Dataset Information

Higher potency statins and the risk of new diabetes: multicentre, observational study of administrative databases.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the incremental increase in new onset diabetes from higher potency statins compared with lower potency statins when used for secondary prevention.

Design

Eight population based cohort studies and a meta-analysis.

Setting

Six Canadian provinces and two international databases from the UK and US.

Participants

136,966 patients aged ≥ 40 years newly treated with statins between 1 January 1997 and 31 March 2011.

Methods

Within each cohort of patients newly prescribed a statin after hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event or procedure, we performed as-treated, nested case-control analyses to compare diabetes incidence in users of higher potency statins with incidence in users of lower potency statins. Rate ratios of new diabetes events were estimated using conditional logistic regression on different lengths of exposure to higher potency versus lower potency statins; adjustment for confounding was achieved using high dimensional propensity scores. Meta-analytic methods were used to estimate overall effects across sites.

Main outcome measures

Hospitalisation for new onset diabetes, or a prescription for insulin or an oral antidiabetic drug.

Results

In the first two years of regular statin use, we observed a significant increase in the risk of new onset diabetes with higher potency statins compared with lower potency agents (rate ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.26). The risk increase seemed to be highest in the first four months of use (rate ratio 1.26, 1.07 to 1.47).

Conclusions

Higher potency statin use is associated with a moderate increase in the risk of new onset diabetes compared with lower potency statins in patients treated for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Clinicians should consider this risk when prescribing higher potency statins in secondary prevention patients.

SUBMITTER: Dormuth CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4038449 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMajor adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) are increasingly used as composite outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. However, it is unclear how observational studies most commonly define MACE in the literature when using administrative data.MethodsWe identified peer-reviewed articles published in MEDLINE and EMBASE between January 1, 2010 to October 9, 2020. Studies utilizing administrative data to assess the MACE composite outcome using International Classification of Diseases 9th or 10th Revision diagnosis codes were included. Reviews, abstracts, and studies not providing outcome code definitions were excluded. Data extracted included data source, timeframe, MACE components, code definitions, code positions, and outcome validation.ResultsA total of 920 articles were screened, 412 were retained for full-text review, and 58 were included. Only 8.6% (n = 5/58) matched the traditional three-point MACE RCT definition of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, or cardiovascular death. None matched four-point (+unstable angina) or five-point MACE (+unstable angina and heart failure). The most common MACE components were: AMI and stroke, 15.5% (n = 9/58); AMI, stroke, and all-cause death, 13.8% (n = 8/58); and AMI, stroke and cardiovascular death 8.6% (n = 5/58). Further, 67% (n = 39/58) did not validate outcomes or cite validation studies. Additionally, 70.7% (n = 41/58) did not report code positions of endpoints, 20.7% (n = 12/58) used the primary position, and 8.6% (n = 5/58) used any position.ConclusionsComponents of MACE endpoints and diagnostic codes used varied widely across observational studies. Variability in the MACE definitions used and information reported across observational studies prohibit the comparison, replication, and aggregation of findings. Studies should transparently report the administrative codes used and code positions, as well as utilize validated outcome definitions when possible.

Project description:BackgroundStatins are effective lipid-lowering drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, but muscular adverse events can limit their use. Hydrophilic statins (pravastatin, rosuvastatin) may cause less muscular events than lipophilic statins (e.g. simvastatin, atorvastatin) due to lower passive diffusion into muscle cells.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of muscular events between statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses and to evaluate if hydrophilic statins are associated with a lower muscular risk than lipophilic statins.Design/settingPropensity score-matched cohort study using data from the United Kingdom-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD.PatientsNew statin users. Cohort 1: pravastatin 20-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs simvastatin 10-20 mg (lipophilic), cohort 2: rosuvastatin 5-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs atorvastatin 10-80 mg (lipophilic), and cohort 3: simvastatin 40-80 mg vs atorvastatin 10-20 mg.Main measuresThe outcome was a first record of a muscular event (myopathy, myalgia, myositis, rhabdomyolysis) during a maximum follow-up of 1 year.Key resultsThe propensity score-matched cohorts consisted of 1) 9,703, 2) 7,032, and 3) 37,743 pairs of statin users. Comparing the risk of muscular events between low-intensity pravastatin vs low-intensity simvastatin yielded a HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.16). In the comparison of moderate- to high-intensity rosuvastatin vs equivalent doses of atorvastatin, we observed a HR of 1.17 (95% CI 0.88-1.56). Moderate- to high-intensity simvastatin was associated with a HR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.16-1.53), when compared with atorvastatin at equivalent doses.LimitationsWe could not conduct other pairwise comparisons of statins due to small sample size. In the absence of a uniform definition on the comparability of statin doses, the applied dose ratios may not fully match with all literature sources.ConclusionsOur results do not suggest a systematically lower risk of muscular events for hydrophilic statins when compared to lipophilic statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses.

Project description:IntroductionPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis with an overall 5-year survival of approximately 8%. The success in reducing the mortality rate of PDAC is related to the discovery of new therapeutic agents, and to a significant extent to the development of early detection and prevention programmes. Patients with new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM) represent a high-risk group for PDAC as they have an eightfold higher risk of PDAC than the general population. The proposed screening programme may allow the detection of PDAC in the early, operable stage. Diagnosing more patients in the curable stage might decrease the morbidity and mortality rates of PDAC and additionally reduce the burden of the healthcare.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective, multicentre observational cohort study. Patients ≥60 years old diagnosed with new-onset (≤6 months) diabetes will be included. Exclusion criteria are (1) Continuous alcohol abuse; (2) Chronic pancreatitis; (3) Previous pancreas operation/pancreatectomy; (4) Pregnancy; (5) Present malignant disease and (6) Type 1 DM. Follow-up visits are scheduled every 6 months for up to 36 months. Data collection is based on questionnaires. Clinical symptoms, body weight and fasting blood will be collected at each, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and blood to biobank at every second visit. The blood samples will be processed to plasma and analysed with mass spectrometry (MS)-based metabolomics. The metabolomic data will be used for biomarker validation for early detection of PDAC in the high-risk group patients with new-onset diabetes. Patients with worrisome features will undergo MRI or endoscopic ultrasound investigation, and surgical referral depending on the radiological findings. One of the secondary end points is the incidence of PDAC in patients with newly diagnosed DM.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Scientific and Research Ethics Committee of the Hungarian Medical Research Council (41085-6/2019). We plan to disseminate the results to several members of the healthcare system includining medical doctors, dietitians, nurses, patients and so on. We plan to publish the results in a peer-reviewed high-quality journal for professionals. In addition, we also plan to publish it for lay readers in order to maximalise the dissemination and benefits of this trial.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT04164602.