Can statins prevent or help treat Alzheimer's disease?

Evidence accumulating from biological and epidemiological studies suggests that high levels of serum cholesterol may promote the pathological processes that lead to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Lowering cholesterol in experimental animal models slows the expression of Alzheimer's pathology. These findings raise the possibility that treating humans with cholesterol lowering medications might reduce the risk of developing AD or help treat it. The statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin, and others) are powerful cholesterol lowering agents of proven benefit in vascular disease. Several clinical studies comparing the occurrence of AD between users and non-users of statins suggested that risk of AD was substantially reduced among the users. However, because these studies were not randomized trials, they provided insufficient evidence to recommend statin therapy. Cochrane reviews are based on the best available information about healthcare interventions and they focus primarily on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). On the issue of prevention, two randomized trials have been carried out and neither showed any reduction in occurrence of AD in patients treated with statins compared to those given placebo. Statins cannot therefore be recommended for the prevention of AD. Regarding treatment of AD, the large RCTs which have assessed this outcome have not published their results. Initial analysis from the studies available indicate statins have no benefit on the outcome measure ADAS-Cog but have a significant beneficial effect on MMSE as an outcome. We need to await full results from the RCTs before we can be certain. In addition statins were not detrimental to cognition in either systematic review.

Statins for the treatment of dementia

The use of statin therapy in established Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD) is a relatively unexplored area. In AD ss-amyloid protein (Ass) is deposited in the form of extracellular plaques and previous studies have determined Ass generation is cholesterol dependent. Hypercholesterolaemia has also been implicated in the pathogenesis of VaD. Due to the role of statins in cholesterol reduction it is biologically plausible they may be efficacious in the treatment of AD and dementia.

Statins in Heart Failure-Where Do We Stand?

HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors (statins) are a group of drugs which lower cholesterol by inhibiting the conversion of HMG Co-A to mevalonate early in the cholesterol synthetic pathway. They are used in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients deemed to be at increased risk and their benefit in patients with ischaemic heart disease is well supported. Their use in patients with heart failure (HF) however, is controversial. Evidence from observational and mechanistic studies suggests that statins should benefit patients with HF. However, larger randomised controlled trials have failed to demonstrate these expected benefits. The aim of this review article is to summarise the data from trials of statin use in patients with HF and attempt to explain the apparent conflict between recent placebo controlled trials and earlier observational and mechanistic studies.

Statins for the prevention of dementia

Background: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001. At that stage there was insufficient evidence to recommend statins for the prevention of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The scope of this review has been expanded to include all forms of dementia.
Objectives: To assess the effects of statins in the prevention of dementia.
Search strategy: The Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS were searched on 10 October 2007 using the terms statin*, lovastatin*, pravastatin*, simvastatin*, fluvastatin*, atorvastatin* and rosuvastatin*. The CDCIG Register contains records from many healthcare databases, SIGLE, LILACS as well as many trials databases and is updated regularly.
Selection criteria: Double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials of statins in people at risk of AD and dementia.
Data collection and analysis: Two independent reviewers extracted and assessed data independently and agreement was reached after discussion. Adverse effects were noted.
Main results: Two trials were identified with 26,340 participants; HPS 2002 and PROSPER 2002. Age range was 40-82 years across the two studies, PROSPER 2002 included 5804 patients aged 70-82 years and HPS included 20,536 patients with 5806 at least 70 years old at study entry. Mean total cholesterol 5.9 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 3.4 mmol/l at study entry with mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1.0mmol/l in simvastatin treated patients compared to placebo in HPS 2002. Mean total cholesterol 5.7 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 3.8 mmol/l at study entry with mean reduction in LDL cholesterol of 1.02 mmol/l in pravastatin treated patients compared to placebo in PROSPER 2002. Mean follow-up 3.2 years in PROSPER, 5 years in HPS 2002. Cognition was measured at different times and with different scales so could not be combined in a meta-analysis. There was no difference in incidence of dementia in HPS 2002 (31 cases in simvastatin group, 31 cases in placebo group) nor in performance on the modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status at final follow-up (23.7% simvastatin group cognitively impaired vs 24.2% in placebo group). There was no difference in cognition between groups either in relation to age at study entry or previous history of cerebrovascular disease. Cognitive function declined at the same rate in both treatment groups in PROSPER 2002, there was no significant difference between pravastatin treated and placebo groups in performance on letter digit codes, picture word learning test, Stroop and Mini Mental State Examination. There was no evidence that statins were detrimental to cognition.
Authors' conclusions : There is good evidence from RCTs that statins given in late life to individuals at risk of vascular disease have no effect in preventing AD or dementia. Biologically it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. Indication bias may have been a factor in these studies however and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative.

Cochrane review on 'Statins for the treatment of dementia'

OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of statins in the treatment of dementia. METHODS: We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources (27 October 2008). Double-blind, randomized controlled trials of statins given for at least 6?months in people with a diagnosis of dementia were included. Two independent authors extracted and assessed data independently against the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled where appropriate and entered into a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three studies were identified (748 participants, age range 50-90?years). All patients had a diagnosis of probable or possible Alzheimer's disease according to standard criteria, and most patients were established on a cholinesterase inhibitor. Change in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale from baseline was a primary outcome in three studies; when data were pooled, statins did not provide any beneficial effect in this cognitive measure (mean difference -1.12; 95% confidence interval -3.99, 1.75; p?=?0.44). All studies provided a change in Mini-Mental State Examination from baseline; there was no significant benefit from statins in this cognitive measure when the data were pooled (mean difference -1.53; 95% confidence interval -3.28; 0.21, p?=?0.08). There were no studies identified assessing the role of statins in treatment of vascular dementia. There was no evidence that statins were detrimental to cognition. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend statins for the treatment of dementia. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The effect of statins on intraocular pressure and on the incidence and progression of glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to evaluate the effect of oral statins on intraocular pressure (IOP) and the incidence and progression of glaucoma. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Searches of PubMed/Medline and Embase were conducted to include all types of studies. Gray literature abstracts were also considered for inclusion. Last search date was February 2016. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale independently by two reviewers. Odds ratios (OR) or hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted from each study. Pooled ORs for incidence of glaucoma were calculated using a random-effects model. Results: We identified seven cohort studies, three case–control studies, and one cross-sectional study with a total number of 583,615 participants. No randomized controlled trials were retrieved. Pooled ORs demonstrated a statistically significant association between short-term statin use (≤2 years) and reduced incidence of glaucoma (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.94, 0.99). Pooled ORs of long-term statin use (>2 years) did not demonstrate statistically significant reduction in incidence of glaucoma (OR 0.70, 95%CI 0.46, 1.06). There was inconsistent evidence for the protective effect of statins against the progression of glaucoma, although there was no standard definition for progression across studies. There was no significant difference in IOP associated with statin use. Conclusions: Short-term statin use is associated with a reduced incidence of glaucoma. The effect of statins on glaucoma progression and IOP is uncertain.

‘I don’t think I’d be frightened if the statins went’: a phenomenological qualitative study exploring medicines use in palliative care patients, carers and healthcare professionals

Background

Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in different primary healthcare systems with and without pay-for-performance

Objective: To compare baseline cardiovascular risk management between people recruited from two different healthcare systems, to a research trial of an intervention to optimize secondary prevention. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: General practices, randomly selected: 16 in Northern Ireland (NI) (UK NHS, ‘strong’ infrastructure); 32 in Republic of Ireland (RoI) (mixed healthcare economy, less infrastructure). Patients: 903 (mean age 67.5 years; 69.9% male); randomly selected, known coronary heart disease. Main outcome measures: Blood pressure, cholesterol, medications; validated questionnaires for diet (DINE), exercise (Godin), quality of life (SF12); healthcare usage. Results: More RoI than NI participants had systolic BP>140 mmHg (37% v 28%, p=0.01) and cholesterol >5mmol/l (24% v 17%, p=0.02): RoI mean systolic BP was higher (139 v 132 mm Hg). More RoI participants reported a high fibre intake (35% v 23%), higher levels of physical activity (62% v 44%), and better physical and mental health (SF12); they had more GP (5.6 v 4.4) and fewer nurse visits (1.6 v 2.1) in the previous year. Fewer in RoI (55% v 70%) were prescribed B blockers. Both groups’ ACE inhibitor (41%; 48%) prescribing was similar; high proportions were prescribed statins (84%; 85%) and aspirin (83%; 77%). Conclusions Blood pressure and cholesterol are better controlled among patients in a primary healthcare system with a ‘strong’ infrastructure supporting computerization and rewarding measured performance but this is not associated with healthier lifestyle or better quality of life. Further exploration of differences in professionals’ and patients’ engagement in secondary prevention in different healthcare systems is needed.

Statin prescribing in Northern Ireland and England pre and post introduction of the quality and outcomes framework

Objective The objective of this research was to examine differences in patterns of statin prescribing between Northern Ireland and England both before and after the introduction of the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). Setting: Primary care practices in Northern Ireland and England. Method Northern Ireland practices were matched with practices in England, statin prescribing data and QOF achievement scores (for the first year post-QOF) were obtained. Crude prescribing data from matched practices were manipulated to provide a data set of Defined Daily Doses (DDDs)/1,000 patients and cost/DDD/1,000 patients for each statin drug entity covering 1 year before and after the introduction of QOF. QOF achievements were converted into percentage scores for matched practices. Main outcome measure Cost per defined daily dose (DDD) per 1,000 patients. Results Significantly less statins (DDD/1,000 patients) were dispensed in Northern Ireland compared with the matched region in England both before and after the introduction of QOF (P