Use of statins and risk of haematological malignancies: a meta-analysis of six randomized clinical trials and eight observational studies.

Department of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Athens, and Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Athens, Greece.
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (Impact Factor: 3.69). 10/2007; 64(3):255-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.02959.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Statins have been suggested to prevent haematological malignancies. Several epidemiological studies have evaluated this association, while randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on cardiovascular outcomes have provided relevant data as secondary end-points. Our aim was to examine the strength of this association through a detailed meta-analysis of the studies published in peer-reviewed literature.
A comprehensive search for articles published up to December 2006 was performed, reviews of each study were conducted and data abstracted. Prior to meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random effects model.
Fourteen studies (six RCTs, seven case-control and one cohort study) contributed to the analysis. Studies were grouped on the basis of study design, and two separate meta-analyses were conducted. There was no evidence of an association between statin use and haematological malignancies among either RCTs (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.72, 1.16) or the observational studies (RR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.53, 1.29). Similarly, we found no evidence of publication bias. However, high heterogeneity was detected among the observational studies.
Our meta-analysis findings do not support a potential role of statins in the prevention of haematological malignancies.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the association between statin use and colorectal cancer risk, we conducted an updated meta-analysis of published studies. We performed a comprehensive search for studies published up to July 2013. Eligible studies for this meta-analysis were either randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies (case-control or cohort) evaluating any exposure to statins and the risk of colorectal cancer. Two reviewers selected studies based on predefined inclusion criteria, and abstracted the data. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates with their 95%CI were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models. Then, we assessed the potential presence of publication bias and between-studies heterogeneity. To evaluate the results, we also performed a "leave-one-out" sensitivity analysis. A total of 40 studies, involving more than eight million subjects, contributed to the analysis. They were grouped on the basis of study design and, consequently, three separate meta-analyses were conducted. A similar modest reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer with statin use was observed, which was not statistically significant among RCTs (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.74-1.07; n = 8), but reached statistical significance among cohort studies (RR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.83-1.00; n = 13) and case-control studies (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.87-0.98; n = 19). While we did not find significant evidence of selective outcome reporting or publication bias, substantial heterogeneity was detected, mainly among the observational studies. The sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of our results. A modest reduction in risk of colorectal cancer among statin users cannot be disproved. Further targeted research is warranted.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 02/2014; 20(7):1858-1870. · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Circulation 11/2013; · 14.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several commonly used medications have been associated with increased cancer risk in the literature. Here, we evaluated the strength and consistency of these claims in published meta-analyses. We carried out an umbrella review of 74 meta-analysis articles addressing the association of commonly used medications (antidiabetics, antihyperlipidemics, antihypertensives, antirheumatics, drugs for osteoporosis, and others) with cancer risk where at least one meta-analysis in the medication class included some data from randomized trials. Overall, 51 articles found no statistically significant differences, 13 found some decreased cancer risk, and 11 found some increased risk (one reported both increased and decreased risks). The 11 meta-analyses that found some increased risks reported 16 increased risk estimates, of which 5 pertained to overall cancer and 11 to site-specific cancer. Six of the 16 estimates were derived from randomized trials and 10 from observational data. Estimates of increased risk were strongly inversely correlated with the amount of evidence (number of cancer cases) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.77, P < 0.001). In 4 of the 16 topics, another meta-analysis existed that was larger (n = 2) or included better controlled data (n = 2) and in all 4 cases there was no statistically significantly increased risk of malignancy. No medication or class had substantial and consistent evidence for increased risk of malignancy. However, for most medications we cannot exclude small risks or risks in population subsets. Such risks are unlikely to be possible to document robustly unless very large, collaborative studies with standardized analyses and no selective reporting are carried out.
    Annals of Oncology 12/2013; · 6.58 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014