| Literature DB >> 28963307 |
Zhen Zhou1,2, Loai Albarqouni3, Monique Breslin1, Andrea J Curtis4, Mark Nelson1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although statins are commonly used for prevention of cardiovascular disease, there is limited evidence about statin-related adverse effects in older people. Statin-related adverse events (AEs), especially the statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS), are the most common reasons for their discontinuation. Therefore, it is important to determine the risk of SAMS in the older population. We will undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis primarily focusing on the risk of SAMS and secondarily targeting myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, AEs and serious AEs, dropouts due to SAMS in run-in period, related permanent discontinuation rate of statins and creatine kinase level, among older people who received statins for primary prevention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols statement. We will include randomised controlled trials in which statin was compared with placebo with at least 1 year follow-up among older adults aged ≥65. This review is an update of a Cochrane systematic review that included the articles published before 2012. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline OvidSP and Embase electronic database searches will be performed to identify relevant articles, limiting the publication date from 1 January 2012 to 13 February 2017. There will be no language limitation. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full text in duplicate. Risk of bias and evidence quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, respectively. A meta-analysis using pooled data will be undertaken, if appropriate. We will also perform metaregression and subgroup analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is exempt from ethics approval due to the anonymous and aggregated data used. The outcomes will be disseminated by conference presentations and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017058436. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: adverse events; geriatric medicine; lipid disorders; musculoskeletal disorders
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28963307 PMCID: PMC5623566 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017587
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
The scoring system provided by GRADE Working Group on assessing the quality of the evidence
| Type of evidence | ||
| Initial score based on type of evidence | +4 | RCTs/SR of RCTs,+/–other types of evidence |
| +2 | Observational evidence (eg, cohort, case–control) | |
| Quality | ||
| Based on | Blinding and allocation process | |
| Follow-up and withdrawals | ||
| Sparse data | ||
| Other methodological concerns (eg, incomplete reporting, subjective outcomes) | ||
| Score | Score 0,–1, −2,–3 represents ‘no problems’, problem with one element’, ‘problem with two elements’, ‘problem with three elements’, respectively. | |
| Consistency | ||
| Based on | Degree of consistency of effect between or within studies | |
| Score | +1 | Evidence of dose response across or within studies (or inconsistency across studies is explained by a dose response); also one point added if adjustment for confounders would have increased the effect size |
| 0 | All/most studies show similar results | |
| -1 | Lack of agreement between studies (eg, statistical heterogeneity between RCTs, conflicting results) | |
| Directness | ||
| Based on | The generalisability of population and outcomes from each study to our population of interest | |
| Score | Score 0,–1, −2 represents ‘population and outcomes broadly generalisable’, ‘problem with one element’, ‘problem with two or more elements’, respectively. | |
| Effect size | ||
| Based on | The reported OR/RR/HR for comparison | |
| Score | 0 | Not all effect sizes >2 or <0.5 and significant; or if OR/RR/HR not significant |
| +1 | Effect size >2 o r<0.5 for all studies/meta-analyses included in comparison and significant | |
| +2 | Effect size >5 or <0.2 for all studies/meta-analyses included in comparison and significant | |
GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; RCTs, randomised controlled trials; SR, systematic review; OR, odds ratio; RR, relative risk; HR, hazard ratio.