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:BackgroundParkinson's disease is still incurable, and several factors are considered when defining pharmacological therapy.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the prescription pattern of monoamine oxidase B inhibitors (MAO-BIs) marketed in Italy (selegiline, rasagiline, safinamide) as an add-on to levodopa among new users of MAO-BIs, from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.Patients and methodsThrough cross-linkage of administrative healthcare data in the Ricerca e Salute (ReS) database, adults with a supply of one or more MAO-BIs in 2017, and with no other MAO-BI use since 2013, were selected. Levodopa had to be supplied within 30 days before/after the MAO-BI. The incidence, use, sex, age, comorbidities, 2-year prescription patterns (i.e., switches, proportion of treated patients per semester/year, mean daily milligrams/monthly tablets supplied, discontinuation, change to other anti-Parkinson drug) of patients taking MAO-BIs were provided.ResultsIn 2017, 1059 new users received an MAO-BI (incidence 22.6 × 100,000 adults) combined with levodopa: 502 subjects (10.7 × 100,000) were treated with selegiline, 161 (3.4 × 100,000) were treated with rasagiline, and 396 (8.4 × 100,000) were treated with safinamide. The cohorts mainly consisted of males with a median age of ≥ 74 years. Treatment incidences increased with age. Switches occurred in 18.0%, 11.0%, and 4.3% of the selegiline, rasagiline, and safinamide cohorts, respectively. Most of the patients switching from selegiline/safinamide changed to rasagiline, while most of the patients switching from rasagiline changed to safinamide. From the first to second years, patient numbers reduced by ≤ 50%, and the daily milligrams/monthly tablets slightly increased. Six-month discontinuation occurred in > 50% of all cohorts, and ≥ 65% of discontinuing patients changed to another anti-Parkinson drug.ConclusionsThis analysis described the heterogeneous use of MAO-BIs as an add-on to levodopa in Italy. Further clinical trials and real-world studies are encouraged to update the few existing guidelines and to align clinical practice strategies.