Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34698889›Full record

Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2022

Comparison of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and persistent physical disability in older adults.

Zhen Zhou, Andrea J Curtis, Michael E Ernst, Joanne Ryan, Sophia Zoungas, Rory Wolfe, John J McNeil, Anne M Murray, Christopher M Reid, Enayet K Chowdhury and 3 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhen ZhouMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, TAS, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, 7000, Australia. zhen.zhou@utas.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0835-8686
Andrea J CurtisDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Michael E ErnstDepartment of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy, The University of Iowa, Iowa, IA, USA.
Joanne RyanDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sophia ZoungasDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Rory WolfeDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
John J McNeilDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Anne M MurrayBerman Center for Outcomes and Clinical Research, Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine Hennepin HealthCare, Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Christopher M ReidDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Enayet K ChowdhurySchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Robyn L WoodsDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Andrew M TonkinDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Mark R NelsonMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, TAS, 17 Liverpool Street, Hobart, 7000, Australia.
Monash University · AUCurtin University · AUUniversity of Tasmania · AUUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

ASPirin in Reducing Events in the ElderlyU01AG029824 · NIA · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI MCNEIL, JOHN JAMES, MURRAY, ANNE M · 2009 to 2018
$64.6M
Main Administrative CoreU19AG062682 · NIA · HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHAN, ANDREW T, MCNEIL, JOHN JAMES · 2019 to 2023
$42.9M
NIA NIH HHS U01 AG029824NIA NIH HHS U19 AG062682
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRecent epidemiological evidence has suggested that use of lipid-lowering medications, particularly statins, was associated with reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and persistent physical disability in healthy older adults. However, the comparative efficacy of different statins in this group remains unclear. This study aimed to compare different forms of statins in their associations with CVD and physical disability in healthy older adults.

methodsThis post hoc analysis included data from 5981 participants aged ≥ 70 years (≥ 65 if US minorities; median age:74.0) followed for a median of 4.7 years, who had no prior CVD events or physical disability and reported using a statin at baseline. The incidence of the composite and components of major adverse cardiovascular events and persistent physical disability were compared across different statins according to their type, potency, and lipophilicity using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models.

resultsAtorvastatin was the most used statin type at baseline (37.9%), followed by simvastatin (29.6%), rosuvastatin (25.5%), and other statins (7.0%, predominantly pravastatin). In comparisons of specific statins according to type and lipophilicity (lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin), observed differences in all outcomes were small and not statistically significant (all p values > 0.05). High-potency statin use (atorvastatin and rosuvastatin) was marginally associated with lower risk of fatal CVD events compared with low-/moderate-potency statin use (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 1.00).

conclusionThere were minimal differences in CVD outcomes and no significant difference in persistent physical disability between various forms of statins in healthy older adults. Future investigations are needed to confirm our results.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAtorvastatinCardiovascular DiseasesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMalePersons with DisabilitiesPravastatinPrimary PreventionProportional Hazards ModelsRosuvastatin CalciumSimvastatinAtorvastatinHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPravastatinRosuvastatin CalciumSimvastatinCardiovascular diseasePrimary preventionStatinsSurvivalThe aged

Identifiers

PMID34698889
PMCPMC9993349
OpenAlexW3208235556

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
LicenceTDM
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.