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.
Atorvastatin
/ adverse effects
Cardiovascular Diseases
/ mortality
Cause of Death
Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury
/ etiology
Double-Blind Method
Fluvastatin
/ adverse effects
Headache
/ chemically induced
Humans
Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
/ adverse effects
Kidney Diseases
/ chemically induced
Lovastatin
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Muscular Diseases
/ chemically induced
Nausea
/ chemically induced
Neoplasms
/ chemically induced
Network Meta-Analysis
Placebos
/ therapeutic use
Pravastatin
/ adverse effects
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ statistics & numerical data
Risk Assessment
Rosuvastatin Calcium
/ adverse effects
Simvastatin
/ adverse effects
Withholding Treatment
Journal
American heart journal
ISSN: 1097-6744
Titre abrégé: Am Heart J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370465
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2019
04 2019
Historique:
received:
18
04
2018
accepted:
05
12
2018
pubmed:
5
2
2019
medline:
20
12
2019
entrez:
5
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30716508
pii: S0002-8703(18)30346-6
doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.12.007
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
0
Placebos
0
Fluvastatin
4L066368AS
Rosuvastatin Calcium
83MVU38M7Q
Lovastatin
9LHU78OQFD
Atorvastatin
A0JWA85V8F
Simvastatin
AGG2FN16EV
Pravastatin
KXO2KT9N0G
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18-28Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.