15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes: retrospective cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To assess whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in old and very old adults with and without diabetes.

          Design

          Retrospective cohort study.

          Setting

          Database of the Catalan primary care system (SIDIAP), Spain, 2006-15.

          Participants

          46 864 people aged 75 years or more without clinically recognised atherosclerotic CVD. Participants were stratified by presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus and as statin non-users or new users.

          Main outcome measures

          Incidences of atherosclerotic CVD and all cause mortality compared using Cox proportional hazards modelling, adjusted by the propensity score of statin treatment. The relation of age with the effect of statins was assessed using both a categorical approach, stratifying the analysis by old (75-84 years) and very old (≥85 years) age groups, and a continuous analysis, using an additive Cox proportional hazard model.

          Results

          The cohort included 46 864 participants (mean age 77 years; 63% women; median follow-up 5.6 years). In participants without diabetes, the hazard ratios for statin use in 75-84 year olds were 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.04) for atherosclerotic CVD and 0.98 (0.91 to 1.05) for all cause mortality, and in those aged 85 and older were 0.93 (0.82 to 1.06) and 0.97 (0.90 to 1.05), respectively. In participants with diabetes, the hazard ratio of statin use in 75-84 year olds was 0.76 (0.65 to 0.89) for atherosclerotic CVD and 0.84 (0.75 to 0.94) for all cause mortality, and in those aged 85 and older were 0.82 (0.53 to 1.26) and 1.05 (0.86 to 1.28), respectively. Similarly, effect analysis of age in a continuous scale, using splines, corroborated the lack of beneficial statins effect for atherosclerotic CVD and all cause mortality in participants without diabetes older than 74 years. In participants with diabetes, statins showed a protective effect against atherosclerotic CVD and all cause mortality; this effect was substantially reduced beyond the age of 85 years and disappeared in nonagenarians.

          Conclusions

          In participants older than 74 years without type 2 diabetes, statin treatment was not associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic CVD or in all cause mortality, even when the incidence of atherosclerotic CVD was statistically significantly higher than the risk thresholds proposed for statin use. In the presence of diabetes, statin use was statistically significantly associated with reductions in the incidence of atherosclerotic CVD and in all cause mortality. This effect decreased after age 85 years and disappeared in nonagenarians.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial.

          Although statins reduce coronary and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality in middle-aged individuals, their efficacy and safety in elderly people is not fully established. Our aim was to test the benefits of pravastatin treatment in an elderly cohort of men and women with, or at high risk of developing, cardiovascular disease and stroke. We did a randomised controlled trial in which we assigned 5804 men (n=2804) and women (n=3000) aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease to pravastatin (40 mg per day; n=2891) or placebo (n=2913). Baseline cholesterol concentrations ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 9.0 mmol/L. Follow-up was 3.2 years on average and our primary endpoint was a composite of coronary death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or non-fatal stroke. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Pravastatin lowered LDL cholesterol concentrations by 34% and reduced the incidence of the primary endpoint to 408 events compared with 473 on placebo (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, p=0.014). Coronary heart disease death and non-fatal myocardial infarction risk was also reduced (0.81, 0.69-0.94, p=0.006). Stroke risk was unaffected (1.03, 0.81-1.31, p=0.8), but the hazard ratio for transient ischaemic attack was 0.75 (0.55-1.00, p=0.051). New cancer diagnoses were more frequent on pravastatin than on placebo (1.25, 1.04-1.51, p=0.020). However, incorporation of this finding in a meta-analysis of all pravastatin and all statin trials showed no overall increase in risk. Mortality from coronary disease fell by 24% (p=0.043) in the pravastatin group. Pravastatin had no significant effect on cognitive function or disability. Pravastatin given for 3 years reduced the risk of coronary disease in elderly individuals. PROSPER therefore extends to elderly individuals the treatment strategy currently used in middle aged people.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Survival bias associated with time-to-treatment initiation in drug effectiveness evaluation: a comparison of methods.

            The authors compared five methods of studying survival bias associated with time-to-treatment initiation in a drug effectiveness study using medical administrative databases (1996-2002) from Quebec, Canada. The first two methods illustrated how survival bias could be introduced. Three additional methods were considered to control for this bias. Methods were compared in the context of evaluating statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients post-acute myocardial infarction who initiated statins within 90 days after discharge and those who did not. Method 1 that classified patients into users and nonusers at discharge resulted in an overestimation of the benefit (38% relative risk reduction at 1 year). In method 2, following users from the time of the first prescription and nonusers from a randomly selected time between 0 and 90 days attenuated the effect toward the null (10% relative risk reduction). Method 3 controlled for survival bias by following patients from the end of the 90-day time window; however, it suffered a major loss of statistical efficiency and precision. Method 4 matched prescription time distribution between users and nonusers at cohort entry. Method 5 used a time-dependent variable for treatment initiation. Methods 4 and 5 better controlled for survival bias and yielded similar results, suggesting a 20% risk reduction of recurrent myocardial infarction or death events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lack of Effect of Lowering LDL Cholesterol on Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Individual Data from 175,000 People in 27 Randomised Trials of Statin Therapy

              Background Statin therapy reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events, but uncertainty remains about potential effects on cancer. We sought to provide a detailed assessment of any effects on cancer of lowering LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) with a statin using individual patient records from 175,000 patients in 27 large-scale statin trials. Methods and Findings Individual records of 134,537 participants in 22 randomised trials of statin versus control (median duration 4.8 years) and 39,612 participants in 5 trials of more intensive versus less intensive statin therapy (median duration 5.1 years) were obtained. Reducing LDL-C with a statin for about 5 years had no effect on newly diagnosed cancer or on death from such cancers in either the trials of statin versus control (cancer incidence: 3755 [1.4% per year [py]] versus 3738 [1.4% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.96-1.05]; cancer mortality: 1365 [0.5% py] versus 1358 [0.5% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.08]) or in the trials of more versus less statin (cancer incidence: 1466 [1.6% py] vs 1472 [1.6% py], RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.93–1.07]; cancer mortality: 447 [0.5% py] versus 481 [0.5% py], RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.06]). Moreover, there was no evidence of any effect of reducing LDL-C with statin therapy on cancer incidence or mortality at any of 23 individual categories of sites, with increasing years of treatment, for any individual statin, or in any given subgroup. In particular, among individuals with low baseline LDL-C (<2 mmol/L), there was no evidence that further LDL-C reduction (from about 1.7 to 1.3 mmol/L) increased cancer risk (381 [1.6% py] versus 408 [1.7% py]; RR 0.92 [99% CI 0.76–1.10]). Conclusions In 27 randomised trials, a median of five years of statin therapy had no effect on the incidence of, or mortality from, any type of cancer (or the aggregate of all cancer).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: statistician
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: primary care physician
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: postdoctoral researcher
                Role: statistician
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: senior researcher and associate professor
                Role: predoctoral researcher
                Role: senior researcher
                Role: senior researcher
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2018
                05 September 2018
                : 362
                : k3359
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Catalonia, Spain
                [2 ]ISV Research Group. Research Unit in Primary Care, Primary Care Services, Girona. Catalan Institute of Health, Catalonia, Spain
                [3 ]Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Girona (IdIBGi), Catalonia, Spain
                [4 ]Department of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Girona, Spain
                [5 ]Registre Gironí del COR Group (REGICOR); Cardiovascular, Epidemiology and Genetics Research Group (EGEC), Municipal Institute for Medical Research (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain
                [6 ]CIBER of Cardiovascular Diseases, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
                [7 ]Institute of Biomedical Research of Salamanca, Primary Care Research Unit, the Alamedilla Health Center, Castilla and León Health Service-SACYL, and Department of Biomedical and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: R Ramos, Carrer Maluquer Salvador, 11. 17002 Girona, Spain rramos.girona.ics@ 123456gencat.cat
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7970-5537
                Article
                ramr043527
                10.1136/bmj.k3359
                6123838
                30185425
                44a89e56-f973-4b84-87ff-4877071f0080
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 July 2018
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article