Dataset Information

Evidence of heterogeneity in statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To conduct a meta-analysis of statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) risk among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs), excluding studies conducted among secondary prevention populations.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching PubMed (1994-present) and EMBASE (1994-present). Articles had to meet the following criteria: (1) follow-up >one year; (2) >50% of participants free of clinically diagnosed ASCVD; (3) adult participants ≥30 years old; (4) reported statin-associated T2D effect estimates; and (5) quantified precision using 95% confidence interval. Data were pooled using random-effects model.

Results

We identified 23 studies (35% RCTs) of n = 4,012,555 participants. OBS participants were on average younger (mean difference = 6.2 years) and had lower mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, mean difference = 20.6 mg/dL) and mean fasting plasma glucose (mean difference = 5.2 mg/dL) compared to RCT participants. There was little evidence for publication bias (P > 0.1). However, evidence of heterogeneity was observed overall and among OBSs and RCTs (P_Cochran = <0.05). OBS designs, younger baseline mean ages, lower LDL-C concentrations, and high proportions of never or former smokers were significantly associated with increased statin-associated T2D risk.

Conclusions

Potentially elevated statin-associated T2D risk in younger populations with lower LDL-C merits further investigation in light of evolving statin guidelines targeting primary prevention populations.

SUBMITTER: Engeda JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6544490 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence of heterogeneity in statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Engeda Joseph C JC Stackhouse Ashlyn A White Mary M Rosamond Wayne D WD Lhachimi Stefan K SK Lund Jennifer L JL Keyserling Thomas C TC Avery Christy L CL

Diabetes research and clinical practice 20190404

<h4>Aims</h4>To conduct a meta-analysis of statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) risk among randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBSs), excluding studies conducted among secondary prevention populations.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were identified by searching PubMed (1994-present) and EMBASE (1994-present). Articles had to meet the following criteria: (1) follow-up >one year; (2) >50% of participants free of clinically diagnosed ASCVD; (3) adult participants ≥30  ...[more]

PMID: 30954511

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveCurrent evidence is conflicting on whether early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus improve pregnancy outcomes. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to assess the rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes among participants with early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus vs those with routine care.Data sourcesA systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library at the Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SciELO from inception to November 2021.Study eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible for inclusion if they described randomized controlled trials comparing early screening with routine care for gestational diabetes mellitus to assess the effects of early screening and treatment on pregnancy outcomes.MethodsAll randomized controlled trials comparing early vs standard screening of gestational diabetes mellitus assessing the effect of early screening (defined as a screening at <20 weeks of gestation) vs routine screening (defined as a screening at ≥20 weeks of gestation) on pregnancy outcomes were included. The primary outcome was defined as large for gestational age, as defined by the trial. The secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes were also evaluated. Subgroup analyses were performed on the basis of screening strategy and methods.ResultsAfter exclusion, 8 randomized clinical trials (1920 participants) of early screening and treatment vs standard care were included. There were a total of 746 participants with early gestational diabetes mellitus. The risk of large for gestational age at birth did not differ between early screening and treatment for gestational diabetes mellitus and routine care among all included trials (8.1 vs 9.0%; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.22). Trials with a protocol of universal screening of participants at their first prenatal visit (>80% screened with HbA1c) and receiving early treatment if the screening test returned positive had a lower risk of large for gestational age (2.3 vs 9.1%; relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.90) than those who had routine screening and care.ConclusionOverall, early screening and treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus did not reduce the risk of large for gestational age at birth. However, trials that screened all participants at their first visit and treated early, most for an HbA1c of 5.7% to 6.4%, had a reduced risk of large for gestational age at birth compared with routine care, suggesting a possible benefit of screening all pregnant patients. However, future well-designed trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Project description:BackgroundMedication nonadherence is an important obstacle to cardiovascular disease management.ObjectiveTo improve adherence through real-time feedback based on theories of how social forces influence behavior.DesignTwo randomized controlled pilot trials called PROMOTE and SUPPORT. Participants stored statin medication in wireless-enabled pill bottles that transmitted adherence data to researchers.ParticipantsAdults with diabetes and a history of low statin adherence based on pharmacy refills (i.e., Medication Possession Ratio [MPR] <80% in the pre-randomization screening period).InterventionIn PROMOTE, each participant was randomized to 1) weekly messages in which that participant's statin adherence was compared to that of other participants (comparison), 2) weekly summaries of that participant's statin adherence (summary), or 3) control. In SUPPORT, each participant identified another person (the Medication Adherence Partner [MAP]) to receive reports about that participant's adherence, and was randomized to 1) daily reports to MAP, 2) weekly reports to MAP, 3) reports to MAP only if dose was missed, or 4) control.Main outcomes measureAdherence measured by pill bottle.Key resultsAmong 45,000 health plan members contacted by mail, <1% joined the trial. Participants had low baseline MPRs (median = 60%, IQR 41-72%) but high pill-bottle adherence (90% in PROMOTE, 92% in SUPPORT) during the trial. In PROMOTE (n = 201) and SUPPORT (n = 200), no intervention demonstrated significantly better adherence vs.ControlIn a subgroup of PROMOTE participants with the lowest pre-study MPR, pill-bottle-measured adherence in the comparison arm (89%) was higher than the control (86%) and summary (76%) arms, but differences were non-significant (p = 0.10).ConclusionsInterventions based on social forces did not improve medication adherence vs. control over a 3-month period. Given the low percentage of invited individuals who enrolled, the studies may have attracted participants who required little encouragement to improve adherence other than study participation.

Project description:IntroductionStatins are effective in preventing vascular disease and are widely recommended and used for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. However, there is concern from trials that statins might increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, partially reducing their benefit. We sought to systematically review the latest evidence on this question.MethodsFour electronic databases were searched to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies (search date December 2020). Two independent reviewers carried out the eligibility assessment based on predefined inclusion criteria. We examined the outcomes of recurrent stroke (after ischemic stroke) of any type, and separately recurrent ischemic stroke and recurrent hemorrhagic stroke. RCTs and observational cohort studies were meta-analyzed separately. Odds ratios (ORs) were used to assess the effect of statin therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsWe retrieved 559 papers in searches, of which 11 RCTs and 12 observational cohort studies were included. Both RCTs and observational studies found that statins reduced the odds of stroke of any type in those with an initial ischemic stroke (11 RCTs: OR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.77,0.97]; p = 0.02; 12 cohort studies: OR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.66, 0.96]; p = 0.02). Both RCTs and observational studies found that recurrence of ischemic stroke was reduced by statins (6 RCTs: OR = 0.81, 95% CI [0.70, 0.93]; p = 0.002; 3 observational studies: OR = 0.67, 95% CI [0.61, 0.75]; p < 0.00001). Data from 7 RCTs and 8 cohort studies did not find a significant difference in hemorrhagic stroke but could not rule out a substantial increase or reduction (7 RCTs: OR = 1.15, 95% CI [0.62, 2.13]; p = 0.66; 8 cohort studies: OR = 0.93, 95% CI [0.71, 1.21]; p = 0.59).ConclusionsIn people who have experienced an ischemic stroke, statins reduce the risk of recurrent stroke of any type medicated through a reduction of ischemic stroke. We found no increase in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Dataset Information

Evidence of heterogeneity in statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evidence of heterogeneity in statin-associated type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets