Statins and the risk of polyneuropathy: A systematic review and two meta-analyses
Issued Date
2022-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
0148639X
eISSN
10974598
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85118491685
Pubmed ID
34693541
Journal Title
Muscle and Nerve
Volume
65
Issue
1
Start Page
120
End Page
125
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Muscle and Nerve Vol.65 No.1 (2022) , 120-125
Suggested Citation
Wannarong T. Statins and the risk of polyneuropathy: A systematic review and two meta-analyses. Muscle and Nerve Vol.65 No.1 (2022) , 120-125. 125. doi:10.1002/mus.27447 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/83945
Title
Statins and the risk of polyneuropathy: A systematic review and two meta-analyses
Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Introduction/Aims: Previous studies have shown inconsistent data on the relationship between statin use and polyneuropathy (PN). The current systematic review and meta-analyses were conducted to comprehensively investigate the risk of incident PN among statin-users compared with non-users by identifying all available studies and summarizing their results. Methods: A systematic review was conducted from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to October 31, 2020. We included cohort and case–control studies that compared the risk of incident PN between statin-users and non-users. Point estimates and standard errors from eligible studies were pooled together using the generic inverse variance method. Results: Of 4968 retrieved articles, 6 studies in non-diabetic populations and 2 studies in diabetic populations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two meta-analyses were performed. The pooled analyses did not find a statistically significant association between the use of statins and risk of incident PN with the pooled odds ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.76; I2 74%) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.56–1.21; I2 80%) in non-diabetic and diabetic groups respectively. Discussion: No significant association between the use of statins and the risk of PN was observed in this systematic review and these two meta-analyses. However, there was a high degree of heterogeneity of the meta-analyses.