-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness of statins on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol in people with diabetes and at risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to 1 December 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials comparing different types and intensities of statins, including placebo, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was changes in levels of non-HDL-C, calculated from measures of total cholesterol and HDL-C. Secondary outcomes were changes in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol, three point major cardiovascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death related to cardiovascular disease), and discontinuations because of adverse events. A bayesian network meta-analysis of statin intensity (low, moderate, or high) with random effects evaluated the treatment effect on non-HDL-C by mean differences and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analysis of patients at greater risk of major cardiovascular events was compared with patients at low or moderate risk. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework was applied to determine the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
In 42 randomised controlled trials involving 20 193 adults, 11 698 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the greatest reductions in levels of non-HDL-C were seen with rosuvastatin at high (-2.31 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -3.39 to -1.21) and moderate (-2.27, -3.00 to -1.49) intensities, and simvastatin (-2.26, -2.99 to -1.51) and atorvastatin (-2.20, -2.69 to -1.70) at high intensity. Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C. In 4670 patients at greater risk of a major cardiovascular events, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (-1.98, -4.16 to 0.26, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 64%). Simvastatin (-1.93, -2.63 to -1.21) and rosuvastatin (-1.76, -2.37 to -1.15) at high intensity were the most effective treatment options for reducing LDL-C. Significant reductions in non-fatal myocardial infarction were found for atorvastatin at moderate intensity compared with placebo (relative risk=0.57, confidence interval 0.43 to 0.76, n=4 studies). No significant differences were found for discontinuations, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular deaths.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis indicated that rosuvastatin, at moderate and high intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin, at high intensity doses, were most effective at moderately reducing levels of non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. Given the potential improvement in accuracy in predicting cardiovascular disease when reduction in levels of non-HDL-C is used as the primary target, these findings provide guidance on which statin types and intensities are most effective by reducing non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021258819.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 35331984
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067731 -
American Heart Journal Apr 2019The current guidelines of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention were based on results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that suffer from... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants.
UNLABELLED
The current guidelines of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention were based on results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that suffer from limitations.
METHODS
We searched in PubMed for existing systematic reviews and individual open-label or double-blinded randomized controlled trials that compared a statin with a placebo or another, which were published in English until January 01, 2018. We performed a random-effect pairwise meta-analysis of all statins as a class and network meta-analysis for the specific statins on different benefit and harm outcomes.
RESULTS
In the pairwise meta-analyses, statins as a class showed statistically significant risk reductions on non-fatal MI (risk ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.72), CVD mortality (RR 0.80, 0.71-0.91), all-cause mortality (RR 0.89, 0.85-0.93), non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 0.75-0.92), unstable angina (RR 0.75, 0.63-0.91), and composite major cardiovascular events (RR 0.74, 0.67-0.81). Statins increased statistically significantly relative and absolute risks of myopathy (RR 1.08, 1.01-1.15; Risk difference [RD] 13, 2-24 per 10,000 person-years); renal dysfunction (RR 1.12, 1.00-1.26; RD 16, 0-36 per 10,000 person-years); and hepatic dysfunction (RR 1.16, 1.02-1.31; RD 8, 1-16 per 10,000 person-years). The drug-level network meta-analyses showed that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were most effective in reducing CVD events while atorvastatin appeared to have the best safety profile.
CONCLUSIONS
All statins showed statistically significant risk reduction of CVD and all-cause mortality in primary prevention populations while increasing the risk for some harm risks. However, the benefit-harm profile differed by statin type. A quantitative assessment of the benefit-harm balance is thus needed since meta-analyses alone are insufficient to inform whether statins provide net benefit.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Double-Blind Method; Fluvastatin; Headache; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Kidney Diseases; Lovastatin; Middle Aged; Muscular Diseases; Nausea; Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Pravastatin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Simvastatin; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30716508
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.12.007 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2022To review of the efficacy and safety of pravastatin use for prophylaxis and treatment of preeclampsia.
OBJECTIVE
To review of the efficacy and safety of pravastatin use for prophylaxis and treatment of preeclampsia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies evaluating pravastatin for treatment and/or prophylaxis of preeclampsia.
DATA COLLECTION
Two independent reviewers systematically searched data from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov databases, for studies evaluating pravastatin for prevention of pre-eclampsia.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were identified, including 1,570 pregnant women who received either pravastatin or placebo, published between 2003 and 2022. From these studies, 5 studies were identified for inclusion in the meta-analysis to evaluate the role of pravastatin use prior to 20 weeks of gestation, to prevent pre-eclampsia, Pravastatin treatment reduced the incidence of preeclampsia by 61% and premature birth by 45%. Among the newborns, there was a 45% reduction in intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) in the treated group, as well as a 77% reduction in those receiving neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic treatment with pravastatin appears to reduce risk of developing pre-eclampsia as well as potentially lowering risk of IUGR, preterm birth, and NICU admission in neonates.
PubMed: 36714131
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1076372 -
Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2020The drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Lipid-Lowering/Increasing Efficacy of 7 Statins in Patients with Dyslipidemia, Cardiovascular Diseases, or Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses of 50 Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
The drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the lipid-lowering/increasing effects of 7 different statins in patients with dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus by conducting systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) of the lipid changes after certain statins' use.
METHODS
In this study, we searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through February 25, 2020, comparing the lipid-lowering efficacy of no less than two of the included statins (or statin vs. placebo). Three reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Firstly, mixed treatment overall comparison analyses, in the form of frequentist NMAs, were conducted using STATA 15.0 software. Then, subgroup analyses were conducted according to different baseline diseases. At last, sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration. The trial was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42018108799).
RESULTS
As a result, seven statin monotherapy treatments in 50 studies (51956 participants) were used for the analyses. The statins included simvastatin (SIM), fluvastatin (FLU), atorvastatin (ATO), rosuvastatin (ROS), lovastatin (LOV), pravastatin (PRA), and pitavastatin (PIT). In terms of LDL-C lowering, rosuvastatin ranked 1 with a surface under cumulated ranking (SUCRA) value of 93.1%. The comparative treatment efficacy for LDL-C lowering was ROS>ATO>PIT>SIM>PRA>FLU>LOV>PLA. All of the other ranking and NMA results were reported in SUCRA plots and league tables.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the NMAs, it can be concluded that rosuvastatin ranked 1 in LDL-C, ApoB-lowering efficacy and ApoA1-increasing efficacy. Lovastatin ranked 1 in TC- and TG-lowering efficacy, and fluvastatin ranked 1 in HDL-C-increasing efficacy. The results should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations in our review. However, they can provide references and evidence-based foundation for drug selection in both statin monotherapies and statin combination therapies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomarkers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus; Down-Regulation; Dyslipidemias; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Lipids; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32411300
DOI: 10.1155/2020/3987065 -
Pravastatin and placental insufficiency associated disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022Uteroplacental insufficiency associated disorders, such as preeclampsia, fetal growth restriction and obstetrical antiphospholipid syndrome, share pathophysiology and...
Uteroplacental insufficiency associated disorders, such as preeclampsia, fetal growth restriction and obstetrical antiphospholipid syndrome, share pathophysiology and risk factors with cardiovascular diseases treated with statins. To evaluate pregnancy outcomes among women with uteroplacental insufficiency disorders who were treated with statins. Electronic databases were searched from inception to January 2022 Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using a random-effects model; meta-regression was utilized when applicable. The analysis included ten studies describing 1,391 women with uteroplacental insufficiency disorders: 703 treated with pravastatin and 688 not treated with statins. Women treated with pravastatin demonstrated significant prolongation of pregnancy (mean difference 0.44 weeks, 95%CI:0.01-0.87, = 0.04, I = 96%) and less neonatal intensive care unit admissions (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.23-0.75, = 0.004, I = 25%). In subgroup analysis, prolongation of pregnancy from study entry to delivery was statistically significant in cohort studies (mean difference 8.93 weeks, 95%CI:4.22-13.95, = 0.00) but not in randomized control studies. Trends were observed toward a decrease in preeclampsia diagnoses (OR = 0.54, 95%CI:0.27-1.09, = 0.09, I = 44%), perinatal death (OR = 0.32, 95%CI:0.09-1.13, = 0.08, I = 54%) and an increase in birth weight (mean difference = 102 g, 95%CI: -14-212, = 0.08, I = 96%). A meta-regression analysis demonstrated an association between earlier gestational age at initiation of treatment and a lower risk of preeclampsia development (R = 1). Pravastatin treatment prolonged pregnancy duration and improved associated obstetrical outcomes in pregnancies complicated with uteroplacental insufficiency disorders in cohort studies. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ identifier CRD42020165804 17/2/2020.
PubMed: 36438820
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1021548 -
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey Jan 2018We have performed a systematic search to summarize the role of statins for preventing and treating severe preeclampsia. (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
We have performed a systematic search to summarize the role of statins for preventing and treating severe preeclampsia.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to examine whether pravastatin is a useful and safe alternative for treating preeclampsia during pregnancy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic MEDLINE (PubMed) search was performed (1979 to June 2017), which was restricted to articles published in English, using the relevant key words of "statins," "pregnancy," "preeclampsia," "obstetrical antiphospholipid syndrome," and "teratogenicity."
RESULTS
The initial search provided 296 articles. Finally, 146 articles were related to the use of statins during pregnancy, regarding their effect on the fetus and the treatment of preeclampsia. Ten studies were related to in vitro studies, 25 in animals, and 24 in humans (13 case report series and 11 cohort studies). We found 84 studies on reviews of such guidelines on cardiovascular disease (35 studies), use of statins in the antiphospholipid syndrome (25 studies), statin's specific use during pregnancy (13 studies), or preeclampsia treatment (11 studies).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the studies are of poor quality, the rate of major congenital abnormalities in the newborn exposed to statins during pregnancy is no higher than the expected when compared with overall risk population. The review shows a potential beneficial role of statins in preventing and treating severe preeclampsia that needs to be evaluated through well-designed clinical trials.
RELEVANCE
This update could influence positively the clinical practice, giving an alternative therapy for clinicians who treat preeclampsia, particularly in severe cases.
Topics: Animals; Disease Models, Animal; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Placenta; Placentation; Pravastatin; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 29368790
DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000522 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin 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 lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 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 pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Pravastatin; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Fluvastatin; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37721222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013673.pub2 -
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 -
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