Dataset Information

The Risk of Muscular Events Among New Users of Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Statins: an Observational Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Statins 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.

Objective

To 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/setting

Propensity score-matched cohort study using data from the United Kingdom-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD.

Patients

New 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 measures

The outcome was a first record of a muscular event (myopathy, myalgia, myositis, rhabdomyolysis) during a maximum follow-up of 1 year.

Key results

The 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.

Limitations

We 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.

Conclusions

Our results do not suggest a systematically lower risk of muscular events for hydrophilic statins when compared to lipophilic statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses.

SUBMITTER: Mueller AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8390626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe "Emergency Room Evaluation and Recommendations" (ER2) is a clinical tool designed to determine prognosis for the short-term Emergency Department (ED) undesirable outcomes including long length of stay (LOS) in ED and in hospital, as well as the likelihood of hospital admission during an index ED visit. It is also designed to guide appropriate and timely tailor-made geriatric interventions. This study aimed to examine whether ER2 assessment part was: 1) usable by ED healthcare workers (e.g. nurses) and 2) scoring system associated with long LOS in ED and in hospital, as well as hospital admission in older ED users on stretchers.MethodsBased on an observational, prospective and longitudinal cohort study 1,800 participants visiting the ED of the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) were recruited between September and December 2017. ER2 assessment determined three risk-levels (i.e., low, medium and high) for short-term ED undesirable outcomes. The rate of ER2 digital form completed, the time to fill ER2 items and obtain ER2 risk-levels, the LOS in ED and in hospital, and hospital admission were used as outcomes.ResultsER2 was usable by ED nurses in charge of older ED users. High-risk group was associated with both increased ED stay (coefficient of regression β = 3.81 with P≤0.001) and hospital stay (coefficient of regression β = 4.60 with P = 0.002) as well as with hospital admission (HR = 1.32 with P≤0.001) when low ER2 risk level was used as referent level. Kaplan-Meier distributions showed that the three risk groups of participants differed significantly (P = 0.001). Those with high-risk level (P≤0.001) were discharged later from hospital to a non-hospital location compared to those with low risk. There was no significant difference between those classified in low-risk and in medium-risk groups (P = 0.985) and those in medium and high-risk groups (P = 0.096).ConclusionThe ER2 assessment part is usable in daily practice of ED care and its risk stratifications may be used to predict adverse outcomes including prolonged LOS in ED and in hospital as well as hospital admission.Trial registrationNCT03964311.