Home › Research › Drug development
Pravastatin and cognitive function in the elderly. Results of the PROSPER study
Trompet S, van Vliet P, de Craen AJ, Jolles J, Buckley BM, Murphy MB, Ford I, Macfarlane PW et al.. Journal of neurology, 2009-08-04
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Observational studies have given conflicting results about the effect of statins in preventing dementia and cognitive decline. Moreover, observational studies are subject to prescription bias, making it hard to draw definite conclusions from them. Randomized controlled trials are therefore the preferred study design to investigate the association between statins and cognition. Here we present detailed cognitive outcomes from the randomized placebo-controlled PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER). Cognitive function was assessed repeatedly in all 5,804 PROSPER participants at six different time points during the study using four neuropsychological performance tests. After a mean follow-up period of 42 months, no difference in cognitive decline at any of the cognitive domains was found in subjects treated with pravastatin compared to placebo (all p > 0.05). Pravastatin treatment in old age did not affect cognitive decline during a 3 year follow-up period. Employing statin therapy in the elderly in an attempt to prevent cognitive decline therefore seems to be futile.
Key findings
- Observational studies have given conflicting results about the effect of statins in preventing dementia and cognitive decline.
- After a mean follow-up period of 42 months, no difference in cognitive decline at any of the cognitive domains was found in subjects treated with pravastatin compared to placebo (all p > 0.05).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2010 — 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19653027) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Trompet, S., van Vliet, P., de Craen, A. J., Jolles, J., Buckley, B. M., Murphy, M. B., et al. (2010). Pravastatin and cognitive function in the elderly. Results of the PROSPER study. Journal of neurology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-5271-7
Vancouver
Trompet S, van Vliet P, de Craen AJ, Jolles J, Buckley BM, Murphy MB, et al. Pravastatin and cognitive function in the elderly. Results of the PROSPER study. Journal of neurology. 2010. doi:10.1007/s00415-009-5271-7. PMID: 19653027.
BibTeX
@article{trompet2010-19653027,
author = {Trompet, S. and van Vliet, P. and de Craen, A. J. and Jolles, J. and Buckley, B. M. and Murphy, M. B. and Ford, I. and Macfarlane, P. W. and others},
title = {{Pravastatin and cognitive function in the elderly. Results of the PROSPER study}},
journal = {Journal of neurology},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1007/s00415-009-5271-7},
pmid = {19653027},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-5271-7}
}
Related studies in Drug development
Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”
304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.