Journal of general internal medicine · 2021
The Risk of Muscular Events Among New Users of Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Statins: an Observational Cohort Study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mueller Alexandra M, Liakoni Evangelia, Schneider Cornelia, Burkard Theresa, Jick Susan S, Krähenbühl Stephan, Meier Christoph R, Spoendlin Julia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Statins are effective lipid-lowering drugs for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, but muscular adverse events can limit their use. Hydrophilic statins (pravastatin, rosuvastatin) may cause less muscular events than lipophilic statins (e.g. simvastatin, atorvastatin) due to lower passive diffusion into muscle cells.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of muscular events between statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses and to evaluate if hydrophilic statins are associated with a lower muscular risk than lipophilic statins.
DESIGN/SETTING: Propensity score-matched cohort study using data from the United Kingdom-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD.
PATIENTS: New statin users. Cohort 1: pravastatin 20-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs simvastatin 10-20 mg (lipophilic), cohort 2: rosuvastatin 5-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs atorvastatin 10-80 mg (lipophilic), and cohort 3: simvastatin 40-80 mg vs atorvastatin 10-20 mg.
MAIN MEASURES: The outcome was a first record of a muscular event (myopathy, myalgia, myositis, rhabdomyolysis) during a maximum follow-up of 1 year.
KEY RESULTS: The propensity score-matched cohorts consisted of 1) 9,703, 2) 7,032, and 3) 37,743 pairs of statin users. Comparing the risk of muscular events between low-intensity pravastatin vs low-intensity simvastatin yielded a HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.16). In the comparison of moderate- to high-intensity rosuvastatin vs equivalent doses of atorvastatin, we observed a HR of 1.17 (95% CI 0.88-1.56). Moderate- to high-intensity simvastatin was associated with a HR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.16-1.53), when compared with atorvastatin at equivalent doses.
LIMITATIONS: We could not conduct other pairwise comparisons of statins due to small sample size. In the absence of a uniform definition on the comparability of statin doses, the applied dose ratios may not fully match with all literature sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not suggest a systematically lower risk of muscular events for hydrophilic statins when compared to lipophilic statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of muscular events between statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses and to evaluate if hydrophilic statins are associated with a lower muscular risk than lipophilic statins.
DESIGN/SETTING: Propensity score-matched cohort study using data from the United Kingdom-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD.
PATIENTS: New statin users. Cohort 1: pravastatin 20-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs simvastatin 10-20 mg (lipophilic), cohort 2: rosuvastatin 5-40 mg (hydrophilic) vs atorvastatin 10-80 mg (lipophilic), and cohort 3: simvastatin 40-80 mg vs atorvastatin 10-20 mg.
MAIN MEASURES: The outcome was a first record of a muscular event (myopathy, myalgia, myositis, rhabdomyolysis) during a maximum follow-up of 1 year.
KEY RESULTS: The propensity score-matched cohorts consisted of 1) 9,703, 2) 7,032, and 3) 37,743 pairs of statin users. Comparing the risk of muscular events between low-intensity pravastatin vs low-intensity simvastatin yielded a HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.16). In the comparison of moderate- to high-intensity rosuvastatin vs equivalent doses of atorvastatin, we observed a HR of 1.17 (95% CI 0.88-1.56). Moderate- to high-intensity simvastatin was associated with a HR of 1.33 (95% CI 1.16-1.53), when compared with atorvastatin at equivalent doses.
LIMITATIONS: We could not conduct other pairwise comparisons of statins due to small sample size. In the absence of a uniform definition on the comparability of statin doses, the applied dose ratios may not fully match with all literature sources.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not suggest a systematically lower risk of muscular events for hydrophilic statins when compared to lipophilic statins at comparable lipid-lowering doses.