-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease. People with asthma have inflammation of their airways that causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness and...
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease. People with asthma have inflammation of their airways that causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness and chest tightness, with or without a cough. Statins possess multiple therapeutic effects, including lowering lipid levels in the blood. Statins are reported to have a potential role as an adjunct treatment in asthma. However, comprehensive evidence of the benefits and harms of using statins is required to facilitate decision making.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of statins as an adjunct therapy for asthma in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for studies in the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP and Embase Ovid SP, from their inception dates We handsearched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences. We also searched clinical trials registries for completed, ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews to identify additional studies. The search is current to 7 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group design that assessed statins for at least 12 weeks' duration. We considered all participants with a clinical diagnosis of asthma to be eligible, regardless of age, sex, disease severity and previous or current treatment. We planned to include studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected the studies, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We resolved any disagreement through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only one trial involving a total of 60 people living with asthma. The trial compared the effect of atorvastatin with a placebo (dummy treatment containing lactose) in treating people with chronic asthma. The trial did not report data for the primary outcomes or adverse events. There was uncertainty about the relative effect on forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) in the atorvastatin group compared with the placebo group. The study did not report serious adverse effects for the interventions. The included study had internal discrepancies in its reported data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence was of very low certainty, so we are unable to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of statins to treat asthma. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess the effect of statins on people with asthma. Well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples and longer duration of treatment are required, which assess outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and costs, to provide better quality evidence. Future studies that include subgroups of obese people with asthma are also required.
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Atorvastatin; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Peak Expiratory Flow Rate
PubMed: 32668027
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013268.pub2 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2021Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a common clinical cardiovascular disease, and its morbidity and mortality rates are increasing, which brings a serious burden to the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a common clinical cardiovascular disease, and its morbidity and mortality rates are increasing, which brings a serious burden to the family and society. Dyslipidemia is one of the most important risk factors for CHD. However, it is difficult to reduce blood lipids to an ideal state with the administration of a statin alone. Tongxinluo capsule (TXLC), as a Chinese patent medicine, has received extensive attention in the treatment of CHD in recent years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide evidence-based medicine for TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate systematically the effectiveness and safety of TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD.
METHODS
Seven English and Chinese electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and Wanfang) were searched from inception to January 2020, to search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the literature inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed quality assessment and data extraction on the included RCTs. We performed a systematic review following Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR 2). The quality of outcomes was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). And meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.2.
RESULTS
A total of 15 RCTs with 1,578 participants were included in this review. Compared to atorvastatin treatment, TXLC combined with atorvastatin treatment showed potent efficacy when it came to the effectiveness of clinical treatment (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.29; < 0.00001), total cholesterol (TC; MD = -1.21; 95% CI, -1.53, -0.89; < 0.00001), triacylglycerol (TG; MD = -0.73; 95% CI, -0.81, -0.65; < 0.00001), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C; MD = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.31; < 0.00001), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; MD = -0.72; 95% CI, -0.80, -0.64; < 0.00001), C-reactive protein (CRP; SMD = -2.06; 95% CI, -2.56, -1.57; < 0.00001), frequency of angina pectoris (SMD = -1.41; 95% CI, -1.97, -0.85; < 0.00001), duration of angina pectoris (MD = -2.30; 95% CI, -3.39, -1.21; < 0.0001), and adverse reactions (RR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.51, 1.39; =0.50). No serious adverse events or reactions were mentioned in these RCTs. According to the PRISMA guidelines, although all studies were not fully reported in accordance with the checklist item, the reported items exceeded 80% of all items. With the AMSTAR 2 standard, the methodological quality assessment found that 9 studies were rated low quality and 6 studies were rated critically low quality. Based on the results of the systematic review, the GRADE system recommended ranking method was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and the recommendation level. The results showed that the level of evidence was low, and the recommendation intensity was a weak recommendation.
CONCLUSIONS
TXLC combined with atorvastatin in the treatment of CHD can effectively improve the effectiveness of clinical treatment, significantly reduce the frequency and duration of angina pectoris, decrease blood lipids, and improve inflammatory factors. However, due to the low quality of the literature included in these studies and the variability of the evaluation methods of each study, there is still a need for a more high-quality, large sample, multicenter clinical randomized control for further demonstration.
PubMed: 34335841
DOI: 10.1155/2021/9413704 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. 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
One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Controlled Before-After Studies; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Fatty Acids, Monounsaturated; Fluvastatin; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Indoles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Triglycerides
PubMed: 29508377
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012282.pub2 -
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 -
PloS One 2024Atorvastatin is widely recommended for long-term secondary prevention in STEMI patients with no contraindication. Although high-dose atorvastatin has been shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Atorvastatin is widely recommended for long-term secondary prevention in STEMI patients with no contraindication. Although high-dose atorvastatin has been shown to reduce important patient outcomes such as MACE, there is still doubt that high-dose atorvastatin could have the same protective effect in patients undergoing PCI in the short and long term. We searched the following electronic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central considering studies that enrolled adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of STEMI or NSTEMI undergoing PCI. The intervention must have been atorvastatin alone compared to a placebo, standard care, or a different atorvastatin dose. A total of (n = 11) studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Information on (N = 5,399) patients was available; 2,654 were assigned to receive high-dose atorvastatin therapy, and 2,745 comprised the control group. High-dose atorvastatin pre-loading significantly reduced MACE at one month of follow-up (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.67-0.91; p = 0.014) in both STEMI and NSTEMI. All-cause mortality was reduced in patients with STEMI (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.10-0.81; p = 0.029). The quality of the body of evidence was rated overall as moderate. Patients presenting with STEMI or NSTEMI benefit from high-dose atorvastatin pre-loading before PCI by reducing MACE at 30 days. The use of high-dose atorvastatin in STEMI patients reduced all-cause mortality. The beneficial effects of atorvastatin pre-loading are limited to 30 days post-PCI.
Topics: Humans; Atorvastatin; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction; Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38165842
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293404 -
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 -
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 -
Current Reviews in Clinical and... 2023A subpopulation of statin users such as subjects with chronic kidney disease (CKD), Human Immune virus (HIV), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), revascularization, metabolic...
BACKGROUND
A subpopulation of statin users such as subjects with chronic kidney disease (CKD), Human Immune virus (HIV), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), revascularization, metabolic syndrome, and/or diabetes may particularly benefit from pitavastatin pharmacotherapy.
AIM
The current systematic review aimed systematically to evaluate the effect of pitavastatin on primary cardiac events in subjects receiving pitavastatin in comparison to the other four statin members.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review on phases III and IV of randomized controlled trials (RCT-s, 11 trials) for subjects with primary cardiac events who received pitavastatin. Subjects diagnosed with any type of dyslipidemia (population 4804) and received pitavastatin (interventions) versus comparator (comparison) with the primary efficacy endpoint of minimization of LDL-C and non- HDL-C, had an increase in HDL-C and/or reduction in major adverse cardiac events (MACE, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (fatal/nonfatal), and stroke (fatal/nonfatal) and/or their composite (outcomes). The secondary safety endpoint was the development of any adverse effects.
RESULTS
In the included trials (11), participants (4804) were randomized for pitavastatin or its comparators such as atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin and followed up for 12 to 52 weeks. In terms of the primary outcome (reduction in LDL-C), pitavastatin 4 mg was superior to pravastatin 40 mg in three trials, while the 2 mg pitavastatin was comparable to atorvastatin 10 mg in four trials and simvastatin 20 and 40 mg in two 2 trials. However, rosuvastatin 2.5 mg was superior to pitavastatin 2 mg in two trials. Pitavastatin increased HDL-C and reduced non-HDL-C in eleven trials. Regarding the safety profile, pitavastatin has proved to be tolerated and safe.
CONCLUSION
The FDA-approved indications for pitavastatin included primary dyslipidemia and mixed dyslipidemia as a supplementary therapy to dietary changes to lower total cholesterol, LDL-C, apolipoprotein B (Apo B), triglycerides (TG), and enhance HDL-C. Pitavastatin might be suitable for subjects with diabetes, ACS (reduced revascularization), metabolic syndrome, CKD, HIV, and subjects with low levels of HDL-C. We highly recommend rational individualization for the selection of statin.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Atorvastatin; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Pravastatin; Cholesterol, LDL; Metabolic Syndrome; Cholesterol, HDL; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin; Dyslipidemias; Cardiovascular Diseases; HIV Infections
PubMed: 35642121
DOI: 10.2174/2772432817666220531115314 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Apr 2010Statins are the most commonly prescribed agents for hypercholesterolemia because of their efficacy and tolerability. As the number of patients in need of statin therapy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Statins are the most commonly prescribed agents for hypercholesterolemia because of their efficacy and tolerability. As the number of patients in need of statin therapy continues to increase, information regarding the relative efficacy and safety of statins is required for decision-making.
OBJECTIVE
This study will use systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of different statins at different doses and determine the therapeutically equivalent doses of statins to achieve a specific level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering effect.
METHODS
Publications of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statins were retrieved from the Oregon state database (1966-2004), MEDLINE (2005-April of 2006), EMBASE (2005-April of 2006), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry (up to the first quarter of 2006). The publications were evaluated with predetermined criteria by a reviewer before they were included in the review. The mean change in cholesterol level of each statin was calculated and weighted by number of subjects involved in each RCT. Where possible, meta-analysis was performed to generate pooled estimates of the cholesterol lowering effect of statins and the difference between statins.
RESULTS
Seventy-five studies reporting RCTs of head-to-head comparisons on statins were included. Most studies had similar baseline characteristics, except the rosuvastatin related studies. A daily dose of atorvastatin 10 mg, fluvastatin 80 mg, lovastatin 40-80 mg, and simvastatin 20 mg could decrease LDL-C by 30-40%, and fluvastatin 40 mg, lovastatin 10-20 mg, pravastatin 20-40 mg, and simvastatin 10 mg could decrease LDL-C by 20-30%. The only two statins that could reduce LDL-C more than 40% were rosuvastatin and atorvastatin at a daily dose of 20 mg or higher. Meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant but clinically minor difference (<7%) between statins in cholesterol lowering effect. Comparisons of coronary heart disease prevention and safety could not be made because of insufficient data.
CONCLUSIONS
At comparable doses, statins are therapeutically equivalent in reducing LDL-C.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Cholesterol, LDL; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hypercholesterolemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapeutic Equivalency
PubMed: 20456733
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2009.01085.x -
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