Meta-Analyses of Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention Do Not Answer Key Questions: An Empirical Appraisal of 5 Years of Statin Meta-Analyses

Chetan Huded, Vinay Prasad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Although meta-analyses of statins in primary prevention are designed to provide doctors and patients with better evidence about the risks and potential benefits of treatment, they may ignore important patient-centered outcomes and concerns. We examined all meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention over the last 5 years. We assessed whether each meta-analysis addressed five key points: whether authors examined endpoints based on the use of statin therapy, and not stratified by low-density lipoprotein reduction; whether authors included only studies of statin versus placebo, and not varying doses or brands of statin; whether authors considered commonly cited harms; whether secondary prevention patients were excluded; and, whether overall mortality was examined. We examined 189 articles to identify 24 meta-analyses of statins that made claims regarding primary prevention. Six studies (25 %) reported outcomes as a function of reduction in serum lipid levels rather than treatment received. Seven studies (29 %) included trials of high-dose versus low-dose statin in their analysis. Five studies (21 %) did not examine all-cause mortality. The majority of studies (n = 21, 88 %) failed to exclude patients with known cardiovascular disease, and 22 (92 %) studies failed to assess two of three common safety concerns. Nevertheless, most (n = 20, 83 %) meta-analyses supported the use of statins in primary prevention. Based on our findings, we conclude that most recent meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention do not adequately address the question they seek to answer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)379-386
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
Primary Prevention
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics
Mortality
Secondary Prevention
LDL Lipoproteins
Cardiovascular Diseases
Placebos
Lipids
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

@article{05dbac725fcd43fc9c0a134c1682b211,
title = "Meta-Analyses of Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention Do Not Answer Key Questions: An Empirical Appraisal of 5 Years of Statin Meta-Analyses",
abstract = "Although meta-analyses of statins in primary prevention are designed to provide doctors and patients with better evidence about the risks and potential benefits of treatment, they may ignore important patient-centered outcomes and concerns. We examined all meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention over the last 5 years. We assessed whether each meta-analysis addressed five key points: whether authors examined endpoints based on the use of statin therapy, and not stratified by low-density lipoprotein reduction; whether authors included only studies of statin versus placebo, and not varying doses or brands of statin; whether authors considered commonly cited harms; whether secondary prevention patients were excluded; and, whether overall mortality was examined. We examined 189 articles to identify 24 meta-analyses of statins that made claims regarding primary prevention. Six studies (25 {\%}) reported outcomes as a function of reduction in serum lipid levels rather than treatment received. Seven studies (29 {\%}) included trials of high-dose versus low-dose statin in their analysis. Five studies (21 {\%}) did not examine all-cause mortality. The majority of studies (n = 21, 88 {\%}) failed to exclude patients with known cardiovascular disease, and 22 (92 {\%}) studies failed to assess two of three common safety concerns. Nevertheless, most (n = 20, 83 {\%}) meta-analyses supported the use of statins in primary prevention. Based on our findings, we conclude that most recent meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention do not adequately address the question they seek to answer.",
author = "Chetan Huded and Vinay Prasad",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40256-015-0139-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "379--386",
journal = "American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs",
issn = "1175-3277",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-Analyses of Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention Do Not Answer Key Questions

T2 - An Empirical Appraisal of 5 Years of Statin Meta-Analyses

AU - Huded, Chetan

AU - Prasad, Vinay

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Although meta-analyses of statins in primary prevention are designed to provide doctors and patients with better evidence about the risks and potential benefits of treatment, they may ignore important patient-centered outcomes and concerns. We examined all meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention over the last 5 years. We assessed whether each meta-analysis addressed five key points: whether authors examined endpoints based on the use of statin therapy, and not stratified by low-density lipoprotein reduction; whether authors included only studies of statin versus placebo, and not varying doses or brands of statin; whether authors considered commonly cited harms; whether secondary prevention patients were excluded; and, whether overall mortality was examined. We examined 189 articles to identify 24 meta-analyses of statins that made claims regarding primary prevention. Six studies (25 %) reported outcomes as a function of reduction in serum lipid levels rather than treatment received. Seven studies (29 %) included trials of high-dose versus low-dose statin in their analysis. Five studies (21 %) did not examine all-cause mortality. The majority of studies (n = 21, 88 %) failed to exclude patients with known cardiovascular disease, and 22 (92 %) studies failed to assess two of three common safety concerns. Nevertheless, most (n = 20, 83 %) meta-analyses supported the use of statins in primary prevention. Based on our findings, we conclude that most recent meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention do not adequately address the question they seek to answer.

AB - Although meta-analyses of statins in primary prevention are designed to provide doctors and patients with better evidence about the risks and potential benefits of treatment, they may ignore important patient-centered outcomes and concerns. We examined all meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention over the last 5 years. We assessed whether each meta-analysis addressed five key points: whether authors examined endpoints based on the use of statin therapy, and not stratified by low-density lipoprotein reduction; whether authors included only studies of statin versus placebo, and not varying doses or brands of statin; whether authors considered commonly cited harms; whether secondary prevention patients were excluded; and, whether overall mortality was examined. We examined 189 articles to identify 24 meta-analyses of statins that made claims regarding primary prevention. Six studies (25 %) reported outcomes as a function of reduction in serum lipid levels rather than treatment received. Seven studies (29 %) included trials of high-dose versus low-dose statin in their analysis. Five studies (21 %) did not examine all-cause mortality. The majority of studies (n = 21, 88 %) failed to exclude patients with known cardiovascular disease, and 22 (92 %) studies failed to assess two of three common safety concerns. Nevertheless, most (n = 20, 83 %) meta-analyses supported the use of statins in primary prevention. Based on our findings, we conclude that most recent meta-analyses of statins for primary prevention do not adequately address the question they seek to answer.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948147733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84948147733&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40256-015-0139-y

DO - 10.1007/s40256-015-0139-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 26141958

AN - SCOPUS:84948147733

VL - 15

SP - 379

EP - 386

JO - American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

JF - American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

SN - 1175-3277

IS - 6

ER -