Queen Margaret University logo
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   QMU Repositories
    • eResearch
    • School of Health Sciences
    • The Institute for Global Health and Development
    • View Item
    •   QMU Repositories
    • eResearch
    • School of Health Sciences
    • The Institute for Global Health and Development
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Lipophilic statin versus hydrophilic statin treatment on cardiac function and inflammation in heart failure: A systematic review and an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis

    Date
    2015
    Author
    Bonsu, K. Osei
    Kadirvelu, A.
    Reidpath, Daniel
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Citation
    Osei Bonsu, K., Kadirvelu, A. and Reidpath, D. (2015) ‘Lipophilic statin versus hydrophilic statin treatment on cardiac function and inflammation in heart failure: A systematic review and an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis’, Heart, Lung and Circulation, 24, p. S211. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2015.06.237.
    Abstract
    Introduction: Statins reduce morbidity and mortality in prevention studies. Statins improve cardiac function and reduce inflammation in heart failure (HF). It is unclear whether statins as a class or subtype (lipophilic or hydrophilic) improve outcomes in HF. Sufficiently powered comparative trials between statin subtypes in HF are unavailable. We conducted an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis between lipophilic and hydrophilic statins on outcomes in HF. The outcomes are left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), C-reactive protein (CRP) and Interluekin-6 (IL-6). Method: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases until October 2014 for randomised control trials (RCTs) statins versus placebo in HF. Studies and their respective abstracted information were dichotomised into group of statin subtype evaluated and analysed separately. Generic-inverse random effects approach was used to pool outcomes. With the pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons for each outcome. Data from 11, 450 patients from 23 trials were analysed. Results: Lipophilic statins were superior to placebo whereas hydrophilic statins were comparable to placebo in all reported outcomes. Lipophilic statins were comparable to hydrophilic statins in all reported outcomes of cardiac function (LVEF (MD, 0.68; 95% CI, -3.72-5.08; SOE low) and BNP (MD, 206.73; 95% CI, 58.91-354.56; SOE low) and inflammation (CRP (MD, -1.30; 95% CI, -3.90-1.31; SOE low) and IL-6 (MD, -1.93; 95% CI, -4.03-0.18; SOE low) in the comparison meta-analysis. Conclusion: Lipophilic statins are comparable to hydrophilic statins in HF. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence for comparison in HF till data from head to head comparisons are available.
    URI
    https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/12923
    Official URL
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2015.06.237
    Collections
    • The Institute for Global Health and Development

    Queen Margaret University: Research Repositories
    Accessibility Statement | Repository Policies | Contact Us | Send Feedback | HTML Sitemap

     

    Browse

    All QMU RepositoriesCommunities & CollectionsBy YearBy PersonBy TitleBy QMU AuthorBy Research CentreThis CollectionBy YearBy PersonBy TitleBy QMU AuthorBy Research Centre

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Queen Margaret University: Research Repositories
    Accessibility Statement | Repository Policies | Contact Us | Send Feedback | HTML Sitemap