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), P < 0.001], stroke [OR 0.78 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.84), P < 0.001], death from CVD [OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.83), P < 0.001] and all-cause death [OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.88), P < 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].

The effect of various types and doses of statins on C-reactive protein levels in patients with dyslipidemia or coronary heart disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study was to measure the efficacy of various types and dosages of statins on C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with dyslipidemia or coronary heart disease.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials were searched from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, OpenGray, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for data extraction and synthesis. The pairwise meta-analysis compared statins and controls using a random-effects model, and a network meta-analysis compared the types and dosages of statins using the Bayesian random-effects model. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021242067.

Results

The study included 37 randomized controlled trials with 17,410 participants and 20 interventions. According to the pairwise meta-analysis, statins significantly decreased CRP levels compared to controls (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−1.31, −0.64], P < 0.0001). In the network meta-analysis, simvastatin 40 mg/day appeared to be the best strategy for lowering CRP (Rank P = 0.18, WMD = −4.07, 95% CI = [−6.52, −1.77]). The same was true for the high-sensitivity CRP, non-acute coronary syndrome (ACS), <12 months duration, and clear measurement subgroups. In the CRP subgroup (rank P = 0.79, WMD = −1.23, 95% CI = [−2.48, −0.08]) and ≥12-month duration subgroup (Rank P = 0.40, WMD = −2.13, 95% CI = [−4.24, −0.13]), atorvastatin 80 mg/day was most likely to be the best. There were no significant differences in the dyslipidemia and ACS subgroups (P > 0.05). Node-splitting analysis showed no significant inconsistency (P > 0.05), except for the coronary heart disease subgroup.

Conclusion

Statins reduced serum CRP levels in patients with dyslipidemia or coronary heart disease. Simvastatin 40 mg/day might be the most effective therapy, and atorvastatin 80 mg/day showed the best long-term effect. This study provides a reference for choosing statin therapy based on LDL-C and CRP levels.

Efficacy Evaluation of High-Dose Atorvastatin Pretreatment in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

It is unclear whether high-dose atorvastatin pretreatment benefits acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). To clarify this issue, we performed a meta-analysis of the published literature.

Material/Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing high-dose atorvastatin pretreatment in ACS patients undergoing PCI were enrolled. Short-term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), changes in serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), peak creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) level, and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI were studied as clinical outcomes.

Results

Seventeen RCTs including 10 072 patients were retrieved. High-dose atorvastatin showed greater benefits in reducing the incidence of short-term MACEs (OR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.94; P=0.01) and hs-CRP level (SMD −1.59; 95% CI: −2.38 to −0.80; P<0.0001) among ACS patients after PCI. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups in terms of peak CK-MB (SMD −0.34; 95% CI: −0.79 to 0.10; P=0.13) or final TIMI flow grade 3 (OR 1.31; 95% CI: 0.73 to 2.36; P=0.36) after PCI. High-dose atorvastatin therapy also was not associated with alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation (OR 1.95; 95% CI: 0.95 to 4.03; P=0.07).

Conclusions

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that high-dose atorvastatin pretreatment reduces the incidence of short-term MACEs and hs-CRP level without increasing drug-induced hepatotoxicity in ACS patients after PCI.

Use of atorvastatin in lipid disorders and cardiovascular disease in Chinese patients

Objective:

Statins are still underused for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in China. Hence, we conducted a systemic review on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and adverse events of atorvastatin, as well as on patient adherence.

Data Sources:

We conducted a systemic search in PubMed with the following keywords: “atorvastatin” (Supplementary concept) or “atorvastatin” (All field) and (“China” [AD] or “China” [all field] or “Chinese” [All field]).

Study Selection:

Clinical or basic research articles on atorvastatin were included.

Results:

Atorvastatin is a reversible and competitive inhibitor of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase, decreasing the de novo cholesterol synthesis. The pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin among Chinese is similar to those in Caucasians, and several gene polymorphisms have proved to be associated with the metabolism of atorvastatin in the Chinese population. Several international multiple-center randomized control trials have demonstrated the benefit of atorvastatin for primary and secondary prevention of CVD. None of them, however, included the Chinese, and current evidence in the population is still inadequate, due to the small sample size, low study quality, short study duration, and the use of surrogate endpoints instead of clinical endpoints. The overall incidence of adverse events observed with atorvastatin did not increase in the 10–80 mg dose range, and was similar to that observed with placebo and in patients treated with other statins, which makes atorvastatin well-tolerated in the Chinese population. Moreover, high patient adherence was observed in clinical studies.

Conclusions:

Based on the current available evidence, there is no significant difference between Chinese and non-Chinese population in term of pharmacology and clinical efficacy/safety. High-quality evidence is still needed to support the use of atorvastatin in high-risk Chinese population.

Statins for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The early period following the onset of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represents a critical stage of coronary heart disease, with a high risk of recurrent events and deaths. The short-term effects of early treatment with statins on patient-relevant outcomes in patients suffering from ACS are unclear. This is an update of a review previously published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, both harms and benefits, of early administered statins in patients with ACS, in terms of mortality and cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the searches of CENTRAL (2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to April Week 1 2013), EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 2013 Week 14), and CINAHL (EBSCO) (1938 to 2013) on 12 April 2013. We applied no language restrictions. We supplemented the search by contacting experts in the field, by reviewing the reference lists of reviews and editorials on the topic, and by searching trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing statins with placebo or usual care, with initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following the onset of ACS, follow-up of at least 30 days, and reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all outcomes in the treatment and control groups and pooled data using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies (14,303 patients) compared early statin treatment versus placebo or no treatment in patients with ACS. The new search did not identify any new studies for inclusion. There were some concerns about risk of bias and imprecision of summary estimates. Based on moderate quality evidence, early statin therapy did not decrease the combined primary outcome of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and stroke at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08) or four months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06) of follow-up when compared to placebo or no treatment. There were no statistically significant risk reductions from statins for total death, total myocardial infarction, total stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization procedures, and acute heart failure at one month or at four months, although there were favorable trends related to statin use for each of these endpoints. Moderate quality evidence suggests that the incidence of unstable angina was significantly reduced at four months following ACS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). There were nine individuals with myopathy (elevated creatinine kinase levels more than 10 times the upper limit of normal) in statin-treated patients (0.13%) versus one (0.015%) in the control groups. Serious muscle toxicity was mostly limited to patients treated with simvastatin 80 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate quality evidence, due to concerns about risk of bias and imprecision, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following ACS does not reduce death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to four months, but reduces the occurrence of unstable angina at four months following ACS. Serious side effects were rare.

Statins for acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

The early period following the onset of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represents a critical stage of coronary heart disease with a high risk for recurrent events and deaths. The short-term effects of early treatment with statins in patients suffering from ACS on patient-relevant outcomes are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early administered statins in patients with ACS from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to 1 February 2010). No language restrictions were applied. We supplemented the search by contacting experts in the field, by reviewing reference lists of reviews and editorials on the topic, and by searching trial registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing statins with placebo or usual care, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following the onset of ACS, and follow-up of at least 30 days reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We pooled treatment effects and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for all outcomes in the treatment and control groups using a random effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen studies (14,303 patients) compared early statin treatment versus placebo or usual care in patients with ACS. Compared to placebo or usual care, early statin therapy did not decrease the combined primary outcome of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke at one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08) and four months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06) of follow-up. There were no statistically significant risk reductions from statins for total death, total MI, total stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization procedures, and acute heart failure at one month and at four months, although there were favorable trends related to statin use for each of these endpoints. The incidence of episodes of unstable angina was significantly reduced at four months following ACS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96). There were nine individuals with myopathy (elevated creatinine kinase levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal) in statin treated patients (0.13%) versus one (0.015%) in the control groups. Serious muscle toxicity was mostly limited to patients treated with simvastatin 80 mg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, initiation of statin therapy within 14 days following ACS does not reduce death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to four months, but reduces the occurrence of unstable angina at four months following ACS.