Evidence Hub

Statin-related adverse events: a meta-analysis

Silva MA, Swanson AC, Gandhi PJ, Tataronis GR

Clinical therapeutics, 2006

1,000 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The absolute frequencies of adverse events (AEs) between statins and placebo are very low in clinical trials, making clinical interpretation and application difficult.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis was intended to synthesize the collective AE data observed in prospective randomized clinical trials to facilitate clinical interpretation.

METHODS: Using the search terms atorvastatin, simvastatin,pravastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, prospective trial, and randomized trial, the MEDLINE/EMBASE and the Cochrane Collaboration databases were reviewed for prospective randomized primary and secondary prevention trials of statin monotherapy. Nonrandomized uncontrolled studies and those missing AE data were excluded. The Mantel-Haenszel test for fixed and random effects was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and log ORs.

RESULTS: Eighteen trials including 71,108 persons, and 301,374 person-years of follow-up were represented in this analysis. There were 36,062 persons receiving a statin and 35,046 receiving a placebo. Statin therapy increased the risk of any AE by 39% (OR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.09-1.80; P = 0.008; NNH [number needed to harm] = 197) compared with placebo. Statins were associated with a 26% reduction in the risk of a clinical cardiovascular event (OR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.80; P 10 times the upper limit of normal or rhabdomyolysis) are infrequent (NNH = 3400) and rhabdomyolysis, although serious, is rare (NNH = 7428). Atorvastatin was associated with…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,000 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free