-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Carotid Stenosis; Metoprolol; Atorvastatin; Chlorthalidone; Fluvastatin; Pravastatin; Probucol; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Stroke; Hemorrhage; Aspirin; Ischemic Stroke; Atherosclerosis
PubMed: 37565307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013573.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.
MAIN RESULTS
One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Administration Schedule; Fluorobenzenes; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipidemias; Lipids; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Sulfonamides; Triglycerides
PubMed: 25415541
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010254.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015This represents the first update of this review, which was published in 2012. Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This represents the first update of this review, which was published in 2012. Atorvastatin is one of the most widely prescribed drugs and the most widely prescribed statin in the world. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of atorvastatin on blood lipids.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of atorvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol and triglycerides in individuals with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. The primary focus of this review was determination of the mean per cent change from baseline of LDL-cholesterol. Secondary objectives • To quantify the variability of effects of various doses of atorvastatin.• To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2013), MEDLINE (1966 to December Week 2 2013), EMBASE (1980 to December Week 2 2013), Web of Science (1899 to December Week 2 2013) and BIOSIS Previews (1969 to December Week 2 2013). We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of atorvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from placebo-controlled trials.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we found an additional 42 trials and added them to the original 254 studies. The update consists of 296 trials that evaluated dose-related efficacy of atorvastatin in 38,817 participants. Included are 242 before-and-after trials and 54 placebo-controlled RCTs. Log dose-response data from both trial designs revealed linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides. The Summary of findings table 1 documents the effect of atorvastatin on LDL-cholesterol over the dose range of 10 to 80 mg/d, which is the range for which this systematic review acquired the greatest quantity of data. Over this range, blood LDL-cholesterol is decreased by 37.1% to 51.7% (Summary of findings table 1). The slope of dose-related effects on cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol was similar for atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, but rosuvastatin is about three-fold more potent. Subgroup analyses suggested that the atorvastatin effect was greater in females than in males and was greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. Risk of bias for the outcome of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) was high, but the mostly unclear risk of bias was judged unlikely to affect lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not statistically significantly different between atorvastatin and placebo groups in these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.40).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update resulted in no change to the main conclusions of the review but significantly increases the strength of the evidence. Studies show that atorvastatin decreases blood total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol in a linear dose-related manner over the commonly prescribed dose range. New findings include that atorvastatin is more than three-fold less potent than rosuvastatin, and that the cholesterol-lowering effects of atorvastatin are greater in females than in males and greater in non-familial than in familial hypercholesterolaemia. This review update does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with atorvastatin because included trials were of short duration and adverse effects were not reported in 37% of placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Controlled Before-After Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Heptanoic Acids; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipidemias; Lipids; Male; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sex Factors; Triglycerides
PubMed: 25760954
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008226.pub3 -
Andrologia Jul 2022Atorvastatin may be an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether atorvastatin therapy is effective in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Atorvastatin may be an effective treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether atorvastatin therapy is effective in the treatment of ED. All published research on atorvastatin in the treatment of ED patients in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane were investigated till 30 October 2021. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was done to investigate the efficacy of atorvastatin and placebo in the treatment of ED. Moreover, we also performed a meta-analysis based on single-arm trials (SATs) to explore the atorvastatin treatment on the efficacy of ED. In a meta-analysis based on RCTs, the weighted mean difference of the change of International Index for Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) score in the atorvastatin treatment group with or without treatment was 4.53 (95 per cent confidence interval [CI] of 3.28-5.79) higher than in the control group. In an SAT-based meta-analysis, the ES of the change in IIEF-5 score in the atorvastatin treatment group before and after treatment was 3.22 (95 per cent CI of 1.32-5.12). Atorvastatin is an effective therapeutic drug for patients with ED. However, we expect that more multicentre clinical trials will be conducted to support this assertion.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35224753
DOI: 10.1111/and.14408 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Cerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cerivastatin was the most potent statin until it was withdrawn from the market due to a number of fatalities due to rhabdomyolysis, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of cerivastatin on blood lipids is not known.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of cerivastatin on the surrogate markers: LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides in children and adults with and without cardiovascular disease. The aim of this review is to examine the pharmacology of cerivastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of cerivastatin on surrogate markers. Secondary objectives To quantify the effect of various doses of cerivastatin compared to placebo on withdrawals due to adverse effects. To compare the relative potency of cerivastatin with respect to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol and triglycerides.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for RCTs up to March 2019: CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov.We also searched the European Patent Office, FDA.gov, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of cerivastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without cardiovascular disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for trials to be included and extracted data. We entered data from RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data respectively. We collected information on withdrawals due to adverse effects from the RCTs. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty trials (19 RCTs and 31 before-and-after studies) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of cerivastatin in 12,877 participants who had their LDL cholesterol measured. The participants were of any age with and without cardiovascular disease and the trials studied cerivastatin effects within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Cerivastatin 0.025 mg/day to 0.8 mg/day caused LDL cholesterol decreases of 11.0% to 40.8%, total cholesterol decreases of 8.0% to 28.8% and triglyceride decreases of 9.0% to 21.4%. We judged the certainty of evidence for these effects to be high. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol and triglycerides. When compared to fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol; 233-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 18-fold more potent than atorvastatin and six-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol; and 125-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 11-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 13-fold more potent than rosuvastatin at reducing triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of cerivastatin on HDL cholesterol, but overall cerivastatin increased HDL cholesterol by 5%. There was a high risk of bias for the outcome withdrawals due to adverse effects, but a low risk of bias for the lipid measurements. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were not different between cerivastatin and placebo in 11 of 19 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.74).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride lowering effect of cerivastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Cerivastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with fluvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, cerivastatin was about 250-fold more potent than fluvastatin, 20-fold more potent than atorvastatin and 5.5-fold more potent than rosuvastatin in reducing LDL cholesterol, and 233-fold greater potency than fluvastatin, 18-fold greater potency than atorvastatin and six-fold greater potency than rosuvastatin at reducing total cholesterol. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with cerivastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 42% of the RCTs.
Topics: Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipidemias; Lipids; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Triglycerides
PubMed: 31981471
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012501.pub2 -
Reumatologia 2022Statins are a class of lipid-lowering medications used worldwide by millions of people and are safe for frequent use in most patients. However, they cause necrotizing... (Review)
Review
Statins are a class of lipid-lowering medications used worldwide by millions of people and are safe for frequent use in most patients. However, they cause necrotizing autoimmune myopathy in some patients. We reviewed case reports of 80 patients from 2010 to present diagnosed with statin-induced necrotizing autoimmune myopathy (SINAM), aiming to analyze the clinical, physiological, serologic characteristics and outcomes of SINAM. The mean age of these patients was 66 ±9.4, the majority being male (61.3%). All patients reported proximal muscle weakness, and a few had myalgias, extra muscular symptoms such as dysphagia, and pulmonary complications. Most of the patients were on atorvastatin, simvastatin, or rosuvastatin. The mean creatine kinase was 10,094.2 ±7,351.7 U/l, and anti-3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase enzyme was positive for 93.8% of patients. The majority of patients were started on steroids; other treatments were also used. Prompt cessation of statins and initiation of immunosuppressants reduced morbidity and mortality.
PubMed: 35645423
DOI: 10.5114/reum.2022.114108 -
Medicine Jun 2017The high recurrent rate of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) has consistently confused the neurosurgeons, and the role of atorvastatin in the management of CSDH has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The high recurrent rate of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) has consistently confused the neurosurgeons, and the role of atorvastatin in the management of CSDH has remained unclear over past decade, and atorvastatin seems to be a safe and cost-effective treatment to CSDH. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a systematic review to discuss the effect of atorvastatin in CSDH.
METHOD
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the China Biology Medicine disc, up to March 2017, for published studies on the effects of atorvastatin in the management of CSDH, and reviewers performed a brief qualitative descriptive analysis of atorvastatin's efficacy in the management of CSDH.
RESULTS
Three eligible studies were included in this systematic review. Results indicated that atorvastatin accelerated hematoma absorption, decreased recurrence risk, and surgical requirement.
CONCLUSION
Limited evidence suggests that oral atorvastatin may be beneficial in the management of CSDH. Further high-quality studies focused on dosage, duration, hematoma size are needed to further elucidate the role of atorvastatin in the management of CSDH.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Atorvastatin; Hematoma, Subdural, Chronic; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
PubMed: 28658127
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007290 -
European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular... Dec 2022Considering the inconsistencies in the literature on the atorvastatin effect on blood pressure (BP), we performed these meta-analyses. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Considering the inconsistencies in the literature on the atorvastatin effect on blood pressure (BP), we performed these meta-analyses.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Through a search of the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), PubMed, and Web of Science databases, 1412 articles were identified, from which 33 randomized clinical trials (RCT) and 44 pre-clinical were selected. Populations from RCT were stratified according to baseline BP and lipid levels. We performed meta-analyses of the effect of atorvastatin on systolic (SBP), diastolic and mean BP; heart rate (HR); HR variability, and baroreflex. Atorvastatin reduced SBP in the overall population (P = 0.05 vs. placebo; P = 0.03 vs. baseline), in normotensive and hyperlipidaemic (P = 0.04 vs. placebo; P = 0.0001 vs. baseline) and in hypertensive and hyperlipidaemic (P = 0.02 vs. placebo; P = 0.008 vs. baseline) individuals in parallel RCT, but it did not affect SBP in normotensive and normolipidaemic individuals (P = 0.51 vs. placebo; P = 0.4 vs. baseline). Although an effect of atorvastatin was detected in hyperlipidaemic individuals, the meta-regression coefficient for the association of low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol reduction with SBP reduction in the overall population demonstrated that SBP reduction is not dependent on the changes in LDL-cholesterol. A meta-analysis of preclinical reports demonstrated that SBP was reduced in atorvastatin-treated hypertensive and normolipidaemic rats (spontaneously hypertensive rats: P < 0.00001), but not in normotensive and normolipidaemic rats (control rats: P = 0.97). Atorvastatin also reduced the HR in spontaneously hypertensive rat.
CONCLUSION
Atorvastatin lowers BP independent of LDL-cholesterol levels. Additional studies are needed to estimate the involvement of the autonomic nervous system in the BP-lowering effect of atorvastatin.
Topics: Humans; Rats; Animals; Atorvastatin; Blood Pressure; Heart Rate; Hypertension; Cholesterol
PubMed: 36138492
DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvac053 -
TouchREVIEWS in Endocrinology Nov 2022Statin use has been linked with new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). In the present systematic review, we aimed to determine the incidence of NODM with statin use by... (Review)
Review
Statin use has been linked with new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM). In the present systematic review, we aimed to determine the incidence of NODM with statin use by assessing and summarizing the data generated by different systematic reviews and metaanalyses published on this topic. We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses using a pre-defined study protocol. Two authors independently performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies reporting data on statin use and NODM incidence and screened and extracted data for the outcomes of interest. The Assessing the Methodological Auality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The initial search yielded 621 potential records, and 16 relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the present systematic review. The included studies showed an increase in the risk of NODM with statin use. In particular, rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were associated with NODM in many systematic reviews or meta-analyses; however, pravastatin and pitavastatin were found to be associated with lower or no risk. We observed a positive trend of development of NODM with statin use became more evident with advancing years as more number of studies were added. Intensive doses of statins and use in older subjects were found to be important risk factors for NODM. Finally, the quality assessment revealed that the included systematic reviews and metaanalyses were of critically low or low quality. We concluded that statin use carries a risk of causing NODM. Statins should not be discouraged in anticipation of NODM. However, glycaemic monitoring should be encouraged with the on-going statin therapy. Furthermore, clinical studies addressing the use of statins and the incidence of NODM as their primary objective should be planned.
PubMed: 36694884
DOI: 10.17925/EE.2022.18.2.96 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2022To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.
RESULTS
After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial).
CONCLUSION
Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Agents; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35322889
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15331