inhibits Staphylococcus aureus host cell invasion through modulation of isoprenoid intermediates. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 326:135–143. doi:10.1124/jpet.108.137927.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  70. 70.↵
    1. Shibata H,
    2. Nishitani N,
    3. Yaohara S,
    4. Arakaki N,
    5. Higuti T,
    6. Kawazoe K,
    7. Minakuchi K
    . 2012. Simvastatin represses translocation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa across Madin-Darby canine kidney cell monolayers. J Med Invest 59:186–191. doi:10.2152/jmi.59.186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Burnham CA,
    2. Shokoples SE,
    3. Tyrrell GJ
    . 2007. Rac1, RhoA, and Cdc42 participate in HeLa cell invasion by group B streptococcus. FEMS Microbiol Lett 272:8–14. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00768.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. 72.↵
    1. Martinez JJ,
    2. Hultgren SJ
    . 2002. Requirement of Rho-family GTPases in the invasion of type 1-piliated uropathogenic Escherichia coli. Cell Microbiol 4:19–28. doi:10.1046/j.1462-5822.2002.00166.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  73. 73.↵
    1. Goldstein JL,
    2. Brown MS
    . 1990. Regulation of the mevalonate pathway. Nature 343:425–430. doi:10.1038/343425a0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  74. 74.↵
    1. O'Grady EP,
    2. Viteri DF,
    3. Sokol PA
    . 2012. A unique regulator contributes to quorum sensing and virulence in Burkholderia cenocepacia. PLoS One 7:e37611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. 75.↵
    1. Rosch JW,
    2. Boyd AR,
    3. Hinojosa E,
    4. Pestina T,
    5. Hu Y,
    6. Persons DA,
    7. Orihuela CJ,
    8. Tuomanen EI
    . 2010. Statins protect against fulminant pneumococcal infection and cytolysin toxicity in a mouse model of sickle cell disease. J Clin Invest 120:627–635. doi:10.1172/JCI39843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  76. 76.↵
    1. Pruefer D,
    2. Makowski J,
    3. Schnell M,
    4. Buerke U,
    5. Dahm M,
    6. Oelert H,
    7. Sibelius U,
    8. Grandel U,
    9. Grimminger F,
    10. Seeger W,
    11. Meyer J,
    12. Darius H,
    13. Buerke M
    . 2002. Simvastatin inhibits inflammatory properties of Staphylococcus aureus alpha-toxin. Circulation 106:2104–2110. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000034048.38910.91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.↵
    1. Tilahun ME,
    2. Kwan A,
    3. Natarajan K,
    4. Quinn M,
    5. Tilahun AY,
    6. Xie C,
    7. Margulies DH,
    8. Osborne BA,
    9. Goldsby RA,
    10. Rajagopalan G
    . 2011. Chimeric anti-staphylococcal enterotoxin B antibodies and lovastatin act synergistically to provide in vivo protection against lethal doses of SEB. PLoS One 6:e27203. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.↵
    1. deCathelineau AM,
    2. Bokoch GM
    . 2009. Inactivation of rho GTPases by statins attenuates anthrax lethal toxin activity. Infect Immun 77:348–359. doi:10.1128/IAI.01005-08.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. 79.↵
    1. Kothe H,
    2. Dalhoff K,
    3. Rupp J,
    4. Müller A,
    5. Kreuzer J,
    6. Maass M,
    7. Katus HA
    . 2000. Hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors modify the inflammatory response of human macrophages and endothelial cells infected with Chlamydia pneumoniae. Circulation 101:1760–1763. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.101.15.1760.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Ando H,
    2. Takamura T,
    3. Ota T,
    4. Nagai Y,
    5. Kobayashi K
    . 2000. Cerivastatin improves survival of mice with lipopolysaccharide-induced sepsis. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 294:1043–1046.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  81. 81.↵
    1. Zhang S,
    2. Rahman M,
    3. Zhang S,
    4. Qi Z,
    5. Thorlacius H
    . 2011. Simvastatin antagonizes CD40L secretion, CXC chemokine formation, and pulmonary infiltration of neutrophils in abdominal sepsis. J Leukoc Biol 89:735–742. doi:10.1189/jlb.0510279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  82. 82.↵
    1. Skerry C,
    2. Pinn ML,
    3. Bruiners N,
    4. Pine R,
    5. Gennaro ML,
    6. Karakousis PC
    . 2014. Simvastatin increases the in vivo activity of the first-line tuberculosis regimen. J Antimicrob Chemother 69:2453–2457. doi:10.1093/jac/dku166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. 83.↵
    1. Farmer AR,
    2. Murray CK,
    3. Mende K,
    4. Akers KS,
    5. Zera WC,
    6. Beckius ML,
    7. Yun HC
    . 2013. Effect of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors on antimicrobial susceptibilities for gram-negative rods. J Basic Microbiol 53:336–339. doi:10.1002/jobm.201100614.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  84. 84.↵
    1. Kellick KA,
    2. Bottorff M,
    3. Toth PP
    , The National Lipid Association's Safety Task Force. 2014. A clinician's guide to statin drug-drug interactions. J Clin Lipidol 8:S30–S46. doi:10.1016/j.jacl.2014.02.010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. 85.↵
    1. Patel AM,
    2. Shariff S,
    3. Bailey DG,
    4. Juurlink DN,
    5. Gandhi S,
    6. Mamdani M,
    7. Gomes T,
    8. Fleet J,
    9. Hwang YJ,
    10. Garg AX
    . 2013. Statin toxicity from macrolide antibiotic coprescription: a population-based cohort study. Ann Intern Med 158:869–876. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-12-201306180-00004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  86. 86.↵
    1. Lee AJ,
    2. Maddix DS
    . 2001. Rhabdomyolysis secondary to a drug interaction between simvastatin and clarithromycin. Ann Pharmacother 35:26–31. doi:10.1345/aph.10177.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  87. 87.↵
    1. Pasqualetti G,
    2. Bini G,
    3. Tognini S,
    4. Polini A,
    5. Monzani F
    . 2012. Clarithromycin-induced rhabdomyolysis: a case report. Int J Gen Med 5:283–285. doi:10.2147/IJGM.S29845.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  88. 88.↵
    1. Trieu J,
    2. Emmett L,
    3. Perera C,
    4. Thanakrishnan K,
    5. Van Der Wall H
    . 2004. Rhabdomyolysis resulting from interaction of simvastatin and clarithromycin demonstrated by Tc-99m MDP scintigraphy. Clin Nucl Med 29:803–804. doi:10.1097/00003072-200412000-00008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  89. 89.↵
    1. Campbell G,
    2. Jayakumar U,
    3. McCracken S,
    4. Bene J
    . 2007. A cautionary tale: delayed onset rhabdomyolysis due to erythromycin/simvastatin interaction. Age Ageing 36:597. doi:10.1093/ageing/afm110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Mah Ming JB,
    2. Gill M
    . 2003. Case report: drug-induced rhabdomyolysis after concomitant use of clarithromycin, atorvastatin, and lopinavir/ritonavir in a patient with HIV. AIDS Patient Care STDS 17:207–210. doi:10.1089/108729103321655854.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  91. 91.↵
    1. Page SR,
    2. Yee KC
    . 2014. Rhabdomyolysis in association with simvastatin and dosage increment in clarithromycin. Intern Med J 44(7):690–693. doi:10.1111/imj.12464.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  92. 92.↵
    1. Cully M
    . 2013. Dyslipidaemia: risks of statin and antibiotic coprescription. Nat Rev Cardiol 10:432. doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2013.99.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  93. 93.↵
    1. Li DQ,
    2. Kim R,
    3. McArthur E,
    4. Fleet JL,
    5. Bailey DG,
    6. Juurlink D,
    7. Shariff SZ,
    8. Gomes T,
    9. Mamdani M,
    10. Gandhi S,
    11. Dixon S,
    12. Garg AX
    . 2015. Risk of adverse events among older adults following co-prescription of clarithromycin and statins not metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4. CMAJ 187:174–180. doi:10.1503/cmaj.140950.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. 94.↵
    1. Golightly LK,
    2. Barber GR,
    3. Barron MA,
    4. Page RL
    . 2013. Statins and daptomycin: safety assessment of concurrent use and evaluation of drug interaction liability. Drug Metabol Drug Interact 28:49–58.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    US Food and Drug Administration. 2015. Biaxin Filmtab (clarithromycin tablets, USP), Biaxin XL Filmtab (clarithromycin extended-release tablets), Biaxin Granules (clarithromycin for oral suspension, USP). US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/ucm258816.htm. Accessed 15 January 2016.
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Is There Potential for Repurposing Statins as Novel Antimicrobials?
Emma Hennessy, Claire Adams, F. Jerry Reen, Fergal O'Gara
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Aug 2016, 60 (9) 5111-5121; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00192-16

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is There Potential for Repurposing Statins as Novel Antimicrobials?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Is There Potential for Repurposing Statins as Novel Antimicrobials?
Emma Hennessy, Claire Adams, F. Jerry Reen, Fergal O'Gara
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Aug 2016, 60 (9) 5111-5121; DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00192-16
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • CLINICAL EVIDENCE THAT STATINS INFLUENCE MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY OF PATIENTS WITH MICROBIAL INFECTIONS
    • EFFECTS OF STATINS ON IN VITRO BACTERIAL GROWTH
    • EFFECTS OF STATINS ON INTRACELLULAR GROWTH OF BACTERIA
    • EFFECTS OF STATINS ON BACTERIAL VIRULENCE
    • COPRESCRIPTION OF STATINS WITH ANTIBIOTICS
    • SUMMARY
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About AAC
  • Editor in Chief
  • Editorial Board
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • AAC Podcast
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #AACJournal

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0066-4804; Online ISSN: 1098-6596