Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Statins and risk of thromboembolism: A meta-regression to disentangle the efficacy-to-effectiveness gap using observational and trial evidence

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2019.06.022Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Statin treatment potentially reduces the risk of venous thromboembolism.

  • The risk reduction is different in RCTs vs observational studies.

  • The reasons of such divergence are unknown.

  • Differences in patients' characteristics between the two settings may explain the divergence.

  • Heterogeneity of treatment effect contributes to the efficacy-to-effectiveness gap.

Abstract

Background and aims

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies indicate a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) associated with statin treatment. We aimed to compare the effect of statin therapy in these two settings and to identify and quantify potential factors to explain statin efficacy and effectiveness.

Methods and results

We electronically searched on December 11th, 2018, articles reporting on first VTE events in RCTs (statin vs placebo) and in observational studies (participants exposed vs non-exposed to statin). We performed Knapp-Hartung random-effect meta-analyses to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) of VTE events associated with statin treatment, separately for RCTs and observational studies; and estimated the ratio of the relative risk (RRR) comparing RCTs and observational studies using meta-regressions, progressively adjusted for study-level characteristics. Twenty-one RCTs (115,107 participants; 959 events) and 8 observational studies (2,898,096 participants; 19,671 events) were included. Pooled RRs for RCTs and observational studies were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67–1.00; I2 19.2%) and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.42–0.86; I2 86.3%), respectively. In meta-regressions, the unadjusted RRR indicated a nonsignificant 23% smaller benefit in RCTs (RRR 0.77; 95% CI: 0.52–1.13); accounting for age, sex, geographical region, and duration of follow-up, there was a sensible change of the RRR which resulted 0.30 (95% CI: 0.13–0.68).

Conclusion

Differences in the characteristics between patients included in RCTs and those in observational studies may account for the differential effect of statins in preventing VTE in the two settings.

Introduction

Statin treatment is recommended for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases [1]. In the last two decades, post-hoc observational investigations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pre-clinical studies have demonstrated that the cardiovascular effects of statins are not exclusively mediated by their lipid-lowering properties. In particular, their anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet properties could complement their lipid-lowering effects (statin pleiotropy) [2]. Because inflammation and platelet hyperactivity are involved in the pathophysiology of venous thromboembolism (VTE) [3], several studies have also investigated the effect of statin treatment on the risk of VTE events. These studies have been recently summarised in meta-analyses which, overall, indicate a reduced risk of VTE events in people treated with statins [4], [5]; they also suggest, however, a possible difference in the magnitude of the effect when comparing RCTs with observational studies. Whether such differences are related to study design, characteristics of included participants, or precision of estimates (i.e., RCTs reported lower events as they rarely included VTE events as a pre-specified endpoint) remains uncertain.

To date, there is no systematic and quantitative evaluation of a possible heterogeneous effect of statins between the two study settings – RCTs and observational studies; in particular, whether and to what extent potential effect modifiers explain the heterogeneous treatment effect is unknown. Clarifying these uncertainties is relevant for two main reasons. First, the importance of observational and “real-world” evidence, its complementarity to RCTs, and the identification of sources of dissimilarities between the two study settings is essential for a better understanding of the efficacy and effectiveness of a treatment [6]. Second, exploring potential effect modifiers of a treatment facilitates the implementation of a precision (stratified) approach to everyday clinical patients [7].

Within this context, we aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy of statin treatment in RCTs vs observational, real-world studies and to explore to what extent potential factors influencing statin effect could contribute to the heterogeneous effects observed in these two settings.

Section snippets

Search strategy and study selection

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following a registered protocol and reported results in line with standard guidelines (checklist in the Supplemental Material). On 11th December 2018, we updated two previous searches [4], [8] using ISI Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library to identify new observational studies or RCTs (open or blinded trials enrolling 100 or more participants) reporting incident VTE events (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, regardless of

Characteristics of included studies

The updated search found an additional observational study and no additional RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria (Fig. S1) [15]; references of the included studies are reported in the Supplemental Material. Overall, 115,107 (median: 4574; range: 108–20,536) participants reporting 959 VTE (19; 1–346) events were included in 21 RCTs; and 2,898,096 (16,930; 289–2,004,692) participants with 19,671 (136; 20–12,199) events in 8 observational studies (Table 1).

Weighted mean age and follow-up were 63

Discussion

In this analysis, we observed differences comparing RCTs and observational studies in the reduction of VTE events associated with statin treatment. These differences are in part explained by the heterogeneous characteristics of participants between RCTs and observational studies, such as age and sex, which are key determinants of VTE risk.

The debate about the relative pros and cons of RCTs vs observational evidence has reignited in the last few years as a consequence of an increased interest in

Acknowledgements

FZ, SS, MJD, and KK acknowledge the NIHR CLAHRC – EM and the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre. SKK acknowledges support by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol (BRC-1215-20011). This report is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health

References (30)

  • R.E. Sherman et al.

    Real-world evidence – what is it and what can it tell us?

    N Engl J Med

    (2016)
  • D.M. Kent et al.

    Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects

    BMJ

    (2018)
  • J.P. Higgins et al.

    The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

    BMJ

    (2011)
  • G.A. Wells et al.

    The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses

  • J. Cornfield

    A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1951)
  • Cited by (5)

    • Effects of statins in primary and secondary prevention for venous thromboembolism events: A meta analysis

      2022, Vascular Pharmacology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, the role of statins in the prevention of VTE is of emerging clinical interest. However, previous studies on this topic showed inconsistent results [14–18], which may be caused by differences in study design, statistical methods, participants characteristics, inclusion criteria, and endpoints assessments. Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation is urgently needed to ascertain the effects of statins on VTE.

    • Persistent leukocytosis in polycythemia vera is associated with disease evolution but not thrombosis

      2020, Blood
      Citation Excerpt :

      We did not collect data on the use of anticoagulant medications (eg, warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants), which, if unevenly distributed across the trajectory groups, may confound their association with thrombosis. Although an association between statin use and reduced incidence of venous thromboembolism has been described in recent years, we did not collect data on statin use and could not therefore control for it.19,20 Bone marrow biopsy specimens for patients who progressed to MF were not accessed or systematically reviewed by an independent hematopathologist.

    • Statins for the prevention of primary venous thromboembolism

      2021, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    1

    Equally contributed.

    View full text