Drugs & Aging

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 203–209 | Cite as

New-Onset Diabetes After Statin Exposure in Elderly Women: The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health

  • Mark Jones
  • Susan Tett
  • Geeske M. E. E. Peeters
  • Gita D. Mishra
  • Annette Dobson
short communication

Abstract

Introduction

Extensive clinical research has consistently shown statins lower the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality. Some studies also suggest statins increase the risk of new-onset diabetes. Research to date has rarely included elderly women, hence little is known about the risk of diabetes after statin exposure in this population.

Objectives

Our objectives were to evaluate and estimate the risk of new-onset diabetes associated with statin exposure in a cohort of elderly Australian women.

Methods

We performed an analysis of a population-based longitudinal cohort study with data linkage to the national death index and to national databases of non-hospital episodes of medical care and prescription medications dispensing. Participants included 8372 Australian women born between 1921 and 1926, alive at 1 January 2003, free of diabetes, and eligible for data linkage. Statin exposure was ascertained based on prescriptions dispensed between 1 July 2002 and 31 August 2013.

Results

Over 10 years of follow up, 49% of the cohort had filled a prescription for statins and 5% had initiated treatment for new-onset diabetes. Multivariable Cox regression showed statin exposure was associated with a higher risk of treatment for new-onset diabetes (hazard ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04–1.70; p = 0.024). This equates to a number needed to harm (NNH) of 131 (95% CI 62–1079) for 5 years of exposure to statins. Risk increased with increasing dose of statin from the hazard ratio of 1.17 (95% CI 0.84–1.65) for the lowest dose to 1.51 (95% CI 1.14–1.99) for the highest dose.

Conclusion

The dose–response for statins on new onset of diabetes suggests elderly women should not be exposed to higher doses of statins. Elderly women currently taking statins should be carefully and regularly monitored for increased blood glucose to ensure early detection and appropriate management of this potential adverse effect, including consideration of de-prescribing.

References

  1. 1.
    Ward S, Lloyd Jones M, Pandor A, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of statins for the prevention of coronary events. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(14):1–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Afilalo J, Duque G, Steele R, et al. Statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients: a hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(1):37–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;385(9976):1397–405.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bandyopadhyay S, Bayer A, O’Mahony M. Age and gender bias in statin trials. Q J Med. 2001;94:127–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Taylor F, Huffman M, Macedo A, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD004916. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004816.pub5.
  6. 6.
    Abramson J, Rosenberg H, Jewell N, et al. Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin? BMJ. 2013;347:f6123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ray K, Seshasai S, Erqou S, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1024–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savarese G, Gotto A, Paolillo S, et al. Benefits of statins in elderly subjects without established cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:2090–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dormuth C, Filion K, Paterson J, et al. Higher potency statins and the risk of new diabetes: multicentre, observational study of administrative databases. BMJ. 2014;348:g3244.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carter A, Gomes T, Camacho X, et al. Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: population based study. BMJ. 2013;346:f2610.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray H, et al. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet. 2010;375:735–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Culver A, Ockene I, Balasubramanian R, et al. Statin use and risk of diabetes mellitus in postmenopausal women in the women’s health initiative. Arch Int Med. 2012;172:144–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mills E, Wu P, Chong G, et al. Efficacy and safety of statin treatment for cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis of 170,255 patients from 76 randomized trials. Q J Med. 2011;104:109–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    World Health Organization. Global report on diabetes. Geneva: WHO; 2016.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s health 2014. Canberra: AIHW; 2014.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Swerdlow D, Preiss D, Kuchenbaecker K, et al. HMG-coenzyme A reductase inhibition, type 2 diabetes, and bodyweight: evidence from genetic analysis and randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;385:351–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. 2016. http://www.alswh.org.au/. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  18. 18.
    Dobson AJ, Hockey R, Brown WJ, et al. Cohort profile update: Australian longitudinal study on women’s health. Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44(5):1547a–1547f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Australian Government Department of Health. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. General statement for lipid-lowering drugs prescribed as pharmaceutical benefits. 2016. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/healthpro/explanatory-notes/gs-lipid-lowering-drugs. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  20. 20.
    Australian Government Department of Health. Medicare benefits schedule. 2016. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.nsf/Content/Medicare-Benefits-Schedule-MBS-1. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  21. 21.
    Australian Government. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Death Index (NDI). 2016. http://www.aihw.gov.au/national-death-index/. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  22. 22.
    McAuley D. Drug comparisons: statins. 2016. http://www.globalrph.com/statins_comparisons.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  23. 23.
    Blazing MA. Incidence of new-onset diabetes in the IMPROVE-IT trial: does adding ezetimibe to simvastatin increase risk compared to simvastatin alone? European Society of Cardiology Congress. 29 August–2 September 2015, London.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suissa S. Immortal time bias in pharmacoepidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167:492–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fine J, Gray R. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94:496–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335:806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cederberg H, Stančáková A, Yaluri N, et al. Increased risk of diabetes with statin treatment is associated with impaired insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion: a 6 year follow-up study of the METSIM cohort. Diabetologia. 2015;58(5):1109–17. doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3528-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kutner JS, Blatchford PJ, Taylor DH Jr, et al. Safety and benefit of discontinuing statin therapy in the setting of advanced, life-limiting illness: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):691–700.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scott IA, Hilmer SN, Reeve E, et al. Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy: the process of deprescribing. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):827–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Golomb B, Evans M. Statin adverse effects: a review of the literature and evidence for a mitochondrial mechanism. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2008;8(6):373–418.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of PharmacyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.School of Public Health and Preventive MedicineMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations