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.

Ajay Gupta, David Thompson, Andrew Whitehouse, Tim Collier, Bjorn Dahlof, Neil Poulter, Rory Collins, Peter Sever, ASCOT Investigators

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

8numbers the graph read from it
4cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
45.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
0.51 · no effect
Renal and urinary AEsatorvastatin 10 mg daily vs matching placebofavours the comparator · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 1.231.08 to 1.410.002
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).
Erectile dysfunctionatorvastatin 10 mg daily vs matching placebono clear difference · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.880.75 to 1.040.13
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.
Muscle-related AEsatorvastatin 10 mg daily vs matching placebono clear difference · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 1.030.88 to 1.21p=0.72
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.
Cognitive impairmentatorvastatin 10 mg daily vs matching placebono clear difference · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.940.57 to 1.540.81
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

Sleep disturbanceatorvastatin 10 mg daily vs matching placebofavours the comparator · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.690.56 to 0.850.0005
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

Blood and lymphatic system disordersstatin use (atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label) vs non-use of statinsan association or prognostic statement, not a treatment comparison · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 1.401.04 to 1.880.03
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.
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disordersstatin use (atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label) vs non-use of statinsan association or prognostic statement, not a treatment comparison · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 1.171.06 to 1.290.001
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.
Muscle-related AEsstatin use (atorvastatin 10 mg daily open label) vs non-use of statinsan association or prognostic statement, not a treatment comparison · dyslipidemia, hypertensionfeeds one cell of the map
HR 1.411.10 to 1.790.006
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

2 · Its place on the map

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.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

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.

Belief with this paper
0.25no deciding trial · 0 families support, 0 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.25This paper does not move the number.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
This paper · 2017
HR 0.940.57 to 1.54

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.

Belief with this paper
0.16contested · 1 family supports, 4 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.16This paper does not move the number.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
This paper · 2017
HR 1.030.88 to 1.21
NCT023442907,769 enrolled · 2015
HR 0.640.48 to 0.84
NCT03944512102 enrolled · 2019
RR 0.690.11 to 2.95

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.

Belief with this paper
0.00contested · 0 families support, 1 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.25This paper moves it by −0.25. It would be no deciding trial.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
This paper · 2017
HR 1.231.08 to 1.41
NCT023442907,769 enrolled · 2015
HR 0.600.14 to 2.51

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.

Belief with this paper
0.25no deciding trial · 0 families support, 0 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.25This paper does not move the number.
← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
This paper · 2017
HR 0.880.75 to 1.04
4 · 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.

NCT06248671 phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

EpisodicStatinMig. A Multicentre, Triple Blind, Placebo Controlled, Parallel Group Study of Atorvastatin in Episodic Migraine

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt. Olavs HospitalRan2024 to 2029Enrolled450ConditionsEpisodic MigraineArmsAtorvastatin 40mg, Placebo, Atorvastatin 20mg
NCT06485336 phase2recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

ChronicStatinMig. A Multicentre, Triple Blind, Placebo Controlled, Parallel Group Study of Atorvastatin in Chronic Migraine

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt. Olavs HospitalRan2024 to 2029Enrolled300ConditionsChronic MigraineArmsAtorvastatin 40mg, Placebo
5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

113 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 334 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Statins for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Side Effect Patterns in a Crossover Trial of Statin, Placebo, and No Treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2021
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

6 · The record

Corrections and comments

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ajay GuptaNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, Whitechapel, London, UK; William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
David ThompsonNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Andrew WhitehouseNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Tim CollierDepartment of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Bjorn DahlofDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Neil PoulterImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Rory CollinsClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Peter SeverNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK. Electronic address: p.sever@imperial.ac.uk.
ASCOT Investigators
Imperial College London · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedAtorvastatinDouble-Blind MethodEarly Termination of Clinical TrialsFemaleHematologic DiseasesHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsHypercholesterolemiaHypertensionHypolipidemic AgentsLymphatic DiseasesMaleMiddle AgedMuscular DiseasesAtorvastatinHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsHypolipidemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID28476288
OpenAlexW2610498431

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
Read underepoch 390

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.