Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23618535›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2013

Lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin therapy for heart failure: a protocol for an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis.

Kwadwo Osei Bonsu, Amudha Kadirvelu, Daniel Diamond Reidpath

Full text readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. The association of statin subgroups with lower urinary tract symptoms following a prostate biopsy.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Beyond lipid lowering: pleiotropic effects of statins in heart failure.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2013
    Article
  9. Statins in heart failure: do we need another trial?Vascular health and risk management · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kwadwo Osei BonsuSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Sunway Campus, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, Selangor, DE 46150, Malaysia.
Amudha Kadirvelu
Daniel Diamond Reidpath

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStatins are known to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in primary and secondary prevention studies. Subsequently, a number of nonrandomised studies have shown statins improve clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Small randomised controlled trials (RCT) also show improved cardiac function, reduced inflammation and mortality with statins in HF. However, the findings of two large RCTs do not support the evidence provided by previous studies and suggest statins lack beneficial effects in HF. Two meta-analyses have shown statins do not improve survival, whereas two others showed improved cardiac function and reduced inflammation in HF. It appears lipophilic statins produce better survival and other outcome benefits compared to hydrophilic statins. But the two types have not been compared in direct comparison trials in HF. METHODS/

designWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy in patients with HF. Our objectives are:1. To determine the effects of lipophilic statins on (1) mortality, (2) hospitalisation for worsening HF, (3) cardiac function and (4) inflammation.2. To determine the effects of hydrophilic statins on (1) mortality, (2) hospitalisation for worsening HF, (3) cardiac function and (4) inflammation.3. To compare the efficacy of lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on HF outcomes with an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis.We will conduct an electronic search of databases for RCTs that evaluate statins in patients with HF. The reference lists of all identified studies will be reviewed. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search. The inclusion criteria include:1. RCTs comparing statins with placebo or no statin in patients with symptomatic HF.2. RCTs that employed the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle in data analysis.3. Symptomatic HF patients of all aetiologies and on standard treatment.4. Statin of any dose as intervention.5. Placebo or no statin arm as control.The exclusion criteria include:1. RCTs involving cerivastatin in HF patients.2. RCTs with less than 4 weeks of follow-up. DISCUSSION: We will perform an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statins in patients with HF using placebo or no statin arm as common comparator.

Indexed as

Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignHeartHeart FailureHospitalizationHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsInflammationOutcome Assessment, Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID23618535
PMCPMC3639793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.