Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysesStatins and risk of thromboembolism: A meta-regression to disentangle the efficacy-to-effectiveness gap using observational and trial evidence
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)
- et al.
Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy
Lancet
(2016) - et al.
Venous thromboembolism and atherosclerosis: common denominators or different diseases?
J Thromb Haemost
(2006) - et al.
Statins and primary prevention of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Lancet Haematol
(2017) - et al.
Is the lower risk of venous thromboembolism with statins related to low-density-lipoprotein reduction? A network meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials
Atherosclerosis
(2018) - et al.
Mechanisms and mitigating factors for venous thromboembolism in chronic kidney disease: the REGARDS study
J Thromb Haemost
(2018) - et al.
Drug utilization, safety, and effectiveness of exenatide, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin for type 2 diabetes in the real world: data from the Italian AIFA Anti-diabetics Monitoring Registry
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis
(2014) - et al.
Real-world effectiveness and safety of dapagliflozin therapy added to a GLP1 receptor agonist in patients with type 2 diabetes
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis
(2017) - et al.
Rationale and design of the Darwin-T2D (DApagliflozin Real World evIdeNce in Type 2 Diabetes): a multicenter retrospective nationwide Italian study and crowdsourcing opportunity
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis
(2017) - et al.
Pleiotropic effects of statins on the cardiovascular system
Circ Res
(2017) - et al.
Statins and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism: pooled analysis of published observational cohort studies
Eur Heart J
(2017)
Real-world evidence – what is it and what can it tell us?
N Engl J Med
Personalized evidence based medicine: predictive approaches to heterogeneous treatment effects
BMJ
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
BMJ
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses
A method of estimating comparative rates from clinical data; applications to cancer of the lung, breast, and cervix
J Natl Cancer Inst
Cited by (5)
Effects of statins in primary and secondary prevention for venous thromboembolism events: A meta analysis
2022, Vascular PharmacologyCitation 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, BloodCitation 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.
Statin Use and the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Women Taking Hormone Therapy
2023, JAMA Network OpenStatins for the prevention of primary venous thromboembolism
2021, Cochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsCould Statin Therapy Be Useful in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)?
2021, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
- 1
Equally contributed.