-
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology &... Apr 2020The high prevalence of statin and clarithromycin utilization creates potential for overlapping use. The objectives of this MiniReview were to investigate the evidence... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
The high prevalence of statin and clarithromycin utilization creates potential for overlapping use. The objectives of this MiniReview were to investigate the evidence base for drug-drug interactions between clarithromycin and currently marketed statins and to present management strategies for these drug combinations. We conducted a systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines with English language studies retrieved from PubMed and EMBASE (from inception through March 2019). We included 29 articles (16 case reports, 5 observational, 5 clinical pharmacokinetic and 3 in vitro studies). Based on mechanistic/clinical studies involving clarithromycin or the related macrolide erythromycin (both strong inhibitors of CYP3A4 and of hepatic statin uptake transporters OATP1B1 and OATP1B3), clarithromycin is expected to substantially increase systemic exposure to simvastatin and lovastatin (>5-fold increase in area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)), moderately increase AUCs of atorvastatin and pitavastatin (2- to 4-fold AUC increase) and slightly increase pravastatin exposure (≈2-fold AUC increase) while having little effect on fluvastatin or rosuvastatin. The 16 cases of statin-clarithromycin adverse drug reactions (rhabdomyolysis (n = 14) or less severe clinical myopathy) involved a CYP3A4-metabolized statin (simvastatin, lovastatin or atorvastatin). In line, a cohort study found concurrent use of clarithromycin and CYP3A4-metabolized statins to be associated with a doubled risk of hospitalization with rhabdomyolysis or other statin-related adverse events as compared with azithromycin-statin co-administration. If clarithromycin is necessary, we recommend (a) avoiding co-administration with simvastatin, lovastatin or atorvastatin; (b) withholding or dose-reducing pitavastatin; (c) continuing pravastatin therapy with caution, limiting pravastatin dose to 40 mg daily; and (d) continuing fluvastatin or rosuvastatin with caution.
Topics: Area Under Curve; Clarithromycin; Drug Interactions; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Rhabdomyolysis
PubMed: 31628882
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.13343 -
PloS One 2022Disturbed cognitive function is associated with several causes of mortality; however, the association between cognitive function and the risk of cancer death has not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of cognitive function with increased risk of cancer death and all-cause mortality: Longitudinal analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.
BACKGROUND
Disturbed cognitive function is associated with several causes of mortality; however, the association between cognitive function and the risk of cancer death has not been extensively investigated yet. We aimed to evaluate the association of cognitive function with the risk of cancer death and all-cause mortality in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) and Leiden 85-plus Study. Additionally, a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies were conducted to evaluate the association of cognitive function and risk of cancer death.
METHODS
Risk of cancer death and all-cause mortality were reported using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in tertiles of cognitive function of PROSPER and Leiden85-Plus Study. Additionally, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, CINHAL, and Emcare were searched up to November 1st, 2020 to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. The relative risks (RRs) with 95%CI of cancer death per each standard deviation lower performance in cognitive measurements were calculated.
RESULTS
Participants of PROSPER had 1.65-fold (95%CI 1.11-2.47) greater risk of cancer death (P for trend = 0.016) and 1.85-fold (95%CI 1.46-2.34) higher risk of all-cause mortality (P for trend<0.001), in multivariable models. Results of the Leiden-85 Plus Study showed that subjects with MMSE score below 24 had a lower chance of cancer death (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.36-1.70, P for trend = 0.820) but had 2.18-fold (95%CI 1.57-3.02) higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to the reference group (P for trend<0.001). Besides, the results of systematic review and meta-analysis showed that per each standard deviation lower performance in cognitive function, individuals were at a 10% higher chance of cancer death (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.20, P-value = 0.044).
CONCLUSIONS
Lower cognitive function performance is associated with a marginally increased risk of cancer death, in line with a significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cognition; Cognitive Dysfunction; Female; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Pravastatin; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34995287
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261826 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019Familial hypercholesterolemia is one of the most common inherited metabolic diseases and is an autosomal dominant disorder meaning heterozygotes, or carriers, are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Familial hypercholesterolemia is one of the most common inherited metabolic diseases and is an autosomal dominant disorder meaning heterozygotes, or carriers, are affected. Those who are homozygous have severe disease. The average worldwide prevalence of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia is at least 1 in 500, although recent genetic epidemiological data from Denmark and next generation sequencing data suggest the frequency may be closer to 1 in 250. Diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia in children is based on elevated total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels or DNA-based analysis, or both. Coronary atherosclerosis has been detected in men with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia as young as 17 years old and in women with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia at 25 years old. Since the clinical complications of atherosclerosis occur prematurely, especially in men, lifelong treatment, started in childhood, is needed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. In children with the disease, diet was the cornerstone of treatment but the addition of lipid-lowering medications has resulted in a significant improvement in treatment. Anion exchange resins, such as cholestyramine and colestipol, were found to be effective, but they are poorly tolerated. Since the 1990s studies carried out on children aged 6 to 17 years with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia have demonstrated significant reductions in their serum total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. While statins seem to be safe and well-tolerated in children, their long-term safety in this age group is not firmly established. This is an update of a previously published version of this Cochane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of statins in children with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant studies were identified from the Group's Inborn Errors and Metabolism Trials Register and Medline. Date of most recent search: 04 November 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized and controlled clinical studies including participants up to 18 years old, comparing a statin to placebo or to diet alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We found 26 potentially eligible studies, of which we included nine randomized placebo-controlled studies (1177 participants). In general, the intervention and follow-up time was short (median 24 weeks; range from six weeks to two years). Statins reduced the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration at all time points (high-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in liver function (serum aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, as well as creatinine kinase concentrations) between treated and placebo groups at any time point (low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in myopathy (as measured in change in creatinine levels) (low-quality evidence) or clinical adverse events (moderate-quality evidence) with statins compared to placebo. One study on simvastatin showed that this may slightly improve flow-mediated dilatation of the brachial artery (low-quality evidence), and on pravastatin for two years may have induced a regression in carotid intima media thickness (low-quality evidence). No studies reported rhabdomyolysis (degeneration of skeletal muscle tissue) or death due to rhabdomyolysis, quality of life or compliance to study medication.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Statin treatment is an effective lipid-lowering therapy in children with familial hypercholesterolemia. Few or no safety issues were identified. Statin treatment seems to be safe in the short term, but long-term safety remains unknown. Children treated with statins should be carefully monitored and followed up by their pediatricians and their care transferred to an adult lipidologist once they reach 18 years of age. Large long-term randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the long-term safety issues of statins.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Cholesterol, LDL; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 31696945
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006401.pub5 -
Cancer Causes & Control : CCC Oct 2020The link between lipid-stabilizing medications and epithelial ovarian carcinogenesis is incompletely understood. Statins may reduce ovarian cancer risk, but results are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The link between lipid-stabilizing medications and epithelial ovarian carcinogenesis is incompletely understood. Statins may reduce ovarian cancer risk, but results are inconclusive.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting associations between statin use and ovarian cancer risk in PubMed. Summary risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses by cancer histotype, statin class (lipo- or hydrophilic) and duration of statin use were conducted. Use of individual statins in populations was assessed to determine population-specific differences in statin types.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 435,237 total women were included (1 randomized controlled trial (RCT); 4 prospective; 4 case-control). Statin use was associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74-1.03) and risk was significantly reduced in populations with low pravastatin use (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99). Risk estimates varied by statin class (3 studies; lipophilic: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69-1.12; hydrophilic: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72-1.57) and cancer histotype (3 studies; serous: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69-1.30; clear cell: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.74-1.86). Long-term use was associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.10) that further reduced when pravastatin use was low (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-1.01). Between-study heterogeneity was high overall and in subgroups (I > 60%).
CONCLUSION
Statins may be associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, but the effect likely differs by individual statin, duration of use and cancer histotype. Additional well-powered studies are needed to elucidate important subgroup effects.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Ovarian Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 32685996
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01327-8 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jun 2003To determine by how much statins reduce serum concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and incidence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) events and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine by how much statins reduce serum concentrations of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and incidence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) events and stroke, according to drug, dose, and duration of treatment.
DESIGN
Three meta-analyses: 164 short term randomised placebo controlled trials of six statins and LDL cholesterol reduction; 58 randomised trials of cholesterol lowering by any means and IHD events; and nine cohort studies and the same 58 trials on stoke.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Reductions in LDL cholesterol according to statin and dose; reduction in IHD events and stroke for a specified reduction in LDL cholesterol.
RESULTS
Reductions in LDL cholesterol (in the 164 trials) were 2.8 mmol/l (60%) with rosuvastatin 80 mg/day, 2.6 mmol/l (55%) with atorvastatin 80 mg/day, 1.8 mmol/l (40%) with atorvastatin 10 mg/day, lovastatin 40 mg/day, simvastatin 40 mg/day, or rosuvastatin 5 mg/day, all from pretreatment concentrations of 4.8 mmol/l. Pravastatin and fluvastatin achieved smaller reductions. In the 58 trials, for an LDL cholesterol reduction of 1.0 mmol/l the risk of IHD events was reduced by 11% in the first year of treatment, 24% in the second year, 33% in years three to five, and by 36% thereafter (P < 0.001 for trend). IHD events were reduced by 20%, 31%, and 51% in trials grouped by LDL cholesterol reduction (means 0.5 mmol/l, 1.0 mmol/l, and 1.6 mmol/l) after results from first two years of treatment were excluded (P < 0.001 for trend). After several years a reduction of 1.8 mmol/l would reduce IHD events by an estimated 61%. Results from the same 58 trials, corroborated by results from the nine cohort studies, show that lowering LDL cholesterol decreases all stroke by 10% for a 1 mmol/l reduction and 17% for a 1.8 mmol/l reduction. Estimates allow for the fact that trials tended to recruit people with vascular disease, among whom the effect of LDL cholesterol reduction on stroke is greater because of their higher risk of thromboembolic stroke (rather than haemorrhagic stroke) compared with people in the general population.
CONCLUSIONS
Statins can lower LDL cholesterol concentration by an average of 1.8 mmol/l which reduces the risk of IHD events by about 60% and stroke by 17%.
Topics: Cholesterol, LDL; Cohort Studies; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Myocardial Ischemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Stroke
PubMed: 12829554
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.326.7404.1423 -
Critical Care (London, England) May 2022Survival has been considered the cornerstone for clinical outcome evaluation in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). There is evidence that ICU... (Review)
Review
Survival has been considered the cornerstone for clinical outcome evaluation in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). There is evidence that ICU survivors commonly show impairments in long-term outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) considering them as the most relevant ones. In the last years, the concept of patient-important outcomes has been introduced and increasingly reported in peer-reviewed publications. In the present systematic review, we evaluated how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted on critically ill patients and reporting a benefit on survival reported also data on QoL. All RCTs investigating nonsurgical interventions that significantly reduced mortality in critically ill patients were searched on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception until August 2021. In a second stage, for all the included studies, the outcome QoL was investigated. The primary outcome was to evaluate how many RCTs analyzing interventions reducing mortality reported also data on QoL. The secondary endpoint was to investigate if QoL resulted improved, worsened or not modified. Data on QoL were reported as evaluated outcome in 7 of the 239 studies (2.9%). The tools to evaluate QoL and QoL time points were heterogeneous. Four interventions showed a significant impact on QoL: Two interventions improved survival and QoL (pravastatin in subarachnoid hemorrhage, dexmedetomidine in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery), while two interventions reduced mortality but negatively influenced QoL (caloric restriction in patients with refeeding syndrome and systematic ICU admission in elderly patients). In conclusion, only a minority of RCTs in which an intervention demonstrated to affect mortality in critically ill patients reported also data on QoL. Future research in critical care should include patient-important outcomes like QoL besides mortality. Data on this topic should be collected in conformity with PROs statement and core outcome sets to guarantee quality and comparability of results.
Topics: Aged; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Hospitalization; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35524315
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-022-03993-3 -
BMC Gastroenterology Mar 2021There is increased interest in the therapeutic use of statins in cirrhosis, but preferred statin and safety outcomes are still not well known. In this systematic review...
BACKGROUND/AIMS
There is increased interest in the therapeutic use of statins in cirrhosis, but preferred statin and safety outcomes are still not well known. In this systematic review we aimed to address pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and effects on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of statins in cirrhosis.
METHODS
Our systematic search in several electronic databases and repositories of two regulatory bodies up to 2020-06-11 yielded 22 articles and 2 drug monographs with relevant data.
RESULTS
Rosuvastatin and pitavastatin showed minimal PK changes in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. Only rosuvastatin was assessed in a repeated dosing PK study. Atorvastatin showed pronounced PK changes in cirrhosis. No PK data was found for simvastatin, the most commonly used statin in cirrhosis trials. There was insufficient data to assess CV effects of statins in cirrhosis. Clinical trials in cirrhosis were limited to simvastatin, atorvastatin, and pravastatin. In patients taking simvastatin 40 mg, pooled frequency of rhabdomyolysis was 2%, an incidence 40-fold higher than that reported in non-cirrhosis patients, while this was no rhabdomyolysis observed in patients on simvastatin 20 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg. Drug-induced liver injury was of difficult interpretation due to co-existence of muscle damage. No overt liver failure was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Simvastatin 40 mg should be avoided in decompensated cirrhosis. Safety data on simvastatin 20 mg or other statins are based on small study sample size. This rarity of evidence combined with lack of data in dose adjustment methods in cirrhosis is a barrier for using statins for CV indications or for investigational use for liver indications.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Liver Cirrhosis; Pravastatin; Simvastatin
PubMed: 33726685
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-01704-w -
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 2022To explore the associations between different types and doses of statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Associations between statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses of 47 randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVES
To explore the associations between different types and doses of statins and adverse events in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials that compared statins with non-statin controls or different types or doses of statins. The primary outcomes included muscle condition, transaminase elevations, renal insufficiency, gastrointestinal discomfort, cancer, new onset or exacerbation of diabetes, cognitive impairment, and eye condition. We also analyzed myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death from cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and all-cause death as the secondary outcomes to compare the potential harms with the benefits of statins. We conducted pairwise meta-analyses to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. Network meta-analyses were performed to compare the adverse effects of different statins. An Emax model was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.
RESULTS
Forty-seven trials involving 107,752 participants were enrolled and followed up for 4.05 years. Compared with non-statin control, statins were associated with an increased risk of transaminase elevations [OR 1.62 (95% CI 1.20 to 2.18)]. Statins decreased the risk of MI [OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.71), < 0.001], stroke [OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.84), < 0.001], death from CVD [OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), < 0.001] and all-cause death [OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.88), < 0.001]. Atorvastatin showed a higher risk of transaminase elevations than non-statin control [OR 4.0 (95% CI 2.2 to 7.6)], pravastatin [OR 3.49 (95% CI 1.77 to 6.92)] and simvastatin [OR 2.77 (95% CI 1.31 to 5.09)], respectively. Compared with atorvastatin, simvastatin was associated with a lower risk of muscle problems [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.90)], while rosuvastatin showed a higher risk [OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.61)]. An Emax dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on transaminase elevations.
CONCLUSION
Statins were associated with increased risks of transaminases elevations in secondary prevention. Our study provides the ranking probabilities of statins that can help clinicians make optimal decisions when there is not enough literature to refer to.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/], identifier [CRD42021285161].
PubMed: 36093163
DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.929020 -
European Heart Journal Dec 2016The efficacy and safety of different statins for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in the primary prevention setting remain to be established. In the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and safety of different statins for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in the primary prevention setting remain to be established. In the present meta-analysis, 18 studies with 736 HIV-positive patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) and treated with statins in the primary prevention setting were included (21.0% women, median age 44.1 years old). The primary endpoint was the effect of statin therapy on total cholesterol (TC) levels. Rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg provided the largest reduction in TC levels [mean -1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-1.99, -1.35) mmol/L; and mean -1.44, 95% CI (-1.85, -1.02) mmol/L, respectively]. Atorvastatin 80 mg and simvastatin 20 mg provided the largest reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) [mean -2.10, 95% CI (-3.39, -0.81) mmol/L; and mean -1.57, 95% CI (-2.67, -0.47) mmol/L, respectively]. Pravastatin 10-20 mg [mean 0.24, 95% CI (0.10, 0.38) mmol/L] and atorvastatin 10 mg [mean 0.15, 95% CI (0.007, 0.23) mmol/L] had the largest increase in high-density lipoprotein, whereas atorvastatin 80 mg [mean -0.60, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.11) mmol/L] and simvastatin 20 mg [mean -0.61, 95% CI (-1.14, -0.08) mmol/L] had the largest reduction in triglycerides. The mean discontinuation rate was 0.12 per 100 person-years [95% CI (0.05, 0.20)], and was higher with atorvastatin 10 mg [26.5 per 100 person-years, 95% CI (-13.4, 64.7)]. Meta-regression revealed that nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-sparing regimens were associated with reduced efficacy for statin's ability to lower TC. Statin therapy significantly lowers plasma TC and LDL levels in HIV-positive patients and is associated with low rates of adverse events. Statins are effective and safe when dose-adjusted for drug-drug interactions with cART.
Topics: Adult; Anticholesteremic Agents; Atorvastatin; Cholesterol, LDL; Female; HIV Infections; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Primary Prevention; Pyrroles; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Simvastatin
PubMed: 26851703
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv734 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elevated levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein play an important role in the development of atheromas and, therefore, in cardiovascular diseases. Cholesterol biosynthesis follows a circadian rhythm and is principally produced at night (between 12:00 am and 6:00 am). The adjustment of hypolipaemic therapy to biologic rhythms is known as chronotherapy. Chronotherapy is based on the idea that medication can have different effects depending on the hour at which it is taken. Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular events. In usual clinical practice, statins are administered once per day without specifying the time when they should be taken. It is unknown whether the timing of statin administration is important for clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To critically evaluate and analyse the evidence available from randomised controlled trials regarding the effects of chronotherapy on the effectiveness and safety of treating hyperlipidaemia with statins.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, OpenSIGLE, Web of Science Conference Proceedings, and various other resources including clinical trials registers up to November 2015. We also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling people with primary or secondary hyperlipidaemia. To be included, trials must have compared any chronotherapeutic lipid-lowering regimen with statins and any other statin lipid-lowering regimen not based on chronotherapy. We considered any type and dosage of statin as eligible, as long as the control and experimental arms differed only in the timing of the administration of the same statin. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted the key data from studies in relation to participants, interventions, and outcomes for safety and efficacy. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and we used the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool to import data from Review Manager to create 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes eight RCTs (767 participants analysed in morning and evening arms). The trials used different lipid-lowering regimens with statins (lovastatin: two trials; simvastatin: three trials; fluvastatin: two trials; pravastatin: one trial). All trials compared the effects between morning and evening statin administration. Trial length ranged from four to 14 weeks. We found a high risk of bias in the domain of selective reporting in three trials and in the domain of incomplete outcome data in one trial of the eight trials included. None of the studies included were judged to be at low risk of bias.None of the included RCTs reported data on cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, incidence of cardiovascular events, or deaths from any cause. Pooled results showed no evidence of a difference in total cholesterol (MD 4.33, 95% CI -1.36 to 10.01), 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (MD 4.85 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.87 to 10.57, 473 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (MD 0.54, 95% CI -1.08 to 2.17, 514 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) or triglycerides (MD -8.91, 95% CI -22 to 4.17, 510 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence) between morning and evening statin administration.With regard to safety outcomes, five trials (556 participants) reported adverse events. Pooled analysis found no differences in statins adverse events between morning and evening intake (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.15, 556 participants, five trials, mean follow-up 9 weeks, low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Limited and low-quality evidence suggested that there were no differences between chronomodulated treatment with statins in people with hyperlipidaemia as compared to conventional treatment with statins, in terms of clinically relevant outcomes. Studies were short term and therefore did not report on our primary outcomes, cardiovascular clinical events or death. The review did not find differences in adverse events associated with statins between both regimens. Taking statins in the evening does not have an effect on the improvement of lipid levels with respect to morning administration. Further high-quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm the results of this review.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Drug Chronotherapy; Fatty Acids, Monounsaturated; Fluvastatin; Humans; Hyperlipidemias; Indoles; Lovastatin; Pravastatin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin
PubMed: 27888640
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009462.pub2