Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Unintended effects of statins from observational studies in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis
Macedo AF, Taylor FC, Casas JP, Adler A, Prieto-Merino D, Ebrahim S.. BMC medicine, 2014-03-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Efficacy of statins has been extensively studied, with much less information reported on their unintended effects. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on unintended effects is often insufficient to support hypotheses generated from observational studies. We aimed to systematically assess unintended effects of statins from observational studies in general populations with comparison of the findings where possible with those derived from randomized trials. Methods Medline (1998 to January 2012, week 3) and Embase (1998 to 2012, week 6) were searched using the standard BMJ Cohort studies filter. The search was supplemented with reference lists of all identified studies and contact with experts in the field. We included prospective studies with a sample size larger than 1,000 participants, case control (of any size) and routine health service linkage studies of over at least one year duration. Studies in subgroups of patients or follow-up of patient case series were excluded, as well as hospital-based cohort studies. Results Ninety studies were identified, reporting on 48 different unintended effects. Statins were associated with lower risks of dementia and cognitive impairment, venous thrombo-embolism, fractures and pneumonia, but these findings were attenuated in analyses restricted to higher quality studies (respectively: OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.87); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03); OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.05); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.02)); and marked heterogeneity of effects across studies remained. Statin use was not related to any increased risk of depression, common eye diseases, renal disorders or arthritis. There was evidence of an increased risk of myopathy, raised liver enzymes and diabetes (respectively: OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.50 to 4.61); OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.47 to 1.62); OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.73)). Conclusions Our systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that high quality observational data can provide relevant evidence on unintended effects of statins to add to the evidence from RCTs. The absolute excess risk of the observed harmful unintended effects of statins is very small compared to the beneficial effects of statins on major cardiovascular events.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Macedo, A. F., Taylor, F. C., Casas, J. P., Adler, A., Prieto-Merino, D., & Ebrahim, S. (2014). Unintended effects of statins from observational studies in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-51
Vancouver
Macedo AF, Taylor FC, Casas JP, Adler A, Prieto-Merino D, Ebrahim S. Unintended effects of statins from observational studies in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC medicine. 2014. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-51. PMID: 24655568.
BibTeX
@article{macedo2014-24655568,
author = {Macedo, A. F. and Taylor, F. C. and Casas, J. P. and Adler, A. and Prieto-Merino, D. and Ebrahim, S.},
title = {{Unintended effects of statins from observational studies in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {BMC medicine},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1186/1741-7015-12-51},
pmid = {24655568},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-51}
}
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
- Results Ninety studies were identified, reporting on 48 different unintended effects.
- Statins were associated with lower risks of dementia and cognitive impairment, venous thrombo-embolism, fractures and pneumonia, but these findings were attenuated in analyses restricted to higher quality studies (respectively: OR 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.87); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03); OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.05); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.02)); and marked heterogeneity of effects across studies remained.
- Statin use was not related to any increased risk of depression, common eye diseases, renal disorders or arthritis.
- There was evidence of an increased risk of myopathy, raised liver enzymes and diabetes (respectively: OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.50 to 4.61); OR 1.54 (95% CI 1.47 to 1.62); OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.73)).
- Conclusions Our systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that high quality observational data can provide relevant evidence on unintended effects of statins to add to the evidence from RCTs.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants1,000
- Effect sizeOR 0.74 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.87); OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.03); OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.05)
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 83/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 83 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,000 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 24655568) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 48 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 83 out of 100. |
| Total | 83 / 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.