MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095889878 · doi:10.1345/aph.1q620

Is Statin-Associated Cognitive Impairment Clinically Relevant? A Narrative Review and Clinical Recommendations

2012· review· en· W2095889878 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos Rojas‐Fernandez, Jean-Christy F. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonResearch Institute for AgingMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatinCognitionObservational studyAdverse effectRosuvastatinDementiaDiscontinuationRandomized controlled trialPlaceboPravastatinDeliriumPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychiatryCholesterolAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of statin use on cognition. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE (1950-November 2011), EMBASE (1980-November 2011), and the Cochrane Library (1960-November 2011) using the search terms "cognition/drug effects," "delirium, dementia, amnestic, cognitive disorders/chemically induced," "memory disorders/chemically induced," "hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors/adverse effects," and "hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors." A bibliographic search on included references was also conducted. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were included for analysis if they were conducted in humans and examined the impact of statin use on cognition as either a primary or secondary endpoint; case reports and case series were also included for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: Reports of statin-associated cognitive impairment were found primarily in observational studies (eg, case reports/series). One randomized controlled trial demonstrated that simvastatin impaired some measures of cognition compared to placebo. Conversely, in the majority of randomized controlled trials and observational studies, statins were found to have either a neutral or beneficial effect on cognition. Preliminary data suggest that statins that are less lipophilic (ie, pravastatin and rosuvastatin) may be less likely to contribute to cognitive impairment due to limited penetration across the blood-brain barrier. These drugs would be a logical alternative in cases where cognitive impairment secondary to another statin is suspected. CONCLUSIONS: Despite several reports of statin-associated cognitive impairment, this adverse effect remains a rare occurrence among the totality of the literature. If statin-associated cognitive impairment is suspected, a trial discontinuation can reveal a temporal relationship. Switching from lipophilic to hydrophilic statins may resolve cognitive impairment. The vascular benefits and putative cognitive benefits outweigh the risk of cognitive impairment associated with statin use; therefore, the current evidence does not support changing practice with respect to statin use, given this adverse effect.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.255
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207