TitleComparative Lipid-Lowering/Increasing Efficacy of 7 Statins in Patients with Dyslipidemia, Cardiovascular Diseases, or Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses of 50 Randomized Controlled Trials
AuthorsZhang, Xiaodan
Xing, Lu
Jia, Xiaona
Pang, Xiaocong
Xiang, Qian
Zhao, Xia
Ma, Lingyue
Liu, Zhiyan
Hu, Kun
Wang, Zhe
Cui, Yimin
AffiliationPeking Univ, Dept Pharm, Hosp 1, Base Clin Trial, Beijing 100034, Peoples R China
China Pharmaceut Univ, Dept Pharm, Nanjing 210000, Peoples R China
Peking Univ, Dept Pharm Adm & Clin Pharm, Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Pharmaceut Sci, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
KeywordsDENSITY-LIPOPROTEIN CHOLESTEROL
HIGH-DOSE ATORVASTATIN
LOWERING THERAPY
DOUBLE-BLIND
HIGH-RISK
SECONDARY PREVENTION
LDL SUBFRACTIONS
OXIDATIVE STRESS
20 MG
SIMVASTATIN
Issue Date27-Apr-2020
PublisherCARDIOVASCULAR THERAPEUTICS
AbstractObjective. The drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the lipid-lowering/increasing effects of 7 different statins in patients with dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus by conducting systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) of the lipid changes after certain statins' use. Methods. In this study, we searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through February 25, 2020, comparing the lipid-lowering efficacy of no less than two of the included statins (or statin vs. placebo). Three reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Firstly, mixed treatment overall comparison analyses, in the form of frequentist NMAs, were conducted using STATA 15.0 software. Then, subgroup analyses were conducted according to different baseline diseases. At last, sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration. The trial was registered with PROSPERO (number ). Results. As a result, seven statin monotherapy treatments in 50 studies (51956 participants) were used for the analyses. The statins included simvastatin (SIM), fluvastatin (FLU), atorvastatin (ATO), rosuvastatin (ROS), lovastatin (LOV), pravastatin (PRA), and pitavastatin (PIT). In terms of LDL-C lowering, rosuvastatin ranked 1(st) with a surface under cumulated ranking (SUCRA) value of 93.1%. The comparative treatment efficacy for LDL-C lowering was ROS>ATO>PIT>SIM>PRA>FLU>LOV>PLA. All of the other ranking and NMA results were reported in SUCRA plots and league tables. Conclusions. According to the NMAs, it can be concluded that rosuvastatin ranked 1(st) in LDL-C, ApoB-lowering efficacy and ApoA1-increasing efficacy. Lovastatin ranked 1(st) in TC- and TG-lowering efficacy, and fluvastatin ranked 1(st) in HDL-C-increasing efficacy. The results should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations in our review. However, they can provide references and evidence-based foundation for drug selection in both statin monotherapies and statin combination therapies.
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11897/588997
ISSN1755-5914
DOI10.1155/2020/3987065
IndexedSCI(E)
Appears in Collections:第一医院
药学院

Files in This Work
There are no files associated with this item.

Web of Science®



Checked on Last Week

Scopus®



Checked on Current Time

百度学术™



Checked on Current Time

Google Scholar™





License: See PKU IR operational policies.