ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Risk of hyperglycemia with different statins by type and dose: a network meta-analysis and real-world pharmacovigilance study.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The potential diabetogenic effects of statins remain controversial, particularly with respect to differences across statin types and doses. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the comparative effects of different statins and doses on hyperglycemia-related outcomes. The NMA was performed within a Bayesian framework. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to April 2025. Data extraction and verification were independently conducted by two investigators. Outcomes included risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial plasma glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Separately, we conducted a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis using disproportionality methods based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to identify potential hyperglycemia-related safety signals in patients without diabetes. Results: A total of 22 RCTs, which enrolled 99,311 patients, were included. The NMA found no statistically significant differences in NODM risk among statins or compared with placebo. However, pravastatin 40 mg/day showed a numerically lower risk estimate (OR: 0.86; 95% CrI: 0.50-1.50), whereas rosuvastatin 20 mg/day and atorvastatin 80 mg/day showed relatively higher estimates. Analyses of intermediate glycemic markers, including FPG and HbA1c, revealed no significant differences across all statin regimens and placebo. In parallel, FAERS pharmacovigilance analyses identified disproportionate reporting signals for hyperglycemic events with atorvastatin (ROR: 6.11; 95% CI: 5.94-6.29), rosuvastatin (ROR: 2.44; 95% CI: 2.31-2.58), and simvastatin (ROR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.13-1.32). Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in glycemic outcomes were observed among individual statins or compared with placebo. However, numerical variations in point estimates across randomized evidence and pharmacovigilance signals suggest possible differences in glycemic profiles among statins. Pravastatin showed numerically lower risk estimates; however, these findings were accompanied by substantial uncertainty. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify these observations.
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.