The effect of statins on mortality in septic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pasin L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3876996 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:A previous systematic review and meta-analysis reported that omega-3 fatty acids nutrition may reduce mortality in septic patients. As new randomized controlled trials began to accumulate, we conducted an update.A PubMed database was searched through Feb 2016, and randomized controlled trials comparing omega-3 fatty acids with control were selected by two reviewers independently.Eleven trials randomly assigning 808 patients were included in the present study. Using a fixed effects model, we found no significant effect of omega-3 fatty acids on overall mortality (risk ratio 0.84; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.67 to 1.05, P?=?0.12), or infectious complications (risk ratio 0.95; 95 % CI: 0.72 to 1.25, P?=?0.70). However, the duration of mechanical ventilation was markedly reduced by omega-3 fatty acids (weighted mean differences (WMD)?=?-3.82; 95 % CI: -4.61 to -3.04; P?<?0.00001). A significant heterogeneity was found when the duration of hospital (I (2)?=?93 %; WMD?=?-2.82; 95 % CI: -9.88 to 4.23, P?=?0.43), or intensive care stay (I (2)?=?87 %; WMD?=?-2.70; 95 % CI: -6.40 to 1.00, P?=?0.15) were investigated.Omega-3 fatty acids confer no mortality benefit but are associated with a reduction in mechanical ventilation duration in septic patients. However, low sample size and heterogeneity of the cohorts included in this analysis limits the generalizability of our findings.
| S-EPMC4950703 | biostudies-other
Project description:In 2012, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding potential adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition, based on the Adverse Events Reporting System and a review of the medical literature. We aimed to synthesize randomized clinical trial (RCTs) evidence on the association between statin therapy and cognitive outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL through December 2012, and reviewed published systematic reviews of statin treatment. We sought RCTs that compared statin treatment versus placebo or standard care, and reported at least one cognitive outcome (frequency of adverse cognitive events or measurements using standard neuropsychological cognitive test scores). Studies reporting sufficient information to calculate effect sizes were included in meta-analyses. Standardized and unstandardized mean differences were calculated for continuous outcomes for global cognition and for pre-specified cognitive domains. The main outcome was change in cognition measured by neuropsychological tests; an outcome of secondary interest was the frequency of adverse cognitive events observed during follow-up.We identified 25 RCTs (all placebo-controlled) reporting cognitive outcomes in 46,836 subjects, of which 23 RCTs reported cognitive test results in 29,012 participants. Adverse cognitive outcomes attributable to statins were rarely reported in trials involving cognitively normal or impaired subjects. Furthermore, meta-analysis of cognitive test data (14 studies; 27,643 participants) failed to show significant adverse effects of statins on all tests of cognition in either cognitively normal subjects (standardized mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.01 to 0.03, p?=?0.42) or Alzheimer's disease subjects (standardized mean difference -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10, p?=?0.38).Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.
| S-EPMC4351273 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundStroke is a frequently encountered clinical event that has a detrimental impact on the quality of life. Evidence has increasingly shown that statins can substantially reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. However, it remains to be determined whether statins are definitively effective in preventing stroke.MethodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Central databases for studies that compared the effects of statins and placebo in patients at high risk for stroke. The outcome measures were overall incidence of stroke, incidence of fatal stroke, and incidence of hemorrhagic stroke.ResultsEighteen randomized controlled trials satisfied all the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The analysis revealed that statins reduced the overall incidence of stroke than placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.87; P<0.00001). In particular, statins showed efficacy in reducing the incidence of fatal stroke (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.67-1.21; P?=?0.47) and hemorrhagic stroke (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60-1.25; P?=?0.45). On the contrary, they were found to increase the overall incidence of stroke (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.89-1.41; P?=?0.32) and fatal stroke (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 0.93-2.03; P?=?0.11) in renal transplant recipients and patients undergoing regular hemodialysis.ConclusionThe results of this analysis suggest that statins may be beneficial in reducing the overall incidence of stroke and they may decrease the risk of fatal stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. However, statins should be used with caution in patients with a history of renal transplantation, regular hemodialysis, transient ischemic attack, or stroke. Further analyses should focus on multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials with data stratification according to the nature of primary diseases and dose-effect relationship, to clarify the benefits of statins in protection against stroke.
| S-EPMC3958535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether patients with severe sepsis or septic shock could benefit from a strict and early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) protocol recommended by Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) Guidelines. METHODS:MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/OVID and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched between March 1983 and March 2015. Eligible studies evaluated the outcomes of EGDT versus usual care or standard therapy in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcomes were mortality within 28 days, 60 days and 90 days. Included studies must report at least one metric of mortality. RESULTS:5 studies that enrolled 4303 patients with 2144 in the EGDT group and 2159 in the control group were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, there were slight decreases of mortality within 28 days, 60 days and 90 days in the random-effect model in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock receiving EGDT resuscitation. However, none of the differences reached statistical significance (RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; p=0.16; p for heterogeneity=0.008, I(2)=71%; RR=0.94; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.10; p=0.46; p for heterogeneity=0.16, I(2)=43%; RR=0.98; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.10; p=0.75; p for heterogeneity=0.87, I(2)=0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The current meta-analysis pooled data from five RCTs and found no survival benefit of EGDT in patients with sepsis. However, the included trials are not sufficiently homogeneous and potential confounding factors in the negative trials (ProCESS, ARISE and ProMISe) might bias the results and diminish the treatment effect of EGDT. Further well-designed studies should eliminate all potential source of bias to determine if EGDT has a mortality benefit.
| S-EPMC4785309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To examine whether the benefit of statins varied according to cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV mortality of the treated population.Meta-analysis and meta-regression of 16 randomized placebo-controlled trials.Community and hospital.Statin- (n = 59,671) and placebo-treated (n = 59,707) individuals with and without CV disease (mean age 55 to 75).Meta-regression was used to model relative risks (RRs) of major CV events (myocardial infarction and stroke) and total mortality for statins versus placebo as a function of CV and non-CV mortality risks of the study population.Every 1% increase in 5-year non-CV mortality risk of the study population was associated with a 3.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2 to 6.3%) greater RR of major CV events and a 4.4% (95% CI = 2.1 to 6.9%) greater RR of total mortality. (Higher RRs indicate smaller benefits.) CV mortality was not associated with statin effects (P > .05). In stratified analysis according to CV (?5.3% vs <5.3%) and non-CV mortality (?3.8% vs <3.8%) of the study population, statins had little mortality benefit in populations with high non-CV mortality, regardless of CV mortality (random-effects pooled RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.91, for low CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.06 for low CV and high non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.87 for high CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.02 for high CV and high non-CV mortality). The CV event reduction was also attenuated in populations with high non-CV mortality (random-effects pooled RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.75, for low CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.66 to 0.81 for low CV and high non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.87 for high CV and low non-CV mortality; random-effects pooled RR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92 for high CV and high non-CV mortality).Benefits of statins may depend on the non-CV mortality risk of the treated population. This should be confirmed using individual-level data.
| S-EPMC4509928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStatins are extensively used for cardiovascular disease prevention. Statins reduce mortality rates more than other lipid-modulating drugs, although evidence from randomized controlled trials also suggests that statins unexpectedly increase the risk of diabetes and improve immune function. Physiologically, statins would be expected to lower androgens because statins inhibit production of the substrate for the local synthesis of androgens and statins' pleiotropic effects are somewhat similar to the physiological effects of lowering testosterone, so we hypothesized that statins lower testosterone.MethodsA meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials of statins to test the a priori hypothesis that statins lower testosterone. We searched the PubMed, Medline and ISI Web of Science databases until the end of 2011, using '(Testosterone OR androgen) AND (CS-514 OR statin OR simvastatin OR atorvastatin OR fluvastatin OR lovastatin OR rosuvastatin OR pravastatin)' restricted to randomized controlled trials in English, supplemented by a bibliographic search. We included studies with durations of 2+ weeks reporting changes in testosterone. Two reviewers independently searched, selected and assessed study quality. Two statisticians independently abstracted and analyzed data, using random or fixed effects models, as appropriate, with inverse variance weighting.ResultsOf the 29 studies identified 11 were eligible. In 5 homogenous trials of 501 men, mainly middle aged with hypercholesterolemia, statins lowered testosterone by -0.66 nmol/l (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to -1.18). In 6 heterogeneous trials of 368 young women with polycystic ovary syndrome, statins lowered testosterone by -0.40 nmol/l (95% CI -0.05 to -0.75). Overall statins lowered testosterone by -0.44 nmol/l (95% CI -0.75 to -0.13).ConclusionsStatins may partially operate by lowering testosterone. Whether this is a detrimental side effect or mode of action warrants investigation given the potential implications for drug development and prevention of non-communicable chronic diseases. See commentary article here http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/58.
| S-EPMC3621815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe performed a meta-analysis to explore the effects of adding statins to standard treatment on adult patients of pulmonary hypertension (PH).MethodsA systematic search up to December, 2015 of Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify randomized controlled trials with PH patients treated with statins.ResultsFive studies involving 425 patients were included into this meta-analysis. The results of our analysis showed that the statins can't significantly increase 6-minute walking distance (6MWD, mean difference [MD] = -0.33 [CI: -18.25 to 17.59]), decrease the BORG dyspnea score (MD = -0.72 [CI: -2.28 to 0.85]), the clinical worsening risk (11% in statins vs. 10.1% in controls, Risk ratio = 1.06 [CI: 0.61, 1.83]), or the systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (SPAP) (MD = -0.72 [CI: -2.28 to 0.85]). Subgroup analysis for PH due to COPD or non-COPD also showed no significance.ConclusionsStatins have no additional beneficial effect on standard therapy for PH, but the results from subgroup of PH due to COPD seem intriguing and further study with larger sample size and longer follow-up is suggested.
| S-EPMC5167271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burden of depressive disorder is large and new treatment approaches are required. Repurposing widely available drugs such as statins may be a time- and cost-effective solution. Statins have anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties which have been shown to be relevant to the pathophysiology of depression. This study assesses the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of statins in major depressive disorder.MethodsOur study is an update and extension of a previous meta-analysis published in 2016 by Salagre et al. We performed a systematic review (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov until the 1st September 2020) and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using any statin against placebo or any other statin in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Our primary efficacy outcome measure was the mean value on any standardized scale for depressive symptoms at 8 weeks of treatment. We also calculated outcomes for efficacy, response, and remission at 2, 4, and 12 weeks, as well as acceptability (dropouts for any cause), tolerability (dropouts due to any adverse event), and safety (any adverse event) outcomes at the studies' endpoints. Furthermore, we conducted an exploratory network meta-analysis for the primary efficacy outcome to identify potential differences between statins.ResultsWe retrieved five randomized controlled trials meeting our inclusion criteria: four used a statin in addition to an antidepressant and compared it to placebo plus antidepressant, and one compared two statins alone. and one comparing one statin with another. Statins compared to placebo in addition to antidepressants were efficacious at 8 weeks (N = 255, SMD = -0.48, 95% CI = -0.74 to -0. 22) and 12 weeks (N = 134, SMD = -0.47, 95% CI = -0.89 to -0.05, moderate certainty) with no difference for acceptability, tolerability, and safety (low certainty). An exploratory network meta-analysis suggested that the most lipophilic statins, especially simvastatin, could be more efficacious than less lipophilic or hydrophilic molecules.ConclusionsThis systematic review suggests the efficacy, acceptability, tolerability, and safety of statins in addition to antidepressants in patients with major depressive disorder. Further clinical trials in different settings are required to test this result.Trial rgistrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42020170938.
| S-EPMC8009386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCatecholamines, especially norepinephrine, are the most frequently used vasopressors for treating patients with septic shock. During the recent decades, terlipressin, vasopressin V1A agonist, and even Ca2+ sensitizer were increasingly used by physicians. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of such different kinds of vasoactive medications on mortality among patients with septic shock.MethodsRelevant randomized controlled trials were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated to February 22, 2018. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different types of vasoactive medications. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), and adverse events were also assessed.ResultsA total of 43 trials with 5767 patients assessing 17 treatment modalities were included. Treatments ranking based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values from largest to smallest were NE/DB 85.9%, TP 75.1%, NE/EP 74.6%, PI 74.1%, EP 72.5%, VP 66.1%, NE 59.8%, PE 53.0%, DA 42.1%, DX 38.2%, SP 27.0%, PA 24.3%, EX 22.8%, LE 21.5%, and DB 13.3% for 28-day mortality. Treatments ranking for ICU mortality were TP/NE 86.4%, TP 80.3%, TP/DB/NE 65.7%, VP/NE 62.8%, NE 57.4%, VP 56.5%, PE 48.4%, DA 33.0%, PA 27.5%, LE 22.1%, and DB 9.9%. The incidence of myocardial infarction was reported with NE/EP 3.33% (n = 1 of 30), followed by EP 3.11% (n = 5 of 161), and then VP 3.10% (n = 19 of 613), NE 3.03% (n = 43 of 1417), DA 2.21% (n = 19 of 858), NE/DB 2.01% (n = 4 of 199), LE 1.16% (n = 3 of 258), and PA 0.39% (n = 1 of 257). The incidence of arrhythmia was reported with DA 26.01% (n = 258 of 992), followed by EP 22.98% (n = 37 of 161), and then NE/DB 20.60% (n = 41 of 199), NE/EP 20.0% (n = 6 of 30), NE 8.33% (n = 127 of 1525), LE 5.81% (n = 15 of 258), PA 2.33% (n = 6 of 257), and VP 1.67% (n = 10 of 600).ConclusionsThe use of norepinephrine plus dobutamine was associated with lower 28-day mortality for septic shock, especially among patients with lower cardiac output.
| S-EPMC6518735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patients with nocturnal hypertension are at higher risk for cardiovascular complications such as myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular insult. Published studies inconsistently reported decreases in nocturnal blood pressure with melatonin. METHODS: A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of exogenous melatonin in ameliorating nocturnal blood pressure was performed using a random effects model of all studies fitting the inclusion criteria, with subgroup analysis of fast-release versus controlled-release preparations. RESULTS: Seven trials (three of controlled-release and four of fast-release melatonin) with 221 participants were included. Meta-analysis of all seven studies did not reveal significant effects of melatonin versus placebo on nocturnal blood pressure. However, subgroup analysis revealed that controlled-release melatonin significantly reduced nocturnal blood pressure whereas fast-release melatonin had no effect. Systolic blood pressure decreased significantly with controlled-release melatonin (-6.1 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.7 to -1.5; P = 0.009) but not fast-release melatonin (-0.3 mmHg; 95% CI -5.9 to 5.30; P = 0.92). Diastolic blood pressure also decreased significantly with controlled-release melatonin (-3.5 mmHg; 95% CI -6.1 to -0.9; P = 0.009) but not fast-release melatonin (-0.2 mmHg; 95% CI -3.8 to 3.3; P = 0.89). No safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSION: Add-on controlled-release melatonin to antihypertensive therapy is effective and safe in ameliorating nocturnal hypertension, whereas fast-release melatonin is ineffective. It is necessary that larger trials of longer duration be conducted in order to determine the long-term beneficial effects of controlled-release melatonin in patients with nocturnal hypertension.
| S-EPMC3180511 | biostudies-other