Dataset Information

Statins in hypercholesterolaemia: a dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomised, double blind trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Statins alter lipid concentrations. This systematic review determined the efficacy of particular statins, in terms of their ability to alter cholesterol.

Review methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, references lists of reports, and reviews were searched (September 2001) for randomised, double blind trials of statins for cholesterol in trials of 12 weeks or longer. Mean change in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides was calculated using pooled data for particular statins, and for particular doses of a statin. Pre-planned sensitivity analyses were used to determine the effects of initial concentration of total cholesterol, study duration, the effects of major trials, and effects in placebo versus active controlled trials. Information was not collected on adverse events.

Results

Different statins at a range of doses reduced total cholesterol by 17-35% and LDL-cholesterol by 24-49% from baseline. Lower doses of statins generally produced less cholesterol lowering, though for most statins in trials of 12 weeks or longer there was at best only a weak relationship between dose and cholesterol reduction. Duration of treatment and baseline total cholesterol concentration did not alter the amount of the benefit attained.

Conclusions

Statins are effective medicines and confer benefit to patients in terms of primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Reductions in total cholesterol of 25% or more and LDL cholesterol of more than 30% were recorded for fixed doses of simvastatin 40 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, and rosuvastatin 5 mg and 10 mg.

SUBMITTER: Edwards JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC317299 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Statins in hypercholesterolaemia: a dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomised, double blind trials.

Edwards Jayne E JE Moore R Andrew RA

BMC family practice 20031201

<h4>Background</h4>Statins alter lipid concentrations. This systematic review determined the efficacy of particular statins, in terms of their ability to alter cholesterol.<h4>Review methods</h4>PubMed, the Cochrane Library, references lists of reports, and reviews were searched (September 2001) for randomised, double blind trials of statins for cholesterol in trials of 12 weeks or longer. Mean change in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides was calculated using ...[more]

PMID: 14969594

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been reported. We tested the null hypothesis that the main outcome of treatment using a non-individualised (standardised) homeopathic medicine is indistinguishable from that of placebo. An additional aim was to quantify any condition-specific effects of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.MethodsLiterature search strategy, data extraction and statistical analysis all followed the methods described in a pre-published protocol. A trial comprised 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or it was unclear in one specified domain of assessment. 'Effect size' was reported as standardised mean difference (SMD), with arithmetic transformation for dichotomous data carried out as required; a negative SMD indicated an effect favouring homeopathy.ResultsForty-eight different clinical conditions were represented in 75 eligible RCTs. Forty-nine trials were classed as 'high risk of bias' and 23 as 'uncertain risk of bias'; the remaining three, clinically heterogeneous, trials displayed sufficiently low risk of bias to be designated reliable evidence. Fifty-four trials had extractable data: pooled SMD was -0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.44, -0.21), which was attenuated to -0.16 (95% CI -0.31, -0.02) after adjustment for publication bias. The three trials with reliable evidence yielded a non-significant pooled SMD: -0.18 (95% CI -0.46, 0.09). There was no single clinical condition for which meta-analysis included reliable evidence.ConclusionsThe quality of the body of evidence is low. A meta-analysis of all extractable data leads to rejection of our null hypothesis, but analysis of a small sub-group of reliable evidence does not support that rejection. Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions. Better designed and more rigorous RCTs are needed in order to develop an evidence base that can decisively provide reliable effect estimates of non-individualised homeopathic treatment.

Project description:BackgroundStatin therapy is effective for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and is widely prescribed, but there are persisting concerns that statin therapy might frequently cause muscle pain or weakness. We aimed to address these through an individual participant data meta-analysis of all recorded adverse muscle events in large, long-term, randomised, double-blind trials of statin therapy.MethodsRandomised trials of statin therapy were eligible if they aimed to recruit at least 1000 participants with a scheduled treatment duration of at least 2 years, and involved a double-blind comparison of statin versus placebo or of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen. We analysed individual participant data from 19 double-blind trials of statin versus placebo (n=123 940) and four double-blind trials of a more intensive versus a less intensive statin regimen (n=30 724). Standard inverse-variance-weighted meta-analyses of the effects on muscle outcomes were conducted according to a prespecified protocol.FindingsAmong 19 placebo-controlled trials (mean age 63 years [SD 8], with 34 533 [27·9%] women, 59 610 [48·1%] participants with previous vascular disease, and 22 925 [18·5%] participants with diabetes), during a weighted average median follow-up of 4·3 years, 16 835 (27·1%) allocated statin versus 16 446 (26·6%) allocated placebo reported muscle pain or weakness (rate ratio [RR] 1·03; 95% CI 1·01-1·06). During year 1, statin therapy produced a 7% relative increase in muscle pain or weakness (1·07; 1·04-1·10), corresponding to an absolute excess rate of 11 (6-16) events per 1000 person-years, which indicates that only one in 15 ([1·07-1·00]/1·07) of these muscle-related reports by participants allocated to statin therapy were actually due to the statin. After year 1, there was no significant excess in first reports of muscle pain or weakness (0·99; 0·96-1·02). For all years combined, more intensive statin regimens (ie, 40-80 mg atorvastatin or 20-40 mg rosuvastatin once per day) yielded a higher RR than less intensive or moderate-intensity regimens (1·08 [1·04-1·13] vs 1·03 [1·00-1·05]) compared with placebo, and a small excess was present (1·05 [0·99-1·12]) for more intensive regimens after year 1. There was no clear evidence that the RR differed for different statins, or in different clinical circumstances. Statin therapy yielded a small, clinically insignificant increase in median creatine kinase values of approximately 0·02 times the upper limit of normal.InterpretationStatin therapy caused a small excess of mostly mild muscle pain. Most (>90%) of all reports of muscle symptoms by participants allocated statin therapy were not due to the statin. The small risks of muscle symptoms are much lower than the known cardiovascular benefits. There is a need to review the clinical management of muscle symptoms in patients taking a statin.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Project description:ObjectiveTo analyse the benefits and harms of statins in patients with chronic kidney disease (pre-dialysis, dialysis, and transplant populations).DesignMeta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and Renal Health Library (July 2006).Study selectionRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of statins compared with placebo or other statins in chronic kidney disease.Data extraction and analysisTwo reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Differences were resolved by consensus. Treatment effects were summarised as relative risks or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals by using a random effects model.ResultsFifty trials (30 144 patients) were included. Compared with placebo, statins significantly reduced total cholesterol (42 studies, 6390 patients; weighted mean difference -42.28 mg/dl (1.10 mmol/l), 95% confidence interval -47.25 to -37.32), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (39 studies, 6216 patients; -43.12 mg/dl (1.12 mmol/l), -47.85 to -38.40), and proteinuria (g/24 hours) (6 trials, 311 patients; -0.73 g/24 hour, -0.95 to -0.52) but did not improve glomerular filtration rate (11 studies, 548 patients; 1.48 ml/min (0.02 ml/s), -2.32 to 5.28). Fatal cardiovascular events (43 studies, 23 266 patients; relative risk 0.81, 0.73 to 0.90) and non-fatal cardiovascular events (8 studies, 22 863 patients; 0.78, 0.73 to 0.84) were reduced with statins, but statins had no significant effect on all cause mortality (44 studies, 23 665 patients; 0.92, 0.82 to 1.03). Meta-regression analysis showed that treatment effects did not vary significantly with stage of chronic kidney disease. The side effect profile of statins was similar to that of placebo. Most of the available studies were small and of suboptimal quality; mortality data were provided by a few large trials only.ConclusionStatins significantly reduce lipid concentrations and cardiovascular end points in patients with chronic kidney disease, irrespective of stage of disease, but no benefit on all cause mortality or the role of statins in primary prevention has been established. Reno-protective effects of statins are uncertain because of relatively sparse data and possible outcomes reporting bias.

Dataset Information

Statins in hypercholesterolaemia: a dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomised, double blind trials.

Background

Review methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Statins in hypercholesterolaemia: a dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomised, double blind trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets