scholarly journals Statin use in older people primary prevention on cardiovascular disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Huang ◽  
◽  
Hechen Zhu ◽  
Ru Ya
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Older People ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statin Use

scholarly journals Association of statin use in older people primary prevention group with risk of cardiovascular events and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Awad ◽  
M Mohammed ◽  
M M Zaki ◽  
A I Abushouk ◽  
G Y H Lip ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Older People ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Statin Use

Abstract Background Current evidence from randomized controlled trials on statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older people, especially those aged >75 years, is still lacking. Purpose We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to extend the current evidence about association of statin use in older people primary prevention group with risk of CVD and mortality. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until March 18, 2021. We included observational studies (cohort or nested case-control) that compared statin use vs non-use for primary prevention of CVD in older people aged ≥65 years; provided that each of them reported the risk estimate on at least one of the following primary outcomes: all cause-mortality, CVD death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Risk estimates of each relevant outcome were pooled as a hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects meta-analysis model. Results Ten observational studies (9 cohort and one case-control study; n=872,845) fulfilled our criteria. The overall combined estimate suggested that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.79 to 0.93]), CVD death (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.78 to 0.81]), and stroke (HR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76 to 0.94]) and a non-significant association with risk of MI (HR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.53 to 1.02]). The beneficial association of statins with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant even at higher ages (>75 years old; HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81 to 0.96]) and in both men (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.76]) and women (HR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.72 to 0.99]). However, this association with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant only in those with DM (HR: 0.82 [95% CI: 0.68 to 0.98]) but not in those without DM. Conclusions Statin therapy in older people (aged ≥65 years) without CVD was associated with a 14%, 20% and 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality, CVD death and stroke, respectively. The beneficial association with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant even at higher ages (>75 years old), in both men and women, and in individuals with DM, but not in those without DM. These observational findings support the need for trials to test benefits of statins in those above 75 years of age. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1. Results of the meta-analysis

scholarly journals Association of statin use in older people primary prevention group with risk of cardiovascular events and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

BMC Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamal Awad ◽  
Maged Mohammed ◽  
Mahmoud Mohamed Zaki ◽  
Abdelrahman I. Abushouk ◽  
Gregory Y. H. Lip ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Older People ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Statin Use

Abstract Background Current evidence from randomized controlled trials on statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older people, especially those aged > 75 years, is still lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to extend the current evidence about the association of statin use in older people primary prevention group with risk of CVD and mortality. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until March 18, 2021. We included observational studies (cohort or nested case-control) that compared statin use vs non-use for primary prevention of CVD in older people aged ≥ 65 years; provided that each of them reported the risk estimate on at least one of the following primary outcomes: all cause-mortality, CVD death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Risk estimates of each relevant outcome were pooled as a hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects meta-analysis model. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results Ten observational studies (9 cohorts and one case-control study; n = 815,667) fulfilled our criteria. The overall combined estimate suggested that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.86 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.93]), CVD death (HR: 0.80 [95% CI 0.78 to 0.81]), and stroke (HR: 0.85 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.94]) and a non-significant association with risk of MI (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.02]). The beneficial association of statins with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant even at higher ages (> 75 years old; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.96]) and in both men (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.76]) and women (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.99]). However, this association with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant only in those with diabetes mellitus (DM) (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.98]) but not in those without DM. The level of evidence of all the primary outcomes was rated as “very low.” Conclusions Statin therapy in older people (aged ≥ 65 years) without CVD was associated with a 14%, 20%, and 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality, CVD death, and stroke, respectively. The beneficial association with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant even at higher ages (> 75 years old), in both men and women, and in individuals with DM, but not in those without DM. These observational findings support the need for trials to test the benefits of statins in those above 75 years of age.

scholarly journals Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) in primary prevention for cardiovascular disease in older adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhen Zhou ◽  
Loai Albarqouni ◽  
Monique Breslin ◽  
Andrea J Curtis ◽  
Mark Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Older People ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionAlthough 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 analysisThis 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 disseminationThis 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 numberCRD42017058436.

The burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors in the Middle East: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on primary prevention

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akshaya Srikanth Bhagavathula ◽  
Abdullah Shehab ◽  
Anhar Ullah ◽  
Jamal Rahmani
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Family History ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
History Of

Background: The increasing incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) threatens the Middle Eastern population. Several epidemiological studies have assessed CVD and its risk factors in terms of the primary prevention of CVD in the Middle East. Therefore, summarizing the information from these studies is essential. Aim: We conducted a systematic review to assess the prevalence of CVD and its major risk factors among Middle Eastern adults based on the literature published between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018 and carried out a meta-analysis. Methods: We searched electronic databases such as PubMed/Medline, ScienceDirect, Embase and Google Scholar to identify literature published from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018. All the original articles that investigated the prevalence of CVD and reported at least one of the following factors were included: hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, smoking and family history of CVD. To summarize CVD prevalence, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis. Results: A total of 41 potentially relevant articles were included, and 32 were included in the meta-analysis (n=191,979). The overall prevalence of CVD was 10.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.1-14.3%, p<0.001) in the Middle East. A high prevalence of CVD risk factors, such as dyslipidaemia (43.3%; 95% CI: 21.5-68%), hypertension (26.2%; 95% CI: 19.6-34%) and diabetes (16%; 95% CI: 9.9-24.8%), was observed. The prevalence rates of other risk factors, such as smoking (12.4%; 95% CI: 7.7-19.4%) and family history of CVD (18.7%; 95% CI: 15.4-22.5%), were also high. Conclusion: The prevalence of CVD is high (10.1%) in the Middle East. The burden of dyslipidaemia (43.3%) in this region is twice as high as that of hypertension (26.2%) and diabetes mellitus (16%). Multifaceted interventions are urgently needed for the primary prevention of CVD in this region.

Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Elderly Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Drugs & Aging ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 649-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Teng ◽  
Liang Lin ◽  
Ying Jiao Zhao ◽  
Ai Leng Khoo ◽  
Barry R. Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

scholarly journals Dietary Supplements and Risk of Cause-Specific Death, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Primary Prevention Trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukas Schwingshackl ◽  
Heiner Boeing ◽  
Marta Stelmach-Mardas ◽  
Marion Gottschald ◽  
Stefan Dietrich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Dietary Supplements ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevention Trials

scholarly journals Associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1537
Author(s):  
Ting Cai ◽  
Lucy Abel ◽  
Oliver Langford ◽  
Genevieve Monaghan ◽  
Jeffrey K Aronson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Difference ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract Objective To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020. Review methods Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy. Data synthesis A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E max model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin. Results 62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E max dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive. Conclusions For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020169955.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document