MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Tolerability and Harms of Individual Statins

2013· review· en· W2160313369 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Huseyin Naci, Jasper J. Brugts, A. E. Ades

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioInternal medicineRosuvastatinPravastatinConfidence intervalPlaceboAtorvastatinFluvastatinStatinSimvastatinAdverse effectCholesterolPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to estimate the comparative harms of individual statins using both placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically reviewed randomized trials evaluating different statins in participants with and without cardiovascular disease. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses to quantify the relative harms of individual statins. We included 55 two-armed placebo-controlled and 80 two- or multiarmed active-comparator trials including 246,955 individuals. According to pairwise meta-analyses, individual statins were not different than control in terms of myalgia, creatine kinase elevation, cancer, and discontinuations because of adverse events. Statins as a class resulted in significantly higher odds of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.16) and transaminase elevations (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.84) compared with control. When individual statins were compared in network meta-analyses, there were numerous statistically detectable differences, favoring simvastatin and pravastatin. According to dose-level comparisons, individual statins resulted in higher odds of discontinuations with higher doses of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Similarly, higher doses of atorvasatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin were associated with higher odds of transaminase elevations. Simvastatin at its highest doses was associated with creatine kinase elevations (odds ratio, 4.14; 95% credible interval, 1.08-16.24). Meta-regression analyses adjusting for study-level age at baseline, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and publication year did not explain heterogeneity. There was no detectable inconsistency in the network. CONCLUSIONS: As a class, adverse events associated with statin therapy are not common. Statins are not associated with cancer risk but do result in a higher odds of diabetes mellitus. Among individual statins, simvastatin and pravastatin seem safer and more tolerable than other statins.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.026
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations291
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207