-
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and then updated in 2009. Vascular risk factors including high cholesterol levels increase the risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and then updated in 2009. Vascular risk factors including high cholesterol levels increase the risk of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and of vascular dementia. Some observational studies have suggested an association between statin use and lowered incidence of dementia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins for the prevention of dementia in people at risk of dementia due to their age and to determine whether the efficacy and safety of statins for this purpose depends on cholesterol level, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype or cognitive level.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS (the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal on 11 November 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials in which statins were administered for at least 12 months to people at risk of dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. All participants had a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease. The studies used different statins (simvastatin and pravastatin). Mean follow-up was 3.2 years in one study and five years in one study. The risk of bias was low. Only one study reported on the incidence of dementia (20,536 participants, 31 cases in each group; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.65, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). Both studies assessed cognitive function, but at different times using different scales, so we judged the results unsuitable for a meta-analysis. There were no differences between statin and placebo groups on five different cognitive tests (high quality evidence). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to non-fatal adverse events were less than 5% in both studies and there was no difference between statin and placebo groups in the risk of withdrawal due to adverse events (26,340 participants, 2 studies, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that statins given in late life to people at risk of vascular disease do not prevent cognitive decline or dementia. Biologically, it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. However, indication bias may have been a factor in these studies and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative. There were limitations in the included studies involving the cognitive assessments used and the inclusion of participants at moderate to high vascular risk only.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cognition; Dementia; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Middle Aged; Pravastatin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin
PubMed: 26727124
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003160.pub3 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Familial 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 Review
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: 20 February 2017.
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 (moderate quality evidence). Serum aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, as well as creatinine kinase concentrations, did not differ between treated and placebo groups at any time point (low quality evidence). The risks of myopathy (low quality evidence) and clinical adverse events (moderate quality evidence) were very low and also similar in both groups. In one study simvastatin was shown to improve flow-mediated dilatation of the brachial artery (low quality evidence), and in another study treatment with pravastatin for two years induced a significant regression in carotid intima media thickness (low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Statin treatment is an effective lipid-lowering therapy in children with familial hypercholesterolemia. No significant 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; Alanine Transaminase; Aspartate Aminotransferases; Brachial Artery; Carotid Intima-Media Thickness; Child; Child, Preschool; Cholesterol, LDL; Creatine Kinase; Female; Heterozygote; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II; Male; Puberty; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vasodilation
PubMed: 28685504
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006401.pub4 -
The Journal of the American Board of... 2005Type 2 diabetes is a serious, costly, and increasingly common disease. Several conditions commonly seen in family medicine settings confer increased risk of developing... (Review)
Review
Type 2 diabetes is a serious, costly, and increasingly common disease. Several conditions commonly seen in family medicine settings confer increased risk of developing diabetes. Among these conditions are impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting glucose, obesity, gestational diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and menopause. We here present the results of a systematic review of the literature examining the evidence for different strategies aimed at preventing type 2 diabetes in patients with these conditions. The strongest evidence supports an intensive lifestyle intervention designed to induce modest weight loss. The greatest degree of prevention, based on lesser quality evidence, may be imparted by bariatric surgery. Metformin and troglitazone have appreciable evidence in specific populations, and orlistat and acarbose have slightly less evidence among obese patients, for preventing diabetes. Ramipril, captopril, losartan, pravastatin, and estrogens show some very preliminary promise for preventing diabetes in patients treated for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and menopause, but each needs a more rigorous evaluation. Although more questions remain to be answered, family physicians now have tools available to help our patients lead lives free of diabetes.
Topics: Bariatrics; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Hormone Replacement Therapy; Humans; Hyperlipidemias; Hypertension; Male; Menopause; Obesity
PubMed: 15709062
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.18.1.37 -
JACC. Cardiovascular Imaging Feb 2015Angina without coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial morbidity and is present in 10% to 30% of patients undergoing angiography. Coronary microvascular... (Review)
Review
Angina without coronary artery disease (CAD) has substantial morbidity and is present in 10% to 30% of patients undergoing angiography. Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is present in 50% to 65% of these patients. The optimal treatment of this cohort is undefined. We performed a systematic review to evaluate treatment strategies for objectively-defined CMD in the absence of CAD. We included studies assessing therapy in human subjects with angina and coronary flow reserve or myocardial perfusion reserve <2.5 by positron emission tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, dilution methods, or intracoronary Doppler in the absence of coronary artery stenosis ≥50% or structural heart disease. Only 8 papers met the strict inclusion criteria. The papers were heterogeneous, using different treatments, endpoints, and definitions of CMD. The small sample sizes severely limit the power of these studies, with an average of 11 patients per analysis. Studies evaluating sildenafil, quinapril, estrogen, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation application demonstrated benefits in their respective endpoints. No benefit was found with L-arginine, doxazosin, pravastatin, and diltiazem. Our systematic review highlights that there is little data to support therapies for CMD. We assess the data meeting rigorous inclusion criteria and review the related but excluded published data. We additionally describe the next steps needed to address this research gap, including a standardized definition of CMD, routine assessment of CMD in studies of chest pain without obstructive CAD, and specific therapy assessment in the population with confirmed CMD.
Topics: Coronary Angiography; Coronary Circulation; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine; Microcirculation; Microvascular Angina; Myocardial Revascularization; Positron-Emission Tomography; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Regional Blood Flow
PubMed: 25677893
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2014.12.008 -
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