Home › Research › Drug development
Adverse effects of statins - myths and reality
Šimić I, Reiner Ž.. Current pharmaceutical design, 2015-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Plain-language summary
Statins reduce cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as well as cardiovascular events in patients with a very high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and also in subjects with high or moderate risk by reducing the levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Although they are considered to be drugs with a very good safety profile, because of their wide use there are many concerns that their adverse effects might compromise their proven beneficial effects. Therefore this article reviews all the data and provides an evidence- based insight what are the proven adverse effects of statins and what are the "myths" about them. The most important side effects include myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. Another side effect is increased activity of liver tests which occurs occasionally and is reversible. However, recent studies even suggest that statin therapy can improve hepatic steatosis. It is beyond any doubt that statins do slightly increase the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with two or more components of metabolic syndrome but the cardiovascular benefits of such a treatment by far exceed this risk. Statin therapy has also been associated with some adverse renal effects, eg. acute renal failure, but recent data suggest even a possible protective effect of these drugs on renal dysfunction. Concerns that statins might increase cancer have not been proven. On the contrary, several studies have indicated a possible benefit of these drugs in patients with different types of cancer. Early concerns about cognitive dysfunction and memory loss associated with statins use could not be proven and most recent data even suggest a possible beneficial effect of statins in the prevention of dementia. Systematic reviews and clinical guidelines suggest that the cardiovascular benefits of statins by far out-weight non-cardiovascular harms in patients with cardiovascular risk.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Šimić, I., & Ž, R. (2015). Adverse effects of statins - myths and reality. Current pharmaceutical design. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612820666141013134447
Vancouver
Šimić I, Ž R. Adverse effects of statins - myths and reality. Current pharmaceutical design. 2015. doi:10.2174/1381612820666141013134447. PMID: 25312733.
BibTeX
@article{simic2015-25312733,
author = {Šimić, I. and Ž, Reiner},
title = {{Adverse effects of statins - myths and reality}},
journal = {Current pharmaceutical design},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.2174/1381612820666141013134447},
pmid = {25312733},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612820666141013134447}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- However, recent studies even suggest that statin therapy can improve hepatic steatosis.
- Statin therapy has also been associated with some adverse renal effects, eg. acute renal failure, but recent data suggest even a possible protective effect of these drugs on renal dysfunction.
- Early concerns about cognitive dysfunction and memory loss associated with statins use could not be proven and most recent data even suggest a possible beneficial effect of statins in the prevention of dementia.
- Systematic reviews and clinical guidelines suggest that the cardiovascular benefits of statins by far out-weight non-cardiovascular harms in patients with cardiovascular risk.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current pharmaceutical design) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25312733) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development from nearby years
Also tagged “statins”
10 studies in the library carry the topic tag “statins”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 10 tagged studies.