Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16926812›Full record

ReviewMedGenMed : Medscape general medicine2006

Rosuvastatin: an independent analysis of risks and benefits.

Douglas P Zipes, Nathan J Zvaifler, Richard J Glassock, Sid Gilman, Alvaro Muñoz, Victor Gogolak, Leon Gordis, Peter C Dedon, Frederick P Guengerich, Stephen I Wasserman and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas P ZipesKrannert Institute of Cardiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. dzipes@iupui.edu
Nathan J Zvaifler
Richard J Glassock
Sid Gilman
Alvaro Muñoz
Victor Gogolak
Leon Gordis
Peter C Dedon
Frederick P Guengerich
Stephen I Wasserman
Joseph L Witztum
Gerald N Wogan
University of California, San Diego · USJohns Hopkins University · USMassachusetts Institute of Technology · USIndiana University School of MedicineUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FluorobenzenesHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsKidney DiseasesMuscular DiseasesPyrimidinesRisk AssessmentRosuvastatin CalciumSulfonamidesFluorobenzenesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPyrimidinesRosuvastatin CalciumSulfonamides

Identifiers

PMID16926812
PMCPMC1785157
OpenAlexW38002016

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.