Display options
Cite
Quinn M, Moody C, Tunnicliffe B, et al. Systematic review of statins in sepsis: There is no evidence of dose response. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016;20(9):534-41doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.190366.
Quinn, M., Moody, C., Tunnicliffe, B., Khan, Z., Manji, M., Gudibande, S., Murphy, N., Whitehouse, T., Snelson, C., & Veenith, T. (2016). Systematic review of statins in sepsis: There is no evidence of dose response. Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 20(9), 534-41. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-5229.190366
Quinn, Morgan, et al. "Systematic review of statins in sepsis: There is no evidence of dose response." Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine vol. 20,9 (2016): 534-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-5229.190366
Quinn M, Moody C, Tunnicliffe B, Khan Z, Manji M, Gudibande S, Murphy N, Whitehouse T, Snelson C, Veenith T. Systematic review of statins in sepsis: There is no evidence of dose response. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep;20(9):534-41. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.190366. PMID: 27688630; PMCID: PMC5027747.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Indian J Crit Care Med. 2016 Sep;20(9):534-41. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.190366.

Systematic review of statins in sepsis: There is no evidence of dose response.

Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine

Morgan Quinn, Claire Moody, Bill Tunnicliffe, Zahid Khan, Mav Manji, Sandeep Gudibande, Nick Murphy, Tony Whitehouse, Catherine Snelson, Tonny Veenith

Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK.
  2. Department of Critical Care, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham, B15 2TH, UK; Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK; School of Immunity and Infection, University of Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

PMID: 27688630 PMCID: PMC5027747 DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.190366

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a common cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with significant costs to the healthcare organizations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether high or low-dose statin therapy improved mortality in patients with sepsis.

METHODS: The trials analyzed in this study were multicenter or single center randomized control studies using statins for sepsis in a hospital setting. The patients included were adults with suspected or confirmed infection.

INTERVENTIONS: This study found eight randomized controlled trials where participants were given either a statin or placebo daily for 14-28 days, the duration of their illness, or until their death or discharge, which ever occurred first.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURED: This meta-analysis measured the effect of statin therapy on in hospital and 28 days mortality.

RESULTS: In unselected patients, there was no demonstrable difference in the 28 days mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.12 and P = 0.16). There was also no significant difference between statin versus placebo for in-hospital mortality (RR 0.98 95% CI, 0.85-1.14 P = 0.36). When the studies where divided into low-dose and high-dose groups, there were no statistically significant differences for in-hospital mortality between low-dose statin versus placebo for (RR 0.81 CI 0.44-1.49 P = 0.27) or high-dose statin versus placebo (RR 0.99 95% CI 0.85-1.16, P = 0.28). There was no significant difference in adverse effects between the high- and low-dose groups.

CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, we found that the use of statins did not significantly improve either in-hospital mortality or 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis. In the low-dose group, there were fewer quality multicenter studies; hence, conclusions based on the results of this subgroup are limited.

Keywords: High dose; low dose; mortality; sepsis; statin

References

  1. JAMA. 2013 Oct 23;310(16):1692-700 - PubMed
  2. Lancet. 2001 Oct 27;358(9291):1383-5 - PubMed
  3. Circulation. 2005 Jul 5;112(1):117-24 - PubMed
  4. Intensive Care Med. 2006 Jan;32(1):75-9 - PubMed
  5. Am J Med. 2015 Apr;128(4):410-7.e1 - PubMed
  6. Circulation. 2004 Aug 17;110(7):880-5 - PubMed
  7. Ann Intensive Care. 2012 Jun 18;2(1):19 - PubMed
  8. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 18;346(16):1221-31 - PubMed
  9. Arch Intern Med. 1991 Jan;151(1):43-9 - PubMed
  10. Crit Care. 2012 Dec 11;16(6):R231 - PubMed
  11. NCHS Data Brief. 2011 Jun;(62):1-8 - PubMed
  12. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 5;370(23):2191-200 - PubMed
  13. Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):344-53 - PubMed
  14. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 May;7(5):358-68 - PubMed
  15. Lancet Infect Dis. 2006 Apr;6(4):242-8 - PubMed
  16. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Mar 15;183(6):774-81 - PubMed
  17. Intensive Care Med. 2009 Jul;35(7):1255-60 - PubMed
  18. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013 Apr 1;187(7):743-50 - PubMed
  19. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Jul 15;92(2):152-60 - PubMed
  20. Ann Pharmacother. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(7-8):743-59 - PubMed
  21. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 30;371(18):1695-703 - PubMed
  22. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Mar 1;183(5):620-6 - PubMed
  23. Trends Immunol. 2007 Feb;28(2):88-98 - PubMed
  24. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007 Feb;7(2):80; author reply 80-1 - PubMed
  25. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005;45:89-118 - PubMed

Publication Types