Dataset Information

Statins and prevention of infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from large randomised placebo controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate whether the potential of statins to lower the risk of infections as published in observational studies is causal.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo controlled trials.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.

Study selection

Randomised placebo controlled trials of statins (up to 10 March 2011) enrolling a minimum of 100 participants, with follow-up for at least one year.

Data extraction

Infection or infection related death.

Results

The first study selection yielded 632 trials. After screening of the corresponding abstracts and full text papers, 11 trials totalling 30 947 participants were included. 4655 of the participants (2368 assigned to statins and 2287 assigned to placebo) reported an infection during treatment. Meta-analysis showed no effect of statins on the risk of infections (relative risk 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.05) or on infection related deaths (0.97, 0.83 to 1.13).

Conclusion

These findings do not support the hypothesis that statins reduce the risk of infections. Absence of any evidence for a beneficial effect in large placebo controlled trials reduces the likelihood of a causal effect as reported in observational studies.

SUBMITTER: van den Hoek HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3226140 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. None.

Project description:BackgroundChronic painful conditions have an important influence on the ability to work. Work-related outcomes, however, are not commonly reported in publications on trials investigating the treatment of chronic painful conditions. We aim to provide an overview of the reporting of work-related outcomes in such trials and investigate the relationship between work-related outcomes and pain outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed with the aim of identifying randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials investigating treatments for chronic painful conditions or rheumatic diseases that also reported on work-related outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed with the Oxford Quality Scale (OQS). Meta-analyses were conducted for the outcomes of interference with work and number of patients with at least 30% reduction in pain intensity (30% pain responders). The correlation between work-related and pain outcomes was investigated with regression analyses.ResultsWe included 31 publications reporting on 27 datasets from randomised placebo-controlled trials (with a total of 11,434 study participants) conducted in chronic painful or rheumatic diseases and reporting on work-related outcomes. These 31 publications make up only about 0.2% of all publications on randomised placebo-controlled trials in such conditions. The methodological quality of the included studies was high; only nine studies scored less than four (out of a maximum five) points on the OQS. Sixteen different work-related outcomes were reported on in the studies. Of 25 studies testing for the statistical significance of changes in work-related outcomes over the course of the trials, 14 (56%) reported a significant improvement; the others reported non-significant changes. Eight studies reported data on both interference with work and 30% pain responders: meta-analyses demonstrated similar, statistically significant improvements in both these outcomes with active therapy compared to placebo and regression analysis showed that these outcomes were correlated.ConclusionsDespite the importance of pain as a reason for decreased ability to work, work-related outcomes are reported in substantially less than 1% of publications on placebo-controlled trials in chronic painful and rheumatic diseases. Work-related outcomes and pain responder outcomes are closely related.

Project description:BackgroundIt has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9%] statin versus 521 [1.0%] control, odds ratio [OR]?=?0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01, p?=?0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72-1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9%] versus 461 [1.0%], OR?=?0.93 [95% CI 0.82-1.07], p?=?0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0%] versus 202 [1.0%], OR?=?0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.20, p?=?0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.ConclusionsThe findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding patterns of relapse in patients who respond to antidepressant treatment can inform strategies for prevention of relapse. We aimed to identify distinct trajectories of depression severity, assess whether similar or different trajectory classes exist for patients who continued or discontinued active treatment, and test whether clinical predictors of trajectory class membership exist using pooled data from clinical trials.MethodsWe analysed individual patient data from four double-blind discontinuation clinical trials of duloxetine or fluoxetine versus placebo in major depression from before 2012 (n=1462). We modelled trajectories of relapse up to 26 weeks during double-blind treatment. Trajectories of depression severity, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score, were identified in the entire sample, and separately in groups in which antidepressants had been continued or discontinued, using growth mixture models. Predictors of trajectory class membership were assessed with weighted logistic regression.FindingsWe identified similar relapse trajectories and two trajectories of stable depression scores in the normal range on active medication and on placebo. Active treatment significantly lowered the odds of membership in the relapse trajectory (odds ratio 0·47, 95% CI 0·37-0·61), whereas female sex (1·56, 1·23-2·06), shorter length of time with clinical response by 1 week (1·10, 1·06-1·15), and higher Clinical Global Impression score at baseline (1·28, 1·01-1·62) increased the odds. Overall, the protective effect of antidepressant medication relative to placebo on the risk of being classified as a relapser was about 13% (33% vs 46%).InterpretationThe existence of similar relapse trajectories on active medication and on placebo suggests that there is no specific relapse signature associated with antidepressant discontinuation. Furthermore, continued treatment offers only modest protection against relapse. These data highlight the need to incorporate treatment strategies that prevent relapse as part of the treatment of depression.FundingNational Institutes of Health, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Alcohol Research Center, and National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.