Cited by 218Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases

What proportion of symptomatic side effects in patients taking statins are genuinely caused by the drug? Systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials to aid individual patient choice

Finegold, Judith A, Manisty, Charlotte H, Goldacre, Ben, Barron, Anthony J, Francis, Darrel P·2014·European Journal of Preventive Cardiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Discussions about statin efficacy in cardiovascular prevention are always based on data from blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing statin to placebo; however, discussion of side effects is not. Clinicians often assume symptoms occurring with statins are caused by statins, encouraging discontinuation. We test this assumption and calculate an evidence-based estimate of the probability of a symptom being genuinely attributable to the statin itself. METHODS: We identified RCTs comparing statin to placebo for cardiovascular prevention that reported side effects separately in the two arms. RESULTS: Among 14 primary prevention trials (46,262 participants), statin therapy increased diabetes by absolute risk of 0.5% (95% CI 0.1-1%, p = 0.012), meanwhile reducing death by a similar extent: -0.5% (-0.9 to -0.2%, p = 0.003). In the 15 secondary prevention RCTs (37,618 participants), statins decreased death by 1.4% (-2.1 to -0.7%, p < 0.001). There were no other statin-attributable symptoms, although asymptomatic liver transaminase elevation was 0.4% more frequent with statins across all trials. Serious adverse events and withdrawals were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins: almost all would occur just as frequently on placebo. Only development of new-onset diabetes mellitus was significantly higher on statins than placebo; nevertheless only 1 in 5 of new cases were actually caused by statins. Higher statin doses produce a detectable effect, but even still the proportion attributable to statins is variable: for asymptomatic liver enzyme elevation, the majority are attributable to the higher dose; in contrast for muscle aches, the majority are not.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2047487314525531

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Erqou S, et al. Statins and all- cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1024-1031.
  2. Naci H, Brugts JJ, Fleurence R, et al. Comparative bene- fits of statins in the primary and secondary prevention of major coronary events and all-cause mortality. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013; 20: 641-657.
  3. Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High- dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study. JAMA 2005; 294: 2437-2445.
  4. SEARCH Collaborative Group. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12 064 survivors of myocardial infarction. Lancet 2010; 376: 1658-1669.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finegold, J. A., Manisty, C. H., Goldacre, B., Barron, A. J., & Francis, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, UK
Corresponding author
Finegold, Judith A
Venue
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
Published
2014-03-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
464-474
ISSN
  • 2047-4873 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-4881
OpenAlex
W2105299596
Cited by
214
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 28
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Preventive Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (FS/10/038)
  • British Heart Foundation (FS 10/038, PG/11/36/2883, FS/10/38/28268)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Keywords
statins, adverse drug reactions, new-onset diabetes, liver transaminase elevation, muscle aches, cardiovascular disease prevention, primary prevention, secondary prevention, statin dose
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Humans, Liver, Muscular Diseases, Risk Factors, Biomarkers, Placebo Effect, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review