Examining the Nocebo Effect of Statins Through Statin Adverse Events Reported in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate whether the high frequency of reported statin adverse effects (AEs) may be associated with the nocebo effect. We compared nocebo-related subjective AEs with objective AEs and investigated factors potentially associated with the nocebo effect. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System between January 2010 and December 2019 for statins, including, atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin, and simvastatin. Subjective AEs included fatigue, subjective muscular, and nervous system AEs. Objective AEs were defined as hepatic and objective muscular AEs. We compared the number of subjective and objective AEs using the Mann-Whitney U test and examined trends in the frequency of subjective versus objective reports over time using linear regression with interaction terms. We evaluated the association between AEs and gender and country using linear regression. Quantitative detection of signals was estimated using proportional reporting ratio and reporting odds ratio for simvastatin. Results: Of 2 994 487 overall AE reports, more subjective than objective AEs were reported per quarter (mean±SD: 4777±1375.45 versus 999±276.95; P <0.0001), and over time during the study period ( P <0.001). Women reported more subjective AEs than men per quarter (fatigue: 86.98 more per quarter, P =0.035; subjective muscular AE: 417.95, P <0.0001; nervous system AE: 273.60, P <0.0001), but fewer objective muscular AEs (−125.23 per quarter, P <0.0001). More subjective AEs and fewer objective AEs were reported per quarter in the United States relative to other countries. Simvastatin-associated reports showed signals for higher objective muscular AEs relative to all other statins (reporting odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.49–1.58]). Conclusions: This study found that significantly more subjective than objective AEs are reported for statins. Subjective statin AEs, potentially related to the nocebo effect are reported more often by women than by men, and in the United States than in other countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".