-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2021To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.
RESULTS
62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020169955.
Topics: Aged; Cardiovascular Diseases; Comorbidity; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34261627
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1537 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity, and high levels of blood cholesterol are thought to be the major modifiable risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity, and high levels of blood cholesterol are thought to be the major modifiable risk factors for CVD. The use of statins is the preferred treatment strategy for the prevention of CVD, but some people at high-risk for CVD are intolerant to statin therapy or unable to achieve their treatment goals with the maximal recommended doses of statin. Ezetimibe is a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, whether it has a positive effect on CVD events remains uncertain. Results from clinical studies are inconsistent and a thorough evaluation of its efficacy and safety for the prevention of CVD and mortality is necessary.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe for the prevention of CVD and all-cause mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 27 June 2018, and two clinical trial registry platforms on 11 July 2018. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional studies. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ezetimibe versus placebo or ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone in adults, with or without CVD, and which had a follow-up of at least 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and contacted trialists to obtain missing data. We performed statistical analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 26 RCTs randomising 23,499 participants. All included studies assessed effects of ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs compared with other lipid-modifying drugs alone or plus placebo. Our findings were driven by the largest study (IMPROVE-IT), which had weights ranging from 41.5% to 98.4% in the different meta-analyses.Ezetimibe with statins probably reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with statins alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.98; a decrease from 284/1000 to 267/1000, 95% CI 256 to 278; 21,727 participants; 10 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting all-cause mortality used ezetimibe with statin or fenofibrate and found they have little or no effect on this outcome (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 21,222 participants; 8 studies; high-quality evidence). Adding ezetimibe to statins probably reduces the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; a decrease from 105/1000 to 92/1000, 95% CI 85 to 100; 21,145 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence) and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; a decrease 32/1000 to 27/1000, 95% CI 23 to 31; 21,205 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting cardiovascular mortality added ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate, probably having little or no effect on this outcome (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 19457 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The need for coronary revascularisation might be reduced by adding ezetimibe to statin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; a decrease from 196/1000 to 184/1000, 95% 175 to 194; 21,323 participants; 7 studies); however, no difference in coronary revascularisation rate was observed when a sensitivity analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias.In terms of safety, adding ezetimibe to statins may make little or no difference in the risk of hepatopathy (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.35; 20,687 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether ezetimibe increase or decrease the risk of myopathy (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.38; 20,581 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence) and rhabdomyolysis, given the wide CIs and low event rate. Little or no difference in the risk of cancer, gallbladder-related disease and discontinuation due to adverse events were observed between treatment groups. For serum lipids, adding ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate might further reduce the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and likely increase the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; however, substantial heterogeneity was detected in most analyses.None of the included studies reported on health-related quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that ezetimibe has modest beneficial effects on the risk of CVD endpoints, primarily driven by a reduction in non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke, but it has little or no effect on clinical fatal endpoints. The cardiovascular benefit of ezetimibe might involve the reduction of LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether ezetimibe increases the risk of adverse events due to the low and very low quality of the evidence. The evidence for beneficial effects was mainly obtained from individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD, predominantly with acute coronary syndrome) administered ezetimibe plus statins. However, there is limited evidence regarding the role of ezetimibe in primary prevention and the effects of ezetimibe monotherapy in the prevention of CVD, and these topics thus requires further investigation.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ezetimibe; Fenofibrate; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin; Stroke; Triglycerides
PubMed: 30480766
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012502.pub2 -
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 -
Oncotarget Apr 2016Usage of statins is suggested to decrease the incidence of HCC. When it comes to different statin subtypes, the chemopreventive action remains controversial. We aim to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
Usage of statins is suggested to decrease the incidence of HCC. When it comes to different statin subtypes, the chemopreventive action remains controversial. We aim to compare the usage of different statins and reduction of HCC risk.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase.com and Cochrane Library database up to August 10, 2015. Duplicated or overlapping reports were eliminated. We performed a traditional pair-wise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare different treatments with a random-effects model.
RESULTS
We reviewed five observational studies enrolling a total of 87127 patients who received at least two different treatment strategies including rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, fluvastatin, cerivastatin, and lovastatin or observation alone. Direct comparisons showed that usage of atorvastatin (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89) and fluvastatin (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.40-0.85) could significantly cut the risk of liver cancer. The difference of indirect comparisons between the included regimens is not statistically significant. However, usage of all types of statins, such as fluvastatin (RR 0.55, 95%CI 0.26-1.11), atorvastatin (RR 0.59, 95%CI 0.30-1.16), simvastatin (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.38-1.25), cerivastatin (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.19-2.70), pravastatin (RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.37-1.45), lovastatin (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.34-1.96) and rosuvastatin (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.44-1.80), appeared to be superior to observation alone. Notably, fluvastatin was hierarchically the best when compared with the six other statins.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses indicate the superiority of usage of statins in reduction of liver cancer. Available evidence supports that fluvastatin is the most effective strategy for reducing HCC risk compared with other statin interventions.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Bayes Theorem; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatty Acids, Monounsaturated; Fluvastatin; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Indoles; Liver; Liver Neoplasms; Lovastatin; Observational Studies as Topic; Pravastatin; Pyridines; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Simvastatin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26943041
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7832 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2011Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the human central nervous system. Statins, prescribed as cholesterol lowering agents, have shown... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory demyelinating disease of the human central nervous system. Statins, prescribed as cholesterol lowering agents, have shown possible effects for treating MS in experimental and preliminary clinical studies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins administered alone or as add-on to approved treatments for MS.
SEARCH METHODS
The Trials Search Coordinator searched the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register (1 August 2011). We searched the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 1 August 2011), trials registers and conference proceedings. Pharmaceutical companies and authors of included studies were contacted for additional information.There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing statins with placebo, or comparing statins in combination with approved treatments alone for patients with MS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Four trials involving 458 participants were included. All trials compared statins (two evaluating atorvastatin and two simvastatin) plus interferon beta-1a with interferon beta-1a alone for treating MS. The methodological quality was good for three studies and poor for remaining one. None of them showed statistically significant difference between both treatment groups in reducing relapses, preventing disease progression or developing new T2 or gadolinium-enhanced lesions on MRI after 9, 12, 24 months follow up period. Statins resulted to be safe and well tolerated, no serious adverse effects were reported. Changes on quality of life after receiving statins were not reported in the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no convincing evidence to support the use of either atorvastatin or simvastatin as an adjunctive therapy in MS.
Topics: Atorvastatin; Disease Progression; Heptanoic Acids; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Interferon-beta; Multiple Sclerosis; Pyrroles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Simvastatin
PubMed: 22161428
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008386.pub3 -
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience 2022Neural stem cell (NSC) transplantation is an emerging and promising approach to combat neurodegenerative diseases. While NSCs can differentiate into neural cell types,...
Neural stem cell (NSC) transplantation is an emerging and promising approach to combat neurodegenerative diseases. While NSCs can differentiate into neural cell types, many therapeutic effects are mediated by paracrine, "drug-like" mechanisms. Neurodegenerative diseases are predominantly a burden of the elderly who commonly suffer from comorbidities and thus are subject to pharmacotherapies. There is substantial knowledge about drug-drug interactions but almost nothing is known about a potential impact of pharmacotherapy on NSCs. Such knowledge is decisive for designing tailored treatment programs for individual patients. Previous studies revealed preliminary evidence that the anti-depressants fluoxetine and imipramine may affect NSC viability and proliferation. Here, we derive a hypothesis on how commonly applied drugs, statins and antihypertensives, may affect NSC viability, proliferation, and differentiation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at potential effects of commonly prescribed antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic medication on NSC function. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched on according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Publications were assessed against established selection criteria for relevancy. A meta-analysis was then performed on data extracted from publications eligible for full text review to estimate drug effects on NSC functions. Our systematic review identified 1,017 potential studies, 55 of which were eligible for full text review. Out of those, 21 were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on 13 publications; the remainder were excluded as they met exclusion criteria or lacked sufficient data to perform a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonists, an anti-hypertensive drug class [ < 0.05, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = -1.54; -0.35], and various statins [ < 0.05, 95% CI = -3.17; -0.0694] had an inhibiting effect on NSC proliferation. Moreover, we present preliminary evidence that L-type calcium channel blockers and statins, particularly lovastatin, may reduce NSC viability. Although the data available in the literature is limited, there are clear indications for an impact of commonly applied drugs, in particular statins, on NSC function. Considering the modes of action of the respective drugs, we reveal plausible mechanisms by which this impact may be mediated, creating a testable hypothesis, and providing insights into how future confirmative research on this topic may be conducted.
PubMed: 36277493
DOI: 10.3389/fnmol.2022.975697 -
Annals of Translational Medicine Dec 2015The aim of this systematic review was to analyse all the published clinical trials assessing treatments for Niemann-Pick (NP) disease. At present there are only trials... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to analyse all the published clinical trials assessing treatments for Niemann-Pick (NP) disease. At present there are only trials investigating the treatment of NP disease type C. Furthermore, there is no uniformity among studies in treatment outcomes or in data analysis and presentation of results. Miglustat is able to delay neurodegeneration, with greater benefits in patients with a late onset of the disease and β-cyclodextrin-hydroxypropyl (HBP-CD) can attenuate clinical symptoms. As for cholesterol-lowering drugs, the combination of lovastatin, cholestyramine and nicotinic acid is the most effective one for lowering cholesterolemia. Further research is much needed, and ongoing trials using enzyme replacement therapy might hopefully show promising results in the foreseeable future.
PubMed: 26807415
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.04 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2016Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive, late-onset disorder of the macula affecting central vision. It is the leading cause of blindness in people over... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive, late-onset disorder of the macula affecting central vision. It is the leading cause of blindness in people over 65 years in industrialized countries. Recent epidemiologic, genetic, and pathological evidence has shown that AMD shares a number of risk factors with atherosclerosis, leading to the hypothesis that statins may exert protective effects in AMD.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of statins compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in delaying the onset and progression of AMD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2016), PubMed (January 1946 to March 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 5 June 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that compared statins with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in people who were diagnosed as having the early stages of AMD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the selection criteria, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes between the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Two RCTs with a total of 144 participants met the selection criteria. Both trials compared simvastatin versus placebo in older people (older than 50 or 60 years) with high risk of developing AMD (drusen present on examination). Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, as we downgraded all outcomes due to limitations in the designs of the trials and insufficient outcome reporting. The larger trial, with 114 participants, was conducted in Australia and used a higher dose (40 mg daily) of simvastatin for three years. Participants and study personnel in this trial were adequately masked, however data were missing for 30% of participants at three years' follow-up. The smaller trial, with 30 participants, was conducted in Italy and used a lower dose (20 mg) of simvastatin for three months. This trial reported insufficient details to assess the risk of bias.Neither trial reported data for change in visual acuity. Low-quality evidence from the smaller trial, with 30 participants, did not show a statistically significant difference between the simvastatin and placebo groups in visual acuity values at three months of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.21 ± 0.56 in simvastatin group and 0.19 ± 0.40 in placebo group) or 45 days after the completion of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.20 ± 0.50 in simvastatin group and 0.19 ± 0.48 in placebo group). The lack of a difference in visual acuity was not explained by lens or retina status, which remained unchanged during and after the treatment period for both groups.Preliminary analyses of 42 participants who had completed 12 months' follow-up in the larger trial did not show a statistically significant difference between simvastatin and the placebo groups for visual acuity, drusen score, or visual function (effect estimates and confidence intervals were not available). Complete data for these outcomes at three years' follow-up were not reported. At three years, low-quality evidence showed an effect of simvastatin in slowing progression of AMD compared with placebo to be uncertain (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.09).One trial did not report adverse outcomes. The second trial reported no difference between groups in terms of adverse events such as death, muscle aches, and acute hepatitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from currently available RCTs is insufficient to conclude that statins have a role in preventing or delaying the onset or progression of AMD.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Macular Degeneration; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 27490232
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006927.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive late onset disorder of the macula affecting central vision. Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive late onset disorder of the macula affecting central vision. Age-related macular degeneration is the leading cause of blindness in people over 65 years in industrialized countries (Congdon 2003). Recent epidemiologic, genetic and pathological evidence has shown AMD shares a number of risk factors with atherosclerosis, leading to the hypothesis that statins may exert protective effects in AMD.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of statins compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in delaying the onset and/or progression of AMD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1950 to September 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to September 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 16 September 2011.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared statins with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in participants who were either susceptible to or diagnosed as having early stages of AMD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently evaluated the search results against the selection criteria. Two Italian speaking colleagues extracted data. One author entered data. We did not perform a meta-analysis because only one completed RCT was identified.
MAIN RESULTS
Two studies met the selection criteria. One trial reported insufficient details to assess the risk of bias; the other trial is ongoing.Of the completed trial, the analyses of 30 participants did not show a statistically significant difference between the simvastatin and the placebo arm in visual acuity at three months of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.21± 0.56 in simvastatin and 0.19± 0.40 in placebo arm) or 45 days after the completion of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.20± 0.50 in simvastatin and 0.19± 0.48 in placebo arm). The lens and retina status were unchanged during and after the treatment period for both groups.Of the ongoing trial, the preliminary analyses of 42 participants who completed 12 months follow-up did not show a statistically significant difference between the simvastatin and the placebo arm in visual acuity, drusen score or visual function (effect estimates and confidence intervals were not available). We contacted the investigators and will update the review as data become available.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from currently available RCTs was insufficient to conclude that statins have any role in preventing or delaying the onset or progression of AMD.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Macular Degeneration; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Simvastatin
PubMed: 22419318
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006927.pub3