Summary This Review is intended to help clinicians, patients, and the public make informed decisions about statin therapy for the prevention of heart attacks and strokes. It explains how the evidence ...that is available from randomised controlled trials yields reliable information about both the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. In addition, it discusses how claims that statins commonly cause adverse effects reflect a failure to recognise the limitations of other sources of evidence about the effects of treatment. Large-scale evidence from randomised trials shows that statin therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events (ie, coronary deaths or myocardial infarctions, strokes, and coronary revascularisation procedures) by about one-quarter for each mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol during each year (after the first) that it continues to be taken. The absolute benefits of statin therapy depend on an individual's absolute risk of occlusive vascular events and the absolute reduction in LDL cholesterol that is achieved. For example, lowering LDL cholesterol by 2 mmol/L (77 mg/dL) with an effective low-cost statin regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily, costing about £2 per month) for 5 years in 10 000 patients would typically prevent major vascular events from occurring in about 1000 patients (ie, 10% absolute benefit) with pre-existing occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and in 500 patients (ie, 5% absolute benefit) who are at increased risk but have not yet had a vascular event (primary prevention). Statin therapy has been shown to reduce vascular disease risk during each year it continues to be taken, so larger absolute benefits would accrue with more prolonged therapy, and these benefits persist long term. The only serious adverse events that have been shown to be caused by long-term statin therapy—ie, adverse effects of the statin—are myopathy (defined as muscle pain or weakness combined with large increases in blood concentrations of creatine kinase), new-onset diabetes mellitus, and, probably, haemorrhagic stroke. Typically, treatment of 10 000 patients for 5 years with an effective regimen (eg, atorvastatin 40 mg daily) would cause about 5 cases of myopathy (one of which might progress, if the statin therapy is not stopped, to the more severe condition of rhabdomyolysis), 50–100 new cases of diabetes, and 5–10 haemorrhagic strokes. However, any adverse impact of these side-effects on major vascular events has already been taken into account in the estimates of the absolute benefits. Statin therapy may cause symptomatic adverse events (eg, muscle pain or weakness) in up to about 50–100 patients (ie, 0·5–1·0% absolute harm) per 10 000 treated for 5 years. However, placebo-controlled randomised trials have shown definitively that almost all of the symptomatic adverse events that are attributed to statin therapy in routine practice are not actually caused by it (ie, they represent misattribution). The large-scale evidence available from randomised trials also indicates that it is unlikely that large absolute excesses in other serious adverse events still await discovery. Consequently, any further findings that emerge about the effects of statin therapy would not be expected to alter materially the balance of benefits and harms. It is, therefore, of concern that exaggerated claims about side-effect rates with statin therapy may be responsible for its under-use among individuals at increased risk of cardiovascular events. For, whereas the rare cases of myopathy and any muscle-related symptoms that are attributed to statin therapy generally resolve rapidly when treatment is stopped, the heart attacks or strokes that may occur if statin therapy is stopped unnecessarily can be devastating.
Summary Background In 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. Methods In 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. Results The 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. Interpretation These 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. Funding Pfizer, Servier Research Group, and Leo Laboratories.
Summary Background Chinese men now smoke more than a third of the world's cigarettes, following a large increase in urban then rural usage. Conversely, Chinese women now smoke far less than in ...previous generations. We assess the oppositely changing effects of tobacco on male and female mortality. Methods Two nationwide prospective studies 15 years apart recruited 220 000 men in about 1991 at ages 40–79 years (first study) and 210 000 men and 300 000 women in about 2006 at ages 35–74 years (second study), with follow-up during 1991–99 (mid-year 1995) and 2006–14 (mid-year 2010), respectively. Cox regression yielded sex-specific adjusted mortality rate ratios (RRs) comparing smokers (including any who had stopped because of illness, but not the other ex-smokers, who are described as having stopped by choice) versus never-smokers. Findings Two-thirds of the men smoked; there was little dependence of male smoking prevalence on age, but many smokers had not smoked cigarettes throughout adult life. Comparing men born before and since 1950, in the older generation, the age at which smoking had started was later and, particularly in rural areas, lifelong exclusive cigarette use was less common than in the younger generation. Comparing male mortality RRs in the first study (mid-year 1995) versus those in the second study (mid-year 2010), the proportional excess risk among smokers (RR-1) approximately doubled over this 15-year period (urban: RR 1·32 95% CI 1·24–1·41 vs 1·65 1·53–1·79; rural: RR 1·13 1·09–1·17 vs 1·22 1·16–1·29), as did the smoking-attributed fraction of deaths at ages 40–79 years (urban: 17% vs 26%; rural: 9% vs 14%). In the second study, urban male smokers who had started before age 20 years (which is now typical among both urban and rural young men) had twice the never-smoker mortality rate (RR 1·98, 1·79–2·19, approaching Western RRs), with substantial excess mortality from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD RR 9·09, 5·11–16·15), lung cancer (RR 3·78, 2·78–5·14), and ischaemic stroke or ischaemic heart disease (combined RR 2·03, 1·66–2·47). Ex-smokers who had stopped by choice (only 3% of ever-smokers in 1991, but 9% in 2006) had little smoking-attributed risk more than 10 years after stopping. Among Chinese women, however, there has been a tenfold intergenerational reduction in smoking uptake rates. In the second study, among women born in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and since 1960 the proportions who had smoked were, respectively, 10%, 5%, 2%, and 1% (3097/30 943, 3265/62 246, 2339/97 344, and 1068/111 933). The smoker versus non-smoker RR of 1·51 (1·40–1·63) for all female mortality at ages 40–79 years accounted for 5%, 3%, 1%, and <1%, respectively, of all the female deaths in these four successive birth cohorts. In 2010, smoking caused about 1 million (840 000 male, 130 000 female) deaths in China. Interpretation Smoking will cause about 20% of all adult male deaths in China during the 2010s. The tobacco-attributed proportion is increasing in men, but low, and decreasing, in women. Although overall adult mortality rates are falling, as the adult population of China grows and the proportion of male deaths due to smoking increases, the annual number of deaths in China that are caused by tobacco will rise from about 1 million in 2010 to 2 million in 2030 and 3 million in 2050, unless there is widespread cessation. Funding Wellcome Trust, MRC, BHF, CR-UK, Kadoorie Charitable Foundation, Chinese MoST and NSFC
Summary Background Some countries fortify flour with folic acid to prevent neural tube defects but others do not, partly because of concerns about possible cancer risks. We aimed to assess any ...effects on site-specific cancer rates in the randomised trials of folic acid supplementation, at doses higher than those from fortification. Methods In these meta-analyses, we sought all trials completed before 2011 that compared folic acid versus placebo, had scheduled treatment duration at least 1 year, included at least 500 participants, and recorded data on cancer incidence. We obtained individual participant datasets that included 49 621 participants in all 13 such trials (ten trials of folic acid for prevention of cardiovascular disease n=46 969 and three trials in patients with colorectal adenoma n=2652). All these trials were evenly randomised. The main outcome was incident cancer (ignoring non-melanoma skin cancer) during the scheduled treatment period (among participants who were still free of cancer). We compared those allocated folic acid with those allocated placebo, and used log-rank analyses to calculate the cancer incidence rate ratio (RR). Findings During a weighted average scheduled treatment duration of 5·2 years, allocation to folic acid quadrupled plasma concentrations of folic acid (57·3 nmol/L for the folic acid groups vs 13·5 nmol/L for the placebo groups), but had no significant effect on overall cancer incidence (1904 cancers in the folic acid groups vs 1809 cancers in the placebo groups, RR 1·06, 95% CI 0·99–1·13, p=0·10). There was no trend towards greater effect with longer treatment. There was no significant heterogeneity between the results of the 13 individual trials (p=0·23), or between the two overall results in the cadiovascular prevention trials and the adenoma trials (p=0·13). Moreover, there was no significant effect of folic acid supplementation on the incidence of cancer of the large intestine, prostate, lung, breast, or any other specific site. Interpretation Folic acid supplementation does not substantially increase or decrease incidence of site-specific cancer during the first 5 years of treatment. Fortification of flour and other cereal products involves doses of folic acid that are, on average, an order of magnitude smaller than the doses used in these trials. Funding British Heart Foundation, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Food Standards Agency.
PDF