ReviewCureus2024
A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Hydrophilic Versus Lipophilic Statins in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pitavastatin-induced cholesterol deficiency elevates serum biomarkers associated with statin-related adverse effects in rats.Cardiovascular endocrinology & metabolism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statins differ in their solubility. Some previous studies suggested a difference in clinical efficacy and adverse events between hydrophilic and lipophilic statins. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The databases of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science, and Scopus were systemically searched for articles published from inception until the 18th of July 2024. The primary outcome included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), while the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina (UA), revascularization, stroke, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, and adverse events. The results were pooled as risk ratio (RR) along with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Nine studies were included. Hydrophilic statins showed a significantly higher risk of MACE and UA compared to lipophilic statins (RR 1.11 [95% CI 1.02, 1.21] and 1.30 [95% CI 1.04, 1.62]), but subgroup analysis showed a lack of significant difference between statins of similar intensity (1.01 [95% CI 0.86, 1.18] and 0.98 [0.67, 1.45], respectively). Both statins showed comparable results regarding the occurrence of MI (1.18 [95% CI 0.98, 1.40]), revascularization (1.09 [95% CI 0.99, 1.20]), stroke (1.16 [95% CI 0.80, 1.66]), all-cause mortality (1.13 [95% CI 0.92, 1.38]), cardiovascular deaths (1.14 [95% CI 0.76, 1.72]), adverse events leading to discontinuation (1.03 [95% CI 0.56, 1.90]), increased alanine aminotransferase (0.61 [95% CI 0.32, 1.16]), increased creatine kinase (0.90 [95% CI 0.30, 2.72]), and increased serum creatinine (1.03 [95% CI 0.49, 2.19]). The efficacy and safety of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins are comparable when the cholesterol-lowering intensity of statins is similar. This suggests that intensity, rather than the lipophilicity of the statin, plays a more important role in the secondary prevention of MACE and individual adverse events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.