Zhen Zhou1, Loai Albarqouni2, Andrea J Curtis3, Monique Breslin4, Mark Nelson4. 1. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia. zhen.zhou@utas.edu.au. 2. The Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP), Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is increasing in older adults. Nonetheless, good clinical evidence for the safety and tolerability of statins in this population is limited. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of statins in older adults without overt CVD, focusing on statin-related muscle symptoms. METHODS: Double-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of statins published before January 2012 were identified from a Cochrane review updated to 2012. Trials published between January 2012 and July 2018 were identified through the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Eligible trials were limited to those including individuals aged ≥ 65 years without overt CVD, who were followed for at least 1 year. Trials had to have reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 11 trials, including 18,192 participants (mean age 73.7 years; 43% females). Compared with placebo, statins neither increased the risks of muscle-related symptoms (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.90-1.12), total adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs nor led to more total permanent treatment discontinuations and discontinuations due to AEs or specifically due to muscle-related symptoms. No evidence of heterogeneity was observed in any of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs found no excess incidence of muscle-related symptoms, total AEs, serious AEs and treatment discontinuations attributable to statin treatment compared with placebo among older adults without CVD.
PURPOSE: The use of statins in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is increasing in older adults. Nonetheless, good clinical evidence for the safety and tolerability of statins in this population is limited. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of statins in older adults without overt CVD, focusing on statin-related muscle symptoms. METHODS: Double-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of statins published before January 2012 were identified from a Cochrane review updated to 2012. Trials published between January 2012 and July 2018 were identified through the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Eligible trials were limited to those including individuals aged ≥ 65 years without overt CVD, who were followed for at least 1 year. Trials had to have reported at least one of the outcomes of interest. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: We identified 11 trials, including 18,192 participants (mean age 73.7 years; 43% females). Compared with placebo, statins neither increased the risks of muscle-related symptoms (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.90-1.12), total adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs nor led to more total permanent treatment discontinuations and discontinuations due to AEs or specifically due to muscle-related symptoms. No evidence of heterogeneity was observed in any of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis of RCTs found no excess incidence of muscle-related symptoms, total AEs, serious AEs and treatment discontinuations attributable to statin treatment compared with placebo among older adults without CVD.
Authors: Richard Ofori-Asenso; Jenni Ilomäki; Mark Tacey; Si Si; Andrea J Curtis; Ella Zomer; J Simon Bell; Sophia Zoungas; Danny Liew Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Ajay Gupta; David Thompson; Andrew Whitehouse; Tim Collier; Bjorn Dahlof; Neil Poulter; Rory Collins; Peter Sever Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert J Glynn; Wolfgang Koenig; Børge G Nordestgaard; James Shepherd; Paul M Ridker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Folkert W Asselbergs; Gilles F H Diercks; Hans L Hillege; Ad J van Boven; Wilbert M T Janssen; Adriaan A Voors; Dick de Zeeuw; Paul E de Jong; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Wiek H van Gilst Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Helen M Colhoun; D John Betteridge; Paul N Durrington; Graham A Hitman; H Andrew W Neil; Shona J Livingstone; Margaret J Thomason; Michael I Mackness; Valentine Charlton-Menys; John H Fuller Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fiona Taylor; Mark D Huffman; Ana Filipa Macedo; Theresa H M Moore; Margaret Burke; George Davey Smith; Kirsten Ward; Shah Ebrahim Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-01-31
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Martina Felder; Claudia Irene Maushart; Gani Gashi; Jaël Rut Senn; Anton S Becker; Julian Müller; Miroslav Balaz; Christian Wolfrum; Irene A Burger; Matthias Johannes Betz Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Kamal Awad; Maged Mohammed; Mahmoud Mohamed Zaki; Abdelrahman I Abushouk; Gregory Y H Lip; Michael J Blaha; Carl J Lavie; Peter P Toth; J Wouter Jukema; Naveed Sattar; Maciej Banach Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 8.775