Trial reportLancet (London, England)2017
Adverse events associated with unblinded, but not with blinded, statin therapy in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial and its non-randomised non-blind extension phase.
Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2017. The graph read 8 numbers from its abstract, feeding 4 cells of the map: it favours the comparator in 1, finds no clear difference in 3. It also reports 3 associations that do not count as treatment evidence, such as HR 1.40 (1.04 to 1.88) for blood and lymphatic system disorders. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 113 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 [1.87%] per annum vs 392 [1.51%] per annum; 1.23 [1.08-1.41]; p=0.002).
During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2.03% per annum] vs 283 [2.00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.88-1.21]; p=0.72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1.86% per annum] vs 302 [2.14% per annum]; 0.88 [0.75-1.04]; p=0.13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo.
During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2.03% per annum] vs 283 [2.00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.88-1.21]; p=0.72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1.86% per annum] vs 302 [2.14% per annum]; 0.88 [0.75-1.04]; p=0.13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo.
Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 [0.20% per annum] vs 32 [0.22% per annum]; 0.94 [0.57-1.54]; p=0.81).
The authors add: Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis
The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 [1.00% per annum] vs 210 [1.46% per annum]; 0.69 [0.56-0.85]; p=0.0005).
Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against
We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8.69% per annum] vs 831 [7.45% per annum]; 1.17 [1.06-1.29]; p=0.001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0.88% per annum] vs 80 [0.64% per annum]; 1.40 [1.04-1.88]; p=0.03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users.
We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8.69% per annum] vs 831 [7.45% per annum]; 1.17 [1.06-1.29]; p=0.001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0.88% per annum] vs 80 [0.64% per annum]; 1.40 [1.04-1.88]; p=0.03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users.
By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 [1.26% per annum] vs 124 [1.00% per annum]; 1.41 [1.10-1.79]; p=0.006).
clause the extractor read what became the number
Where it lands on the map
Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.
What it adds to each cell
For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.
Statins×quality of life & behaviour
InconclusiveOpen on the map →What to test next →3 readable studies in this cell: 0 favour the treatment, 3 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.
Statins×adverse events & safety
InconclusiveOpen on the map →What to test next →11 readable studies in this cell: 3 favour the treatment, 7 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.
Statins×kidney outcomes
ContradictsOpen on the map →What to test next →4 readable studies in this cell: 0 favour the treatment, 3 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.
Statins×neuropathy, eye & foot
InconclusiveOpen on the map →What to test next →2 readable studies in this cell: 0 favour the treatment, 2 find no difference, 0 favour the comparator.
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.
EpisodicStatinMig. A Multicentre, Triple Blind, Placebo Controlled, Parallel Group Study of Atorvastatin in Episodic Migraine
ChronicStatinMig. A Multicentre, Triple Blind, Placebo Controlled, Parallel Group Study of Atorvastatin in Chronic Migraine
Who cites it
113 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 334 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs on neurocognitive function: systematic review and meta analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- Statins for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Placebo administration for dry eye disease: a level I evidence based systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2022Pooled it
- Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Evaluating the Comparative Efficacy of Lipid-Lowering Therapies Added to Maximally Tolerated Statins for the Reduction of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of statin therapy on muscle symptoms: an individual participant data meta-analysis of large-scale, randomised, double-blind trials.Lancet (London, England) · 2022 · on this mapPooled it
- Association Between Vitamin D Supplementation and Statin-Associated Muscle Symptoms: A Systematic Review.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2022Pooled it
- The Safety and Tolerability of Statin Therapy in Primary Prevention in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Drugs & aging · 2020 · on this mapPooled it
- Adverse Events and Nocebo Effects in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2019Pooled it
- 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Circulation · 2019 · on this mapGuideline
- Introducing the 'Drucebo' effect in statin therapy: a systematic review of studies comparing reported rates of statin-associated muscle symptoms, under blinded and open-label conditions.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2018Pooled it
- The Biosimilar Nocebo Effect? A Systematic Review of Double-Blinded Versus Open-Label Studies.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Pooled it
- Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Acute Large-Vessel Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Trial.CNS drugs · 2024Trial
- Side Effect Patterns in a Crossover Trial of Statin, Placebo, and No Treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2021Trial
- The effect of statins on muscle symptoms in primary care: the StatinWISE series of 200 N-of-1 RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Statin treatment and muscle symptoms: series of randomised, placebo controlled n-of-1 trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Trial
- Statin treatment after acute coronary syndrome: Adherence and reasons for non-adherence in a randomized controlled intervention trial.Scientific reports · 2019Trial
- Article
- Non-adherence to Statin Treatment: A Narrative Review of Causes, Clinical Impact, and Preventive Strategies.Cureus · 2026Review
- Large Language Model-Based Analysis of Statin Therapy Discussions and Sentiment on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.
backgroundIn blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has been associated with few adverse events (AEs). By contrast, in observational studies, larger increases in many different AEs have been reported than in blinded trials.
methodsIn the Lipid-Lowering Arm of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial, patients aged 40-79 years with hypertension, at least three other cardiovascular risk factors, and fasting total cholesterol concentrations of 6·5 mmol/L or lower, and who were not taking a statin or fibrate, had no history of myocardial infarction, and were not being treated for angina were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg daily or matching placebo in a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase. In a subsequent non-randomised non-blind extension phase (initiated because of early termination of the trial because efficacy of atorvastatin was shown), all patients were offered atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label. We classified AEs using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. We blindly adjudicated all reports of four prespecified AEs of interest-muscle-related, erectile dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment-and analysed all remaining AEs grouped by system organ class. Rates of AEs are given as percentages per annum.
resultsThe blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998, and December, 2002; we included 101 80 patients in this analysis (5101 [50%] in the atorvastatin group and 5079 [50%] in the placebo group), with a median follow-up of 3·3 years (IQR 2·7-3·7). The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December, 2002, and June, 2005; we included 9899 patients in this analysis (6409 [65%] atorvastatin users and 3490 [35%] non-users), with a median follow-up of 2·3 years (2·2-2·4). During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2·03% per annum] vs 283 [2·00% per annum]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·88-1·21]; p=0·72) and erectile dysfunction (272 [1·86% per annum] vs 302 [2·14% per annum]; 0·88 [0·75-1·04]; p=0·13) were reported at a similar rate by participants randomly assigned to atorvastatin or placebo. The rate of reports of sleep disturbance was significantly lower among participants assigned atorvastatin than assigned placebo (149 [1·00% per annum] vs 210 [1·46% per annum]; 0·69 [0·56-0·85]; p=0·0005). Too few cases of cognitive impairment were reported for a statistically reliable analysis (31 [0·20% per annum] vs 32 [0·22% per annum]; 0·94 [0·57-1·54]; p=0·81). We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other reported AEs, with the exception of an excess of renal and urinary AEs among patients assigned atorvastatin (481 [1·87%] per annum vs 392 [1·51%] per annum; 1·23 [1·08-1·41]; p=0·002). By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were reported at a significantly higher rate by participants taking statins than by those who were not (161 [1·26% per annum] vs 124 [1·00% per annum]; 1·41 [1·10-1·79]; p=0·006). We noted no significant differences between statin users and non-users in the rates of other AEs, with the exception of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (992 [8·69% per annum] vs 831 [7·45% per annum]; 1·17 [1·06-1·29]; p=0·001) and blood and lymphatic system disorders (114 [0·88% per annum] vs 80 [0·64% per annum]; 1·40 [1·04-1·88]; p=0·03), which were reported more commonly by statin users than by non-users.
interpretationThese analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded. These results will help assure both physicians and patients that most AEs associated with statins are not causally related to use of the drug and should help counter the adverse effect on public health of exaggerated claims about statin-related side-effects.
fundingPfizer, Servier Research Group, and Leo Laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.