The impact of statins on melanoma survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Statin use may decrease recurrence and improve survival in patients with melanoma. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examine the current body of literature concerning the use of statins as an adjunctive therapy in melanoma, Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed were systematically searched from inception through to April 2023. Studies were included if they compared patients with melanoma receiving and not receiving statin therapy concurrently with their oncologic treatment in terms of long-term oncologic outcomes. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival (OS). Meta-analyses was performed with DerSimonian and Laird random effects. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I and GRADE was used to assess certainty of evidence. From 952 citations, eight non-randomized studies were identified. Included studies were conducted between 2007 and 2022. Random effects meta-analysis of adjusted hazard ratios from three studies suggested an improvement in 5-year OS with statin use with wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73-1.04, P  = 0.12, I2  = 95%, very-low certainty). Outcome reporting was heterogeneous across all other oncologic outcomes such that pooling of data was not possible. Risk of bias was serious for seven studies and moderate for one study. This systematic review of studies evaluating the impact of statin use on survival in patients with melanoma found a 13% reduction in risk of death at 5 years from diagnosis - a point estimate suggesting benefit. However, the wide 95% CIs and resultant type II error risk create significant uncertainty.

McKechnie T ，Talwar G ，Grewal S ，Wang A ，Eskicioglu C ，Parvez E ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.

Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common cancer among women and a leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type, accounting for around 90% of all ovarian cancers. This specific type of ovarian cancer starts in the surface layer covering the ovary or lining of the fallopian tube. Surgery is performed either before chemotherapy (upfront or primary debulking surgery (PDS)) or in the middle of a course of treatment with chemotherapy (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and interval debulking surgery (IDS)), with the aim of removing all visible tumour and achieving no macroscopic residual disease (NMRD). The aim of this review is to investigate the prognostic impact of size of residual disease nodules (RD) in women who received upfront or interval cytoreductive surgery for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To assess the prognostic impact of residual disease after primary surgery on survival outcomes for advanced (stage III and IV) epithelial ovarian cancer. In separate analyses, primary surgery included both upfront primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Each residual disease threshold is considered as a separate prognostic factor. We searched CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), MEDLINE via Ovid (to 30 August 2021) and Embase via Ovid (to 30 August 2021). We included survival data from studies of at least 100 women with advanced EOC after primary surgery. Residual disease was assessed as a prognostic factor in multivariate prognostic models. We excluded studies that reported fewer than 100 women, women with concurrent malignancies or studies that only reported unadjusted results. Women were included into two distinct groups: those who received PDS followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and those who received IDS, analysed separately. We included studies that reported all RD thresholds after surgery, but the main thresholds of interest were microscopic RD (labelled NMRD), RD 0.1 cm to 1 cm (small-volume residual disease (SVRD)) and RD > 1 cm (large-volume residual disease (LVRD)). Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, we synthesised the data in meta-analysis. To assess the adequacy of adjustment factors used in multivariate Cox models, we used the 'adjustment for other prognostic factors' and 'statistical analysis and reporting' domains of the quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool. We also made judgements about the certainty of the evidence for each outcome in the main comparisons, using GRADE. We examined differences between FIGO stages III and IV for different thresholds of RD after primary surgery. We considered factors such as age, grade, length of follow-up, type and experience of surgeon, and type of surgery in the interpretation of any heterogeneity. We also performed sensitivity analyses that distinguished between studies that included NMRD in RD categories of < 1 cm and those that did not. This was applicable to comparisons involving RD < 1 cm with the exception of RD < 1 cm versus NMRD. We evaluated women undergoing PDS and IDS in separate analyses. We found 46 studies reporting multivariate prognostic analyses, including RD as a prognostic factor, which met our inclusion criteria: 22,376 women who underwent PDS and 3697 who underwent IDS, all with varying levels of RD. While we identified a range of different RD thresholds, we mainly report on comparisons that are the focus of a key area of clinical uncertainty (involving NMRD, SVRD and LVRD). The comparison involving any visible disease (RD > 0 cm) and NMRD was also important. SVRD versus NMRD in a PDS setting In PDS studies, most showed an increased risk of death in all RD groups when those with macroscopic RD (MRD) were compared to NMRD. Women who had SVRD after PDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (hazard ratio (HR) 2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 2.29; I2 = 50%; 17 studies; 9404 participants; moderate-certainty). The analysis of progression-free survival found that women who had SVRD after PDS had nearly twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.16; I2 = 63%; 10 studies; 6596 participants; moderate-certainty). LVRD versus SVRD in a PDS setting When we compared LVRD versus SVRD following surgery, the estimates were attenuated compared to NMRD comparisons. All analyses showed an overall survival benefit in women who had RD < 1 cm after surgery (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.32; I2 = 0%; 5 studies; 6000 participants; moderate-certainty). The results were robust to analyses of progression-free survival. SVRD and LVRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting The one study that defined the categories as NMRD, SVRD and LVRD showed that women who had SVRD and LVRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women who had NMRD (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.66; 310 participants; I2 = 56%, and HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34; 343 participants; I2 = 35%; very low-certainty, for SVRD versus NMRD and LVRD versus NMRD, respectively). LVRD versus SVRD + NMRD in an IDS setting Meta-analysis found that women who had LVRD had a greater risk of death and disease progression compared to women who had either SVRD or NMRD (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.11; 6 studies; 1572 participants; I2 = 58% for overall survival and HR 1.76, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.52; 1145 participants; I2 = 60% for progression-free survival; very low-certainty). However, this result is biased as in all but one study it was not possible to distinguish NMRD within the < 1 cm thresholds. Only one study separated NMRD from SVRD; all others included NMRD in the SVRD group, which may create bias when comparing with LVRD, making interpretation challenging. MRD versus NMRD in an IDS setting Women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had more than twice the risk of death compared to women with NMRD (HR 2.11, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.29, I2 = 81%; 906 participants; very low-certainty). In a PDS setting, there is moderate-certainty evidence that the amount of RD after primary surgery is a prognostic factor for overall and progression-free survival in women with advanced ovarian cancer. We separated our analysis into three distinct categories for the survival outcome including NMRD, SVRD and LVRD. After IDS, there may be only two categories required, although this is based on very low-certainty evidence, as all but one study included NMRD in the SVRD category. The one study that separated NMRD from SVRD showed no improved survival outcome in the SVRD category, compared to LVRD. Further low-certainty evidence also supported restricting to two categories, where women who had any amount of MRD after IDS had a significantly greater risk of death compared to women with NMRD. Therefore, the evidence presented in this review cannot conclude that using three categories applies in an IDS setting (very low-certainty evidence), as was supported for PDS (which has convincing moderate-certainty evidence).

Bryant A ，Hiu S ，Kunonga PT ，Gajjar K ，Craig D ，Vale L ，Winter-Roach BA ，Elattar A ，Naik R ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Sex and gender as predictors for allograft and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Sex, as a biological construct, and gender, defined as the cultural attitudes and behaviours attributed by society, may be associated with allograft loss, death, cancer, and rejection. Other factors, such as recipient age and donor sex, may modify the association between sex/gender and post-transplant outcomes. We sought to evaluate the prognostic effects of recipient sex and, separately, gender as independent predictors of graft loss, death, cancer, and allograft rejection following kidney or simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. We aimed to evaluate this prognostic effect by defining the relationship between recipient sex or gender and post-transplantation outcomes identifying reasons for variations between sexes and genders, and then quantifying the magnitude of this relationship. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception up to 12 April 2023, through contact with the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Information Specialist, using search terms relevant to this review and no language restrictions. Cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies were included if sex or gender were the primary exposure and clearly defined. Studies needed to focus on our defined outcomes post-transplantation. Sex was defined as the chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical characteristics associated with the biological sex, and we used the terms "males" and "females". Gender was defined as the attitudes and behaviours that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex, and we used the terms "men" and "women". Two authors independently assessed the references for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Whenever appropriate, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the mean difference in outcomes. The outcomes of interest included the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplant (SONG-Tx) core outcomes, allograft loss, death, cancer (overall incidence and site-specific) and acute or chronic graft rejection. Fifty-three studies (2,144,613 patients; range 59 to 407,963) conducted between 1990 and 2023 were included. Sixteen studies were conducted in the Americas, 12 in Europe, 11 in the Western Pacific, four in the Eastern Mediterranean, three in Africa, two in Southeast Asia, and five across multiple regions. All but one study focused on sex rather than gender as the primary exposure of interest. The number identified as male was 54%; 49 studies included kidney transplant recipients, and four studies included SPK transplant recipients. Twenty-four studies included adults and children, 25 studies included only adults, and four studies included only children. Data from 33 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Among these, six studies presented unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) that assessed the effect of recipient sex on kidney allograft loss. The other studies reported risk ratios (RRs) for the pre-defined outcomes. Notably, the decision to restrict the meta-analyses to unadjusted estimates arose from the variation in covariate adjustment methods across studies, lacking a common set of adjusted variables. Only three studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on graft loss or death, which is likely crucial to evaluating sex differences in post-transplant outcomes. No studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on cancer incidence or allograft rejection risk. In low certainty evidence, compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in kidney allograft loss post-transplantation (7 studies, 5843 patients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12; I2 = 73%). This was also observed in studies that included time-to-event analyses (6 studies, 238,937 patients; HR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20; I2 = 44%). Two recent large registry-based cohort studies that considered the modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age showed that female recipients under 45 years of age had significantly higher graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients in the setting of a male donor. In contrast, female recipients 60 years and older had lower graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients, regardless of donor sex. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in death up to 30 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (13 studies, 60,818 patients: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; I2 = 92%). Studies that considered the modifying effect of recipient age and donor sex showed that female recipients had a higher excess death risk than males under 45 years of age in the setting of a male donor. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in cancer incidence up to 20 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (7 studies, 25,076 patients; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; I2 = 60%). Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in the incidence of acute and chronic kidney allograft rejection up to 15 years post-transplantation (9 studies, 6158 patients: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05; I2 =54%; low certainty evidence). One study assessed gender and reported that when compared with men, women experienced better five-year survival in high (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87) and middle-income areas (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), with no difference in low-income areas (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). There was considerable uncertainty regarding any association between sex or gender and post-transplant patient-relevant outcomes. This was primarily due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. The observed clinical heterogeneity between studies could be attributed to diverse patient characteristics within sample populations. As a result of limited sex-stratified demographic data being provided, further investigation of this heterogeneity was constrained. However, factors contributing to this finding may include recipient age, donor age, types, and sex. Methodological heterogeneity was noted with the interchangeable use of sex and gender, outcome misclassification, the use of different measures of effects, inconsistent covariate profiles, and disregard for important effect modification. There is very low to low certainty evidence to suggest there are no differences in kidney and pancreas allograft survival, patient survival, cancer, and acute and chronic allograft rejection between male and female kidney and SPK transplant recipients.

Jayanti S ，Beruni NA ，Chui JN ，Deng D ，Liang A ，Chong AS ，Craig JC ，Foster B ，Howell M ，Kim S ，Mannon RB ，Sapir-Pichhadze R ，Scholes-Robertson NJ ，Strauss AT ，Jaure A ，West L ，Cooper TE ，Wong G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Preoperative statin therapy for adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

Despite significant advances in surgical techniques and perioperative care, people undertaking cardiac surgery due to cardiovascular disease are more prone to the development of postoperative adverse events. Statins (5-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-co-enzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors) are well-known for their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects and are established for primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. In addition, statins are thought to have clinical benefits in perioperative outcomes in people undergoing cardiac surgery. This review is an update of a review that was first published in 2012 and updated in 2015. To evaluate the benefits and harms of preoperative statin therapy in adults undergoing cardiac surgery compared to standard of care or placebo. We performed a search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 9, 2023), Ovid MEDLINE (1980 to 14 September 2023), and Ovid Embase (1980 to 2023 (week 36)). We applied no language restrictions. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any statin treatment before cardiac surgery, for any given duration and dose, versus no preoperative statin therapy (standard of care) or placebo. We excluded trials without a registered trial protocol and trials without approval by an institutional ethics committee. We used standard Cochrane methodology. Primary outcomes were short-term mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, stroke, renal failure, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay and adverse effects related to statin therapy. We reported effect measures as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in included trials, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We identified eight RCTs (five new to this review) including 5592 participants. Pooled analysis showed that statin treatment before surgery may result in little to no difference in the risk of postoperative short-term mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.59; I2 = 0%; 6 RCTs, 5260 participants; low-certainty evidence; note 2 RCTs reported 0 events in both groups so RR calculated from 4 RCTs with 5143 participants). We are very uncertain about the effect of statins on major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 2406 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Statins probably result in little to no difference in myocardial infarction (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; I2 = 0%; 5 RCTs, 4645 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), may result in little to no difference in atrial fibrillation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05; I2 = 60%; 8 RCTs, 5592 participants; low-certainty evidence), and may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.40; I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 5143 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of statins on renal failure (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.34; I2 = 57%; 4 RCTs, 4728 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Additionally, statins probably result in little to no difference in length of ICU stay (MD 1.40 hours, 95% CI -1.62 to 4.41; I2 = 43%; 3 RCTs, 4528 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and overall hospital stay (MD -0.31 days, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.03; I2 = 84%; 5 RCTs, 4788 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No study had any individual risk of bias domain classified as high. However, two studies were at high risk of bias overall given the classification of unclear risk of bias in three domains. In this updated Cochrane review, we found no evidence that statin use in the perioperative period of elective cardiac surgery was associated with any clinical benefit or worsening, when compared with placebo or standard of care. Compared with placebo or standard of care, statin use probably results in little to no difference in MIs, length of ICU stay and overall hospital stay; and may make little to no difference to mortality, atrial fibrillation and stroke. We are very uncertain about the effects of statins on major harmful cardiac events and renal failure. The certainty of the evidence validating this finding varied from moderate to very low, depending on the outcome. Future trials should focus on assessing the impact of statin therapy on mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Marques Antunes M ，Nunes-Ferreira A ，Duarte GS ，Gouveia E Melo R ，Sucena Rodrigues B ，Guerra NC ，Nobre A ，Pinto FJ ，Costa J ，Caldeira D ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》