Dose-comparative effects of different statins on serum lipid levels: A network meta-analysis of 256,827 individuals in 181 randomized controlled trials

European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 658-670

  Naci, Huseyin ^a   Brugts, Jasper J ^b   Fleurence, Rachael ^c   Ades, A E ^d  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (United Kingdom)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cholesterol; indirect comparison; meta analysis; mixed treatment comparison; Statins; systematic review

Indexed keywords

ATORVASTATIN; FLUINDOSTATIN; HIGH DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; LOW DENSITY LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL; MEVINOLIN; PLACEBO; PRAVASTATIN; ROSUVASTATIN; SIMVASTATIN;

ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CHOLESTEROL BLOOD LEVEL; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG EFFECT; HUMAN; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; LIPID BLOOD LEVEL; META ANALYSIS; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SECONDARY PREVENTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

CHOLESTEROL; INDIRECT COMPARISON; META-ANALYSIS; MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON; STATINS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DYSLIPIDEMIAS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL-COA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS; LIPIDS; MARKOV CHAINS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84880294719     PISSN: 20474873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2047487313483600     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Smith MEB, Lee NJ and Haney ESC. Drug class review: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). Update 5. Portland: Oregon Health and Science University.
2. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al. European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012): the Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis. 2012 ; 223: 1-68
3. Kong SX, Crawford SY, Gandhi SK, et al. Efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3- methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clin Ther. 1997 ; 19: 778-797
4. Law MR, Wald NJ, Rudnicka AR. Quantifying effect of statins on low density lipoprotein cholesterol, ischaemic heart disease, and stroke: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003 ; 326: 1423-1423
5. Edwards J, Moore RA. Statins in hypercholesterolaemia: a dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomised, double blind trials. BMC Family Practice. 2003 ; 4: 18-18
6. Wlodarczyk J, Sullivan D, Smith M. Comparison of benefits and risks of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin from a meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Am J Cardiol. 2008 ; 102: 1654-1662
7. Rogers SL, Magliano DJ, Levison DB, et al. A dose-specific meta-analysis of lipid changes in randomized controlled trials of atorvastatin and simvastatin. Clin Ther. 2007 ; 29: 242-252
8. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ. 2009 ; 338 :
9. Singh M, Hao Chin S, Giles PD, et al. Controlling lipids in a high-risk population with documented coronary artery disease for secondary prevention: are we doing enough?. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010 ; 17: 556-561
10. Bauer T, Gitt AK, Jünger C, et al. Guideline-recommended secondary prevention drug therapy after acute myocardial infarction: predictors and outcomes of nonadherence. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010 ; 17: 576-581
11. van Dam M, van Wissen S, Kastelein JJP. Declaring war on undertreatment: rationale for an aggressive approach to lowering cholesterol. Eur J Cardiovasc Risk. 2002 ; 9: 89-95
12. H Naci, JJ Brugts, R Fleurence, et al. Comparative clinical efficacy and safety of statins: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison - study protocol. London: LSE. Available at: www2.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/pdf/ HNaciProtocol.pdf (2009, consulted 9 February 2013).
13. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ. 2005 ; 331: 897-900
14. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002 ; 21: 2313-2324
15. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004 ; 23: 3105-3124
16. Ades AE. A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi-parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence. Stat Med. 2003 ; 22: 2995-3016
17. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 1: introduction to evidence synthesis for decision making - report by the decision support unit. London: NICE. Available at: http://www.nicedsu.org.uk (2011, consulted 9 February 2013).
18. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, et al. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods. 2010 ; 1: 97-111
19. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 ; 64: 163-171
20. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, et al. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: Application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med. 2009 ; 28: 1861-1881
21. Pfizer. LIPITOR: full prescribing information. New York: Pfizer. Available at: http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=587 (2012, consulted March 2012).
22. Naci H, Fleurence R. Using indirect evidence to determine the comparative effectiveness of prescription drugs: do benefits outweigh risks?. Health Outcomes Research in Medicine. 2011 ; 2: e241 - e249
23. Ioannidis JPA. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. Can Med Assoc J. 2009 ; 181: 488-493
24. Naci H, Brugts J, Fleurence R, et al. Comparative benefits of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of major coronary events and all-cause mortality: A network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013. Epub ahead of print 27 February 3013.
25. Naci H, Brugts J, Fleurence R, et al. Comparative effects of statins on major cerebrovascular events: A multiple-treatments meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials. QJM 2013. Epub ahead of print 21 February 2013.
26. Alberton M, Wu P, Druyts E, et al. Adverse events associated with individual statin treatments for cardiovascular disease: an indirect comparison meta-analysis. QJM. 2012 ; 105: 145-157
27. Miller M, Stone NJ, Ballantyne C, et al. Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011 ; 123: 2292-2333
28. Boekholdt SM, Arsenault BJ, Mora S, et al. Association of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels with risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statins: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012 ; 307: 1302-1309