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.

Quantification of the smoking-associated cancer risk with rate advancement periods: meta-analysis of individual participant data from cohorts of the CHANCES consortium

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the most important individual risk factor for many cancer sites but its association with breast and prostate cancer is not entirely clear. Rate advancement periods (RAPs) may enhance communication of smoking related risk to the general population. Thus, we estimated RAPs for the association of smoking exposure (smoking status, time since smoking cessation, smoking intensity, and duration) with total and site-specific (lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and pancreatic) cancer incidence and mortality.

METHODS: This is a meta-analysis of 19 population-based prospective cohort studies with individual participant data for 897,021 European and American adults. For each cohort we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association of smoking exposure with cancer outcomes using Cox regression adjusted for a common set of the most important potential confounding variables. RAPs (in years) were calculated as the ratio of the logarithms of the HRs for a given smoking exposure variable and age. Meta-analyses were employed to summarize cohort-specific HRs and RAPs.

RESULTS: Overall, 140,205 subjects had a first incident cancer, and 53,164 died from cancer, during an average follow-up of 12 years. Current smoking advanced the overall risk of developing and dying from cancer by eight and ten years, respectively, compared with never smokers. The greatest advancements in cancer risk and mortality were seen for lung cancer and the least for breast cancer. Smoking cessation was statistically significantly associated with delays in the risk of cancer development and mortality compared with continued smoking.

CONCLUSIONS: This investigation shows that smoking, even among older adults, considerably advances, and cessation delays, the risk of developing and dying from cancer. These findings may be helpful in more effectively communicating the harmful effects of smoking and the beneficial effect of smoking cessation.

Low-Dose Aspirin Use After Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer Does Not Increase Survival: A Case–Control Analysis of a Population-Based Cohort

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Individuals who began taking low-dose aspirin before they were diagnosed with colorectal cancer were reported to have longer survival times than patients who did not take this drug. We investigated survival times of patients who begin taking low-dose aspirin after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in a large population-based cohort study.

METHODS: We performed a nested case-control analysis using a cohort of 4794 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer from 1998 through 2007, identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed by cancer registries. There were 1559 colorectal cancer-specific deaths, recorded by the Office of National Statistics; these were each matched with up to 5 risk-set controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), based on practitioner-recorded aspirin usage.

RESULTS: Overall, low-dose aspirin use after a diagnosis of colorectal cancer was not associated with colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24) or all-cause mortality (adjusted OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.94-1.19). A dose-response association was not apparent; for example, low-dose aspirin use for more than 1 year after diagnosis was not associated with colorectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.19). There was also no association between low-dose aspirin usage and colon cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.83-1.25) or rectal cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 0.88-1.38).

CONCLUSIONS: In a large population-based cohort, low-dose aspirin usage after diagnosis of colorectal cancer did not increase survival time.