ReviewMedGenMed : Medscape general medicine2006
Rosuvastatin: an independent analysis of risks and benefits.
Review in MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- A reappraisal of the risks and benefits of treating to target with cholesterol lowering drugs.Drugs · 2013Review
- A survey of the FDA's AERS database regarding muscle and tendon adverse events linked to the statin drug class.PloS one · 2012Article
- Statin-associated muscular and renal adverse events: data mining of the public version of the FDA adverse event reporting system.PloS one · 2011Article
- Platinum agent-induced hypersensitivity reactions: data mining of the public version of the FDA adverse event reporting system, AERS.International journal of medical sciences · 2011Article
- Mechanisms of drug toxicity and relevance to pharmaceutical development.Drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2011Review
- Update information on drug metabolism systems--2009, part I.Current drug metabolism · 2010Review
- Clinical efficacy and safety of statins in managing cardiovascular risk.Vascular health and risk management · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the effectiveness of statins is well established, analyses of spontaneous adverse event reports have recently questioned the safety of rosuvastatin. METHODS AND
resultsWe evaluated the risks and benefits of rosuvastatin and compared it with other statins presently on the market. Information was obtained from a search of medical and scientific literature that produced 3001 entries, of which 591 publications containing particularly relevant data were identified, and from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporting System (AERS) and Spontaneous Reporting System through June 30, 2004. For the AERS data and to control for overreporting in the first postmarketing year and the effect on reporting due to the withdrawal of cerivastatin in 2001, we used the rate of a given adverse event among all adverse events as a measure of risk. We found that adverse effects of rosuvastatin in skeletal muscle, liver, and kidney function did not substantially differ in frequency from those reported for those of other statins in the market in 2004, except for the uncommon development of a mild form of presumably "tubular" proteinuria at doses of 40 mg/day or greater. In contrast, cerivastatin had significantly higher rates of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis than rosuvastatin's, but there was no additional effect on renal failure beyond that mediated through rhabdomyolysis. From our literature review, we found that rosuvastatin reduces abnormal lipids on a milligram-per-milligram comparison more than atorvastatin.
conclusionWe conclude that rosuvastatin at approved doses incurs no greater risk for adverse events than other marketed statins, except for a mild form of tubular proteinuria when doses at or above the maximum recommended levels (> or = 40 mg/day) were administered. Its risk-benefit ratio is acceptable when compared with other statins on the market in 2006.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16926812PMC1785157W38002016What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.