The current guidelines of statins for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention were based on results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses that suffer from limitations.
Methods: We searched in PubMed for existing systematic reviews and individual open-label or double-blinded randomized controlled trials that compared a statin with a placebo or another, which were published in English until January 01, 2018. We performed a random-effect pairwise meta-analysis of all statins as a class and network meta-analysis for the specific statins on different benefit and harm outcomes.
Results: In the pairwise meta-analyses, statins as a class showed statistically significant risk reductions on non-fatal MI (risk ratio [RR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.72), CVD mortality (RR 0.80, 0.71-0.91), all-cause mortality (RR 0.89, 0.85-0.93), non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 0.75-0.92), unstable angina (RR 0.75, 0.63-0.91), and composite major cardiovascular events (RR 0.74, 0.67-0.81). Statins increased statistically significantly relative and absolute risks of myopathy (RR 1.08, 1.01-1.15; Risk difference [RD] 13, 2-24 per 10,000 person-years); renal dysfunction (RR 1.12, 1.00-1.26; RD 16, 0-36 per 10,000 person-years); and hepatic dysfunction (RR 1.16, 1.02-1.31; RD 8, 1-16 per 10,000 person-years). The drug-level network meta-analyses showed that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were most effective in reducing CVD events while atorvastatin appeared to have the best safety profile.
Conclusions: All statins showed statistically significant risk reduction of CVD and all-cause mortality in primary prevention populations while increasing the risk for some harm risks. However, the benefit-harm profile differed by statin type. A quantitative assessment of the benefit-harm balance is thus needed since meta-analyses alone are insufficient to inform whether statins provide net benefit.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.