Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Formal Comment

Formal comment on “Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease”

  • David M. Diamond ,

    Roles Writing – original draft

    ddiamond@usf.edu

    Affiliations Departments of Psychology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States of America, Molecular Pharmacology & Physiology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Michel de Lorgeril,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Laboratoire Coeur et Nutrition, TIMC-IMAG, School of Medicine, University of Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France

    ⨯
  • Malcolm Kendrick,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation East Cheshire Trust, Macclesfield District General Hospital, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom

    ⨯
  • Uffe Ravnskov,

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Magle Stora Kyrkogata, Lund, Sweden

    ⨯
  • Paul J. Rosch

    Roles Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations New York Medical College; Valhalla, New York, The American Institute of Stress, Fort Worth, TX

    ⨯

Abstract

Statins have been prescribed for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for nearly 3 decades. Throughout this period key opinion leaders in the field have been dismayed by the high rate of non-adherence of patients to follow their statin regimen. Hope et al., [1] have addressed this issue by providing a systematic review of research on predictors of statin adherence for primary prevention of CVD. However, their review does not address the ongoing debate as to whether statin treatment is warranted for primary prevention of CVD, nor does it adequately address concerns regarding adverse effects of statins. We have therefore written a commentary which provides a broader perspective on the benefits versus harms of statin therapy. Our perspective of the literature is that non-adherence to statin treatment for primary prevention of CVD is justified because the meager benefits are more than offset by the extensive harms.

Citation: Diamond DM, de Lorgeril M, Kendrick M, Ravnskov U, Rosch PJ (2019) Formal comment on “Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease”. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0205138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205138

Editor: Hajo Zeeb, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology BIPS, GERMANY

Received: July 24, 2018; Accepted: September 8, 2018; Published: January 17, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Diamond et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: IUR, MdL, MK and PR have written or edited books evaluating the effectiveness of lipid lowering treatments and the role of cholesterol in heart disease. DMD has no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Commentary

Over two decades ago, William Clifford Roberts, MD, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, referred to statins as “underused miracle drugs”, which are to “atherosclerosis what penicillin was to infectious disease” [2]. He declared that statins “have the capacity to prevent (coronary) events in the first place”. Roberts expressed dismay, however, with the high rate non-adherence of patients with their statin regiment. He lamented that “50% of patients placed on a lipid-lowering drug quit taking the drug in 1 year and only 25% still take the drug 2 years after it was started.” Roberts urged physicians to “convince patients that these miracle drugs … are the best anti-atherosclerotic insurance they can purchase.”

Others have not been so sanguine regarding the benefits of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For example, in an editorial in JAMA [3], Redberg and Katz provided statistics that may surprise most clinicians: “a healthy man with elevated cholesterol will not live any longer if he takes statins. For every 100 patients with elevated cholesterol levels who take statins for 5 years, a myocardial infarction will be prevented in 1 or 2 patients. Preventing a heart attack is a meaningful outcome. However, by taking statins, 1 or more patients will develop diabetes and 20% or more will experience disabling symptoms, including muscle weakness, fatigue and memory loss.” Redberg and Katz concluded by stating that “statins are not effective in improving length or quality of life when used for primary prevention”.

It is in this context of decades of debate on the relative merits versus harms of statin treatment for prevention of CVD, and the well-documented low rate of adherence of patients to comply with their statin regimen, that Hope et al., [1] have published a review of predictors of statin adherence for primary prevention of CVD. Their review revealed that the majority of studies reported at least 40%, and as much as 80%, of patients did not comply fully with statin treatment recommendations. Their findings are consistent with a study of more than 140,000 elderly people which reported that 75% of those on statins for primary prevention stopped taking their medication [4], as well as a more recent study demonstrating that almost 90% of statin-treated patients discontinued treatment [5].

When the majority of those prescribed a statin show poor adherence, especially when their physician tells them it may prolong their lives and protect them from having a heart attack, it is important for investigators to consider all factors which may explain such a high rate of non-compliance. Patients who do not adhere to recommendations may have traits which contribute to non-compliance, such as poor dietary and lifestyle habits. The study by Hope et al., [1] quantified factors identified in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that were predictors of statin adherence. They reported that the primary predictors of statin adherence were limited to age, male gender, diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension, income, education, alcohol misuse and high BMI.

If, as Roberts [2] stated, statins were as effective in the treatment of CVD as penicillin is in the treatment of infectious disease, then Hope et al., [1] would be justified in stating “the extent to which these (statin) therapies will be effective is directly associated with the patient’s adherence to their treatment regimen”. However, we are not convinced that the balance between the benefits and harms of statins for primary prevention of CVD justifies the goal of improved adherence. First, numerous studies have reported an absence of benefits in primary prevention of CVD with statins (see [3, 6–9]). Second, the overall magnitude of beneficial effects is so slight as to be clinically insignificant. In accordance and based on a review of 19 trials (71,900 patients), the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently concluded that initiating statin use for the primary prevention of CVD events in adults 76 years and older without a history of CVD cannot be determined. They did recommend statin treatment if one or more risk factors are present, but as pointed out by Redberg and Katz [8], the absolute risk reductions (ARR) of CVD mortality and total mortality were only 0.43% and 0.40%, respectively. It is worth noting that these ARR figures were potentially augmented by the inclusion of data from patients taking statins for secondary prevention.

To support their perspective on the value of statins for primary prevention of CVD, Hope et al., [1] cited work from Taylor et al. [10], which was a summary of findings from primary prevention trials. Hope et al., [1] stated that the composite of fatal/non-fatal CVD events reported by Taylor et al. was reduced with statin treatment by a quarter (25%). This figure reflects the relative risk reduction (RRR), which is the ratio of the risk of CVD in the statin-treated group to that in the placebo-treated group. RRR is contrasted by the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the absolute magnitude of the difference in the incidence of CVD in the treated and untreated groups. The ARR reported by Taylor et al., for all CVD events was a 2.85% difference between statin- and placebo-treated groups. Thus, the same raw data can be expressed as a 25% benefit (RRR), as well as a 2.85% (ARR) benefit. To further compound the complexity of data presentation, Hope et al., noted that Taylor et al. had reported that the number needed to treat (NNT), a derivation of the ARR, was 56. This finding indicated that 56 people needed to be treated with a statin for 5 years to prevent a single adverse outcome. That the same raw data can be presented in multiple different forms (as RRR, ARR and NNT) can be confusing to readers [11, 12]. This is an important point because research has shown that patients, as well as physicians, tend to overestimate the value of treatment when they are provided the RRR, without the corresponding ARR [11–15]. For this reason, investigators have expressed concern at the appearance of inflated benefits when relative risk is presented without absolute risk [16–18].

Second, the 2.85% absolute risk benefit of statins is a composite of all fatal and non-fatal CVD events. This composite figure typically includes the combination of “soft” outcomes, such as revascularization procedures and “hard” events, such as CVD death, myocardial infarction and stroke. As pointed out by Abramson et al., [19], rates of revascularization are imprecise and potentially biased, because treatment decisions are unblinded, based to a large extent on total cholesterol and LDL levels. Abramson et al., [19] noted, for example, that 35% of “major vascular events” in the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration meta-analysis were coronary revascularization procedures. When “hard” events (major coronary events and stroke) were analyzed separately, the ARR was only 0.7% over the course of 5 years of treatment. According to Abramson, et al., in primary prevention of CVD for low risk patients, 167 people need to be treated with a statin for 5 years to prevent a single hard cardiovascular event. It is also worth noting that the one hard event statin treatment may prevent in 5 years may not be fatal, and could heal with minor future harms or none at all solely with diet and lifestyle changes [20].

A second issue particularly relevant to statin adherence, but not sufficiently addressed by Hope et al., [1] is that it is well-established that people terminate statin treatment because of perceived treatment-related adverse effects. Hope et al., [1] noted that there has been only 1 observational trial that quantified the relationship between side effects and adherence [21]. They mentioned the possibility that statin side effects could explain low adherence, but largely dismissed this possibility with the statement that “prior negative expectations may misattribute symptoms such as muscular pain (myalgia) to statin use”. The issue that statin-related myalgia is a “nocebo effect”, i.e., based on a person’s expectation of adverse effects, rather than the effects actually triggered by the drug, has been raised by some investigators [22–24]. However, the low rate of adherence to statins has been noted for decades, e.g.,[2], a finding that is inconsistent with the view that the spread of misinformation by an “internet cult” in recent years has influenced people to misattribute normal aches and pains to be statin side effects [22].

Adverse effects of statins are extensive, well-characterized and have been described in numerous reviews, at descriptive and mechanistic levels [25–30]. With regard to the issue of statin adherence, adverse effects may be considered to be of two categories. The first is an adverse effect which is perceived by the patient, and is a contributor to why statin adherence is so low. These perceived adverse effects include a high incidence of muscle pain [31–37], fatigue [38, 39], especially with exertion and exercise [40], idiopathic inflammatory myositis [41, 42], autoimmune myopathy [43–46], psychiatric and cognitive symptoms (depression, confusion, aggression, memory loss [47–55]), severe irritability [56], sleep disturbances [52], musculoskeletal disorders and injuries [57, 58], sudden sensorineural hearing loss [59] and gastrointestinal distress [60]. The second category includes later developing morbidities that may not be perceived by the users as a side effect, but are linked to statin treatment: Type-2 diabetes [27, 61–64], particularly in women [65–67], cancer [68–71], liver dysfunction and failure [72, 73], cataracts [74, 75], amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), ALS-like conditions and other central motor disorders, e.g., Parkinson’s disease and cerebellar ataxia [76–80], lupus-like syndrome [81], susceptibility to herpes zoster [82–84], interstitial cystitis [85], polymyalgia rheumatic [86], kidney injury [87, 88] and renal failure [89].

To understand why statin adherence is so low, clinicians and patients need to be provided with a comprehensive and unbiased assessment of the magnitude of the benefits of statin treatment, balanced against evidence of very real, adverse effects. It is in this context that we quote Redberg and Katz [8], who reviewed the issue of statin safety, effectiveness and adherence by concluding: “It is incumbent on clinicians to be sure that before recommending that a patient take a daily pill that has multiple adverse effects, there is evidence that the medication will lead to a better quality of life, longer life, or both. Such evidence is lacking for statins in primary prevention.”

In summary, we have integrated the literature on statin benefits versus harms, with the views of respected key opinion leaders, to conclude that non-adherence to statin treatment for primary prevention of CVD is justified because the meager benefits are more than offset by the extensive harms.

References

  1. 1. Hope HF, Binkley GM, Fenton SS, Kitas GD, Verstappen SMM, Symmons DPM. Systematic review of the predictors of statin adherence for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease PLoS ONE. 2018;in Press.
  2. 2. Roberts WC. The underused miracle drugs: The statin drugs are to atherosclerosis what penicillin was to infectious disease. American Journal of Cardiology. 1996;78(3):377–8. pmid:8759827
  3. 3. Redberg RF, Katz MH. Healthy Men Should Not Take Statins. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2012;307(14):1491–2.
  4. 4. Jackevicius CA, Mamdani M, Tu JV. Adherence with statin therapy in elderly patients with and without acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):462–7. pmid:12132976
  5. 5. Wisniowska B, Skowron A. Evaluation of patients' adherence to statins in Poland. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(1):99–105. pmid:21091392
  6. 6. DuBroff R, de Lorgeril M. Cholesterol confusion and statin controversy. World J Cardiol. 2015;7(7):404–9. pmid:26225201
  7. 7. Demasi MP. Statin wars: have we been misled about the evidence? A narrative review. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(14):905–9. pmid:29353811
  8. 8. Redberg RF, Katz MH. Statins for Primary Prevention: The Debate Is Intense, but the Data Are Weak. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(1):21–3. pmid:27838697
  9. 9. Ravnskov U, de Lorgeril M, Diamond DM, Hama R, Hammarskjöld B, Hynes N, et al. LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of current literature. Expert Reviews of Clinical Pharmacology. in press.
  10. 10. Taylor FC, Huffman M, Ebrahim S. Statin Therapy for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2013;310(22):2451–2.
  11. 11. Smeeth L, Haines A, Ebrahim S. Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses—sometimes informative, usually misleading. Bmj-British Medical Journal. 1999;318(7197):1548–51.
  12. 12. Cranney M, Walley T. Same information, different decisions: the influence of evidence on the management of hypertension in the elderly. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(412):661–3. pmid:8978112
  13. 13. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92(2):121–4. pmid:1543193
  14. 14. Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The Framing Effect of Relative and Absolute Risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(10):543–8. pmid:8271086
  15. 15. Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15(2):152–7. pmid:7783576
  16. 16. Diamond DM, Ravnskov U. How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2015;8(2):201–10. pmid:25672965
  17. 17. Skolbekken JA. Communicating the risk reduction achieved by cholesterol reducing drugs. BMJ. 1998;316(7149):1956–8. pmid:9641937
  18. 18. Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O, Feufel M. Misleading communication of risk. BMJ. 2010;341:c4830. pmid:20940219
  19. 19. Abramson JD, Rosenberg HG, Jewell N, Wright JM. Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin? Bmj-British Medical Journal. 2013;347.
  20. 20. Malhotra A, Redberg RF, Meier P. Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions. Brit J Sport Med. 2017;51(15):1111–2.
  21. 21. Braamskamp MJAM Kusters DM, Avis HJ Smets EMA, Wijburg FA, Kastelein JJP, et al. Long-Term Statin Treatment in Children with Familial Hypercholesterolemia: More Insight into Tolerability and Adherence. Pediatr Drugs. 2015;17(2):159–66.
  22. 22. Nissen SE. Statin Denial: An Internet-Driven Cult With Deadly Consequences. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2017;167(4):281–2. pmid:28738422
  23. 23. Khan S, Holbrook A, Shah BR. Does Googling lead to statin intolerance? International Journal of Cardiology. 2018;262:25–7. pmid:29706390
  24. 24. Stock JK. Update on SAMS: Statin-associated muscle symptoms. Atherosclerosis. 2018;269:260–1. pmid:29361270
  25. 25. Golomb BA, Evans MA. Statin Adverse Effects A Review of the Literature and Evidence for a Mitochondrial Mechanism. Am J Cardiovasc Drug. 2008;8(6):373–418.
  26. 26. Lei Q, Peng WN, You H, Hu ZP, Lu W. Statins in nervous system-associated diseases: angels or devils? Pharmazie. 2014;69(6):448–54. pmid:24974580
  27. 27. Bang CN, Okin PM. Statin Treatment, New-Onset Diabetes, and Other Adverse Effects: A Systematic Review. Current Cardiology Reports. 2014;16(3).
  28. 28. Grover HS, Luthra S, Maroo S. Are statins really wonder drugs? Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. 2014;113(12):892–8. pmid:24231094
  29. 29. Dirks AJ, Jones KM. Statin-induced apoptosis and skeletal myopathy. Am J Physiol-Cell Ph. 2006;291(6):C1208–C12.
  30. 30. Reidenberg MM. Benefit/risk ratio of statins in primary prevention. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(3):498–500. pmid:17538549
  31. 31. Cham S, Evans MA, Denenberg JO, Golomb BA. Statin-Associated Muscle-Related Adverse Effects: A Case Series of 354 Patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2010;30(6):541–53. pmid:20500044
  32. 32. Hoffman KB, Kraus C, Dimbil M, Golomb BA. A Survey of the FDA's AERS Database Regarding Muscle and Tendon Adverse Events Linked to the Statin Drug Class. Plos One. 2012;7(8).
  33. 33. van der Sandt N, Schoeman J, Schellack N. Statins: why do they cause muscle pains? Sa Pharm J Inc Pharm. 2016;83(6):26–32.
  34. 34. Tomlinson SS, Mangione KK. Potential adverse effects of statins on muscle. Phys Ther. 2005;85(5):459–65. pmid:15842193
  35. 35. Sinzinger H, O'Grady J. Professional athletes suffering from familial hypercholesterolaemia rarely tolerate statin treatment because of muscular problems. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(4):525–8. pmid:15025753
  36. 36. Taylor BA, Lorson L, White CM, Thompson PD. Low vitamin D does not predict statin associated muscle symptoms but is associated with transient increases in muscle damage and pain. Atherosclerosis. 2017;256:100–4. pmid:27993387
  37. 37. Bruckert E, Hayem G, Dejager S, Yau C, Begaud B. Mild to moderate muscular symptoms with high-dosage statin therapy in hyperlipidemic patients—The PRIMO study. Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy. 2005;19(6):403–14. pmid:16453090
  38. 38. Golomb BA, Criqui MH, Dimsdale JE, Evans MA, Broadwin J, White HL. Statin Effects on Energy: Results from the UCSD Statin Study, a Randomized Trial. Circulation. 2009;119(10):E308–E.
  39. 39. Reidenberg MM. Statins, lack of energy and ubiquinone. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59(5):606–7. pmid:15842563
  40. 40. Golomb BA, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE, White HL. Effects of Statins on Energy and Fatigue With Exertion: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2012;172(15):1180–2. pmid:22688574
  41. 41. Gabb GM, Caughey G, Ronson S, Ward M, Hill CL, Limaye V. Association of Idiopathic Inflammatory Myositis with Statin Exposure: A Population Based Case Control and Ecological Study. Hypertension. 2017;69(6):E31–E.
  42. 42. Rehman ZU, Blumbergs P, Swift J, Otto S, Smith C, Koszyca B, et al. A novel ultrastructural finding in statin-exposed patients with inflammatory myositis. Pathology. 2016;48(7):747–50. pmid:27956275
  43. 43. Waters MJ, Limaye V. Clinico-serologic features of statin-induced necrotising autoimmune myopathy in a single-centre cohort. Clinical Rheumatology. 2018;37(2):543–7. pmid:28905130
  44. 44. Nazir S, Lohani S, Tachamo N, Poudel D, Donato A. Statin-Associated Autoimmune Myopathy: A Systematic Review of 100 Cases. Jcr-J Clin Rheumatol. 2017;23(3):149–54.
  45. 45. Kalantzakou T, Xiromerisiou G, Tichalas A, Bourinaris T, Sinani O, Rudolf J, et al. Statin induced autoimmune necrotizing Myopathy. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23:419–.
  46. 46. Mammen AL. Statin-Associated Autoimmune Myopathy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;374(7):664–9. pmid:26886523
  47. 47. Sahebzamani FM, Munro CL, Marroquin OC, Diamond DM, Kip KE. Examination of the Food and Drug Administration Black Box Warning for Statins and Cognitive Dysfunction. J Pharmacovigilance 2014, 2(4):141.
  48. 48. Padala KP, Padala PR, Potter JF. Simvastatin-induced decline in cognition. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2006;40(10):1880–3. pmid:16940411
  49. 49. Padala KP, Padala P, Potter JF. Impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) on cognition in a cognitively impaired population: A cross-sectional study of statin withdrawal. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2007;55(4):S153–S4.
  50. 50. Padala KP, Padala PR, McNeilly DP, Geske JA, Sullivan DH, Potter JF. The Effect of HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors on Cognition in Patients With Alzheimer's Dementia: A Prospective Withdrawal and Rechallenge Pilot Study. Am J Geriatr Pharmac. 2012;10(5):296–302.
  51. 51. Evans MA, Golomb BA. Statin-Associated Adverse Cognitive Effects: Survey Results from 171 Patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29(7):800–11. pmid:19558254
  52. 52. Golomb BA, Dimsdale JE, Koslik HJ, Evans MA, Lu X, Rossi S, et al. Statin Effects on Aggression: Results from the UCSD Statin Study, a Randomized Control Trial. Plos One. 2015;10(7).
  53. 53. Tatley M, Savage R. Psychiatric adverse reactions with statins, fibrates and ezetimibe—Implications for the use of lipid-lowering agents. Drug Safety. 2007;30(3):195–201. pmid:17343428
  54. 54. Tuccori M, Montagnani S, Mantarro S, Capogrosso-Sansone A, Ruggiero E, Saporiti A, et al. Neuropsychiatric Adverse Events Associated with Statins: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Prevention and Management. Cns Drugs. 2014;28(3):249–72. pmid:24435290
  55. 55. Strom BL, Schinnar R, Karlawish J, Hennessy S, Teal V, Bilker WB. Statin Therapy and Risk of Acute Memory Impairment. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1399–405. pmid:26054031
  56. 56. Golomb BA, Kane T, Dimsdale JE. Severe irritability associated with statin cholesterol-lowering drugs. Qjm-an International Journal of Medicine. 2004;97(4):229–35. pmid:15028853
  57. 57. Hoffman KB, Kraus C, Dimbil M, Golomb BA. A survey of the FDA's AERS database regarding muscle and tendon adverse events linked to the statin drug class. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42866. pmid:22936996
  58. 58. Mansi I, Frei CR, Pugh MJ, Makris U, Mortensen EM. Statins and Musculoskeletal Conditions, Arthropathies, and Injuries. Jama Internal Medicine. 2013;173(14):1318–26.
  59. 59. Chung SD, Chen CH, Hung SH, Lin HC, Wang LH. A Population-Based Study on the Association between Statin Use and Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss. Otolaryng Head Neck. 2015;152(2):319–25.
  60. 60. Lakey WC, Greyshock NG, Kelley CE, Siddiqui MA, Ahmad U, Lokhnygina YV, et al. Statin intolerance in a referral lipid clinic. Journal of clinical lipidology. 2016;10(4):870–9. pmid:27578118
  61. 61. Mansi I, Frei CR, Wang CP, Mortensen EM. Statins and New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Complications: A Retrospective Cohort Study of US Healthy Adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(11):1599–610. pmid:25917657
  62. 62. Mansi IA, English JL, Morris MJ, Zhang S, Mortensen EM, Halm EA. Statins for primary prevention in physically active individuals: Do the risks outweigh the benefits? J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(7):627–32. pmid:28185810
  63. 63. Sampson UK, Linton MF, Fazio S. Are statins diabetogenic? Current Opinion in Cardiology. 2011;26(4):342–7. pmid:21499090
  64. 64. Cederberg H, Stancakova A, Yaluri N, Modi S, Kuusisto J, Laakso M. Increased risk of diabetes with statin treatment is associated with impaired insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion: a 6 year follow-up study of the METSIM cohort. Diabetologia. 2015;58(5):1109–17. pmid:25754552
  65. 65. Goodarzi MO, Li XH, Krauss RM, Rotter JI, Chen YDI. Relationship of Sex to Diabetes Risk in Statin Trials. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(7):E100–+. pmid:23801803
  66. 66. Mora S, Glynn RJ, Hsia J, MacFadyen JG, Genest J, Ridker PM. Statins for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Women With Elevated High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein or Dyslipidemia Results From the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) and Meta-Analysis of Women From Primary Prevention Trials. Circulation. 2010;121(9):1069–77. pmid:20176986
  67. 67. Culver AL, Ockene IS, Balasubramanian R, Olendzki BC, Sepavich DM, Wactawski-Wende J, et al. Statin Use and Risk of Diabetes Mellitus in Postmenopausal Women in the Women's Health Initiative. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2012;172(2):144–52. pmid:22231607
  68. 68. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen ELEM, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM, et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9346):1623–30. pmid:12457784
  69. 69. Ravnskov U, Rosch PJ, McCully KS. Statins Do Not Protect Against Cancer: Quite the Opposite. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33(7):810–1.
  70. 70. McDougall JA, Malone KE, Daling JR, Cushing-Haugen KL, Porter PL, Li CI. Long-Term Statin Use and Risk of Ductal and Lobular Breast Cancer among Women 55 to 74 Years of Age. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. 2013;22(9):1529–37.
  71. 71. Rossebo AB, Pedersen TR, Boman K, Brudi P, Chambers JB, Egstrup K, et al. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359(13):1343–56. pmid:18765433
  72. 72. Tuteja S, Pyrsopoulos NT, Wolowich WR, Khanmoradi K, Levi DM, Selvaggi G, et al. Simvastatin-ezetimibe-induced hepatic failure necessitating liver transplantation. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(9):1188–93. pmid:18752389
  73. 73. Bjornsson ES. Hepatotoxicity of statins and other lipid-lowering agents. Liver Int. 2017;37(2):173–8. pmid:27860156
  74. 74. Leuschen J, Mortensen EM, Frei CR, Mansi EA, Panday V, Mansi I. Association of Statin Use With Cataracts A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Jama Ophthalmology. 2013;131(11):1427–34. pmid:24052188
  75. 75. Lai CL, Shau WY, Chang CH, Chen MF, Lai MS. Statin Use and Cataract Surgery: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study in Elderly Ethnic Chinese Patients. Drug Safety. 2013;36(10):1017–24. pmid:23771795
  76. 76. Golomb BA, Kwon EK, Koperski S, Evans MA. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Like Conditions in Possible Association with Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs An Analysis of Patient Reports to the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Statin Effects Study. Drug Safety. 2009;32(8):649–61. pmid:19591530
  77. 77. Ng ASL, Tan EK. Linking Statins and Lipids in Parkinson's Disease. Movement Disorders. 2017;32(6):807–9. pmid:28556203
  78. 78. Liu GD, Sterling NW, Kong L, Lewis MM, Mailman RB, Chen HL, et al. Statins May Facilitate Parkinson's Disease: Insight Gained From a Large, National Claims Database. Movement Disorders. 2017;32(6):913–7. pmid:28370314
  79. 79. Teive HA, Moro A, Moscovich M, Arruda WO, Munhoz RP. Statin-associated cerebellar ataxia. A Brazilian case series. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016;25:97–9. pmid:26897092
  80. 80. Golomb BA, Verden A, Messner AK, Koslik HJ, Hoffman KB. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Associated with Statin Use: A Disproportionality Analysis of the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System. Drug Safety. 2018;41(4):403–13. pmid:29427042
  81. 81. de Jong HJ, Tervaert JW, Saldi SR, Vandebriel RJ, Souverein PC, Meyboom RH, et al. Association between statin use and lupus-like syndrome using spontaneous reports. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2011;41(3):373–81. pmid:21868063
  82. 82. Kim MC, Yun SC, Lee SO, Choi SH, Kim YS, Woo JH, et al. Statins increase the risk of herpes zoster: A propensity score-matched analysis. Plos One. 2018;13(6).
  83. 83. Chen HH, Lin CL, Yeh CJ, Yeh SY, Kao CH. Statins can increase the risk of herpes zoster infection in Asia. Eur J Clin Microbiol. 2015;34(7):1451–8.
  84. 84. Antoniou T, Zheng H, Singh S, Juurlink DN, Mamdani MM, Gomes T. Statins and the Risk of Herpes Zoster: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(3):350–6. pmid:24235264
  85. 85. Huang CY, Chung SD, Kao LT, Lin HC, Wang LH. Statin Use Is Associated with Bladder Pain Syndrome/Interstitial Cystitis: A Population-Based Case-Control Study. Urol Int. 2015;95(2):227–32. pmid:26184102
  86. 86. de Jong HJ, Saldi SR, Klungel OH, Vandebriel RJ, Souverein PC, Meyboom RH, et al. Statin-associated polymyalgia rheumatica. An analysis using WHO global individual case safety database: a case/non-case approach. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41289. pmid:22844450
  87. 87. Corrao G, Soranna D, Casula M, Merlino L, Porcellini MG, Catapano AL. High-potency statins increase the risk of acute kidney injury: Evidence from a large population-based study. Atherosclerosis. 2014;234(1):224–9. pmid:24681912
  88. 88. Dormuth CR, Hemmelgarn BR, Paterson JM, James MT, Teare GF, Raymond CB, et al. Use of high potency statins and rates of admission for acute kidney injury: multicenter, retrospective observational analysis of administrative databases. Bmj-British Medical Journal. 2013;346.
  89. 89. Chung YH, Lee YC, Chang CH, Lin MS, Lin JW, Lai MS. Statins of high versus low cholesterol-lowering efficacy and the development of severe renal failure. Pharmacoepidem Dr S. 2013;22(6):583–92.