Skip to main content
Download PDF

Statin Use and Clinical Osteoarthritis in the General Population: A Longitudinal Study

Journal of General Internal Medicine volume 28, pages 943–949 (2013)Cite this article

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

One hypothesis has posited whether abnormal lipid metabolism might be a causal factor in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA). Routine statin use in clinical practice provides the basis for a natural experiment in testing this hypothesis.

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that statins reduce the long-term occurrence of clinically defined OA.

DESIGN

Cohort design with a 10-year follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

16,609 adults cardiovascular disease cohorts aged 40 years and over from the UK General Practice Research Database with data available to 31 December 2006.

INTERVENTION

Statins were summarised as annual mean daily dose and dose change over two-year time periods.

MAIN MEASURES

Incident episode of clinically defined osteoarthritis was assessed within 2 years, and at 4-year and 10-year follow-up time periods, using Cox and discrete time survival analysis. Covariates included age, gender, deprivation, body mass index, cholesterol level, pain-modifying drug co-therapies, and duration and severity of cardiovascular disease.

KEY RESULTS

Higher therapeutic dose of statin, with a treatment duration of at least 2 years was associated with a significant reduction in clinical OA compared to non-statin users in the follow-up time period. The estimated adjusted rate ratios were as follows: lowest statin dose quartile 1: 2.5 (95 % CI 2.3, 2.9); quartile 2: 1.3 (1.1, 1.5); quartile 3: 0.8 (0.7, 0.95); and highest statin dose quartile 4: 0.4 (0.3, 0.5). The largest statin dose increments were associated with significant reductions estimated at 18 % in OA outcome within 2 years and 40 % after 4 years, compared to non-statin users.

CONCLUSIONS

This longitudinal study from a national clinical practice setting provides evidence that higher statin dose and larger statin dose increments were associated with a reduction in clinically defined OA outcome.

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a complex disease that encompasses change in articular, bone and cartilage structures.1 Current clinical and research focus has been modification of mechanical loading as a causal factor, or treatment of psychosocial factors, or treatment and replacement of intra-articular cartilage.2 Yet, studies of generalised osteoarthritis suggest the potential role of systemic processes,3,4 and from this framework, it has been hypothesised that disorder of lipid metabolism may play a role in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis.5,6 The hypothesis is generated from different evidence in the cellular and bio-molecular pathways. First, adipocytes share mesenchymal origin with articular cells, providing a potential cellular link between lipid metabolism and osteoarthritis.7,8 Second, in vitro studies have shown that excessive lipid levels in the synovial fluid induce arthritic changes, and higher levels of leptin found in obesity has also been shown in joint cartilage destruction.9,10 Supporting epidemiological studies indicate that these two chronic diseases commonly co-occur,11 share similar risk factors,12,13 and are both associated with higher mortality.14

Recent literature suggests that statins may have a modifying role in osteoarthritis.15 Our previous work has shown that the risk factors for cardiovascular disease are also associated with OA over a 30 year time period of follow-up,16 and smaller studies have established “proof of principle” for such a link, in radiographically confirmed subgroups of OA.17,18 However, the full public health potential of statins remains to be investigated, as well as whether there is an association with the larger group presenting with clinical OA. For populations at risk, statins are a key drug preventative therapy and form the basis of quality care guidelines to prevent long-term cardiovascular events.19 The objective of this study was to use large data sets available from the primary care population, where OA is a common presenting problem and statin use is routine, for investigating the hypothesis of whether statins are associated with a reduction in OA occurrence.

METHODS

We used the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) on over 300 practices, which links clinical diagnosis to other data, such as prescribed drugs, test results and measurements such as body mass index (BMI). The GPRD is representative of England and Wales population, since most people are registered with a General Practitioner (GP), and such data on a large scale population over a longitudinal time period provides the basis for a variety of hypothesis-testing epidemiological studies.20,21 All data is routinely computer recorded, with diagnostic data coded as patients present their clinical complaints, using a standard clinical classification to record chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and osteoarthritis.22 Permission to access the GPRD data was given by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee.

Selection of Cohort Population

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) cohort populations aged 40 years and over were identified on the basis of a 2-year time period (1 January 1995 to 31 December 1996) with no clinical record of OA during this time period and in any available patient records in the preceding time period. This cohort (n = 16,609) had linked records to drugs prescribed and to any incident clinically defined OA outcome in the following 10-year time period (1 January 1997 to 31 December 2006).

Within the overall cohort, there were six exclusive subgroups of CVD, ordered as follows: (1) hypertension, (2) atrial fibrillation, (3) angina, (4) myocardial infarction and (5) heart failure. Groups were allocated to the most ‘severe’ diagnostic category, irrespective of other CVD multimorbidity; for example, if a patient has heart failure and hypertension, then they were allocated to the heart failure cohort group. The sixth group consisted of any ‘other’ CVD symptoms and morbidities outside of the five specific categories. This broader ‘other CVD’ cohort, with some aspect of vascular disorders in their clinical records, was chosen to provide validation for the specific diagnostic groups.

Measures of Statin Use

Within the overall cohort, prescribed drugs had been coded using the standard British National Formulary (BNF) classification.23 Lipid-regulating drugs within this classification were used to categorise statin users and other statins were standardised to the equivalent Simvastatin dose.24 Statin dose was then summarised as the mean daily dose in each 12-month time period, which equates to the prescription dose x frequency of daily dose x quantity of tablets, divided by 365 days. This process was done for the each of the total 12 years of observation. For the overall cohort, data was organised into statin users, and non-users were classified on the basis of the whole of the 12-year time period.

Clinically Defined OA Outcome

In the 10-year follow-up period, the incident outcome of “OA” was defined on the basis of any coded clinical entry irrespective of joint site, and there were 147 OA-related diagnostic categories from a standard clinical classification.22 OA diagnoses were recorded by GPs in the actual consultations, when it was the primary presenting problem care. These diagnostic codes focus on the specific use of the term “osteoarthritis”, and not diffuse pain complaints or syndromes. Previously, we have shown that these OA categories are a marker of health severity, representing distinct diagnostic application when OA is established.25 These clinical definitions represent a different measure from radiographic definitions of OA, but they are an important epidemiological clinical measure in large general populations consulting over time,26,27 which provides the setting for an a priori natural experiment. Current evidence also shows that OA can be viewed primarily as a clinical joint pain syndrome, since clinical and radiographic features are not always concordant.28,29

Other Factors

Duration of each CVD in years was also estimated on the basis of time between the age at first diagnosis and the date of diagnosis in the cohort sampling window, and was used as a proxy marker of the ‘immortal’ time in which an OA event might have occurred.30 Other measures included serum cholesterol levels (mmol/l) and obesity, as summarised by BMI (kg/m2). We used the first recorded cholesterol level or a BMI record for an individual as a measure of baseline status, and repeated measures were not used in analyses, because this type of data was not fully available over the follow-up time period.

We also wanted to consider the potential role of other pain-modifying drug co-therapies, such as analgesia (non-opioids, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories) and anti-depressants, which might be associated with a reduction in OA presentation.31 These drug co-therapies based on BNF classification were summarised into either analgesia users or non-users in the six 2-year time periods for the whole period of observation. Deprivation was measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for each practice, and was based on the 2004 UK census and is an area-level measure of deprivation. IMD is based on the postcode, and is a weighted score of seven sub-domains relating to income; employment; health; education, skills and training; barriers to housing, and access to local services; crime; and living environment.32

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Modelling Statin Dose and Latency Period

In terms of hypothesising the time that it might take for a person to be on statin to reduce the clinical occurrence of OA (potential ‘latency’ treatment time period), we estimated that a minimum time period of 2 years of statin use was required. This hypothetical time period for ‘treatment effect’ is based on evidence from other studies, which show this is the duration of statin use required in order to achieve a significant reduction in cardiovascular disease outcomes.33,34

The statin daily dose measure was modelled in two ways. In the overall cohort Cox regression analysis, statins were defined as mean daily dose per year, to categorise statin users of more than 2 years in the 10-year follow-up period. The four quartile dose categories, ranging from quartile 1 (low dose) to quartile 4 (high dose). If any drug users had had less than 2 years of statin, they were allocated to the non-user group (n = 556).

In the discrete time analysis, we wanted to assess change in statin dose use in individual patients over time, and this approach again incorporated ‘immortal’ time in which an OA event might have occurred.30 Therefore, we split the 12 years into six 2-year time periods and summarised the dose changes for each individual from the baseline 2-year time period to each of the five respective follow-up time windows. This approach resulted in four incremental dose change groups, ranging from Group 1 (smallest dose change) to Group 4 (largest dose change), with the pooled estimate indicating that there was an increase in statin dose of 3.61 mg every 2 years (also see Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
figure 1

Statin dose increments over the 10-year follow-up period.

Full size image

Analysis

First, for the four mean daily dose quartile groups compared to non-users, we estimated OA outcomes in the 10-year follow-up period using Kaplan Meier plots. Then, using Cox regression methods, with time to OA event, we adjusted for age, gender, IMD status, BMI, cholesterol level, other pain-modifying drug co-therapies and duration and category of cardiovascular disease group. Assumption of proportionality of hazard ratios was tested throughout.

Second, using discrete time survival analysis, we wanted to assess the influence of incremental changes in statin dose in two shorter time periods of observation: (1) within each 2-year time window and (2) a temporal 4-year approach. For within each 2-year time period, we analysed the association between changing statin dose and OA outcome, which means there were six time windows. We then constructed a temporal element by linking each initial 2-year time period with the consecutive 2-year time period, to create five 4-year time windows. In this ‘temporal approach’, each initial 2-year time period was OA free, so that OA outcome was only assessed in the subsequent 2-year window. Individual follow-up time was first converted to 2-year blocks, and outcome and covariates status were determined for each block. Discrete time survival analysis was then used to model the risk of an OA event. This method treats time not as a continuous variable, but as being divided into discrete units. Within each time window, quartiles of statin exposure were determined and used as a time varying ordinal variable to reflect changing dose, which includes time without possible statin exposure. Logistic regression methods were used to compare changing dose groups with non-statin users for OA outcomes for these shorter time frames, adjusting for all covariates.

Finally, the statin analyses were repeated for each of the six exclusive CVD subgroups, using the chi-square test for trend. However, since the total number of statin users within each CVD group was small, the study groups were categorised into non-statin users, low dose statin users and high dose statin users, using the mean daily dose per year estimates. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05, all hypothesis testing was two-tailed, and analyses were performed using SPSS (version 18.0) and MLwiN (version 2.21).

RESULTS

Cohort Population

Within the overall study population, there were 4,976 statin users who had been on at least 2 or more years of the statins with an mean daily dose of 15 mg, and 11,633 non-statin users (Table 1). Statins users were similar to non-users in terms of age, deprivation, BMI and cholesterol characteristics, but men were more likely to be on statins than women. Of the statin users, there were higher proportions with angina or myocardial infarction than non-users.

Table 1 Characteristics of Statin Users and Non-Users Aged 40 Years and Over in the Cohort Population
Full size table

Statin Dose and OA Outcome

The mean quartile statin dose was as follows: quartile 1 (lowest dose), up to 5 mg daily; for quartile 2, up to 10 mg daily; for quartile 3, up to 18 mg daily; and for quartile 4 (highest dose), over 18 mg daily. The associations between statin dose quartiles and OA outcome in the follow-up period are shown in Kaplan Meier plots (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.
figure 2

Cumulative Kaplan-Meier plots for statin dose quartile groups and osteoarthritis (OA) outcome over 10-year follow-up.

Full size image

Over the 10-year follow-up period, higher mean daily statin dose was significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of clinical OA (Table 2), and the results showed a dose-gradient response. Compared to statin non-users, the relative adjusted estimates were as follows: quartile 1 (lowest dose), rate ratio 2.55 (95 % confidence interval 2.3–2.9); quartile 2, 1.31 (1.1–1.5); quartile 3, 0.82 (0.7–0.95); and quartile 4 (highest dose), 0.41 (0.3–0.5). Older age, female gender and higher BMI were significantly associated with increased clinical OA outcome, but disease categories, cholesterol levels, duration of disease and specified drug co-therapies did not influence the likelihood of clinical OA outcome.

Table 2 Statin Dose Quartile Groups and Osteoarthritis (OA) Outcome Over 10-year Follow-Up
Full size table

Changing Statin Dose and OA Outcome

The influence of changing statin dose was also assessed for its impact on OA outcome. In the 10-year follow-up period, the 25th centile dose change was around 5 mg and the 75th centile dose change was over 20 mg, as shown in Fig. 2.

First, in the six shorter within 2-year time windows, larger dose change of statins was associated with a reduction in clinical OA, again showing a dose-gradient response (Table 3). Compared to statin non-users, the adjusted (for age, gender, deprivation and drug co-therapies) estimates were as follows: group 1 (smallest dose increment): odds ratio 1.07 (95 % confidence interval 0.9–1.3); group 2: 1.17 (0.9–1.4); group 3: 0.95 (0.8–1.2); and group 4 (largest dose increment): 0.82 (0.7–0.99). Second, in the temporal 4-year analyses, compared to the statin non-users, the relative adjusted estimates were: group 1 (smallest dose increment): odds ratio 1.7 (95 % confidence interval 1.5–1.9); group 2: 0.98 (0.8–1.2); group 3: 0.95 (0.8–1.1), and group 4 (largest dose increment): 0.60 (0.5–0.7). At around 2 years, in the group with the largest statin dose increment, there is a relative reduction estimated at 18 % in OA outcome compared to non-statin users, and after 4 years, the relative reduction was estimated at 40 %.

Table 3 Change in Statin Dose and Osteoarthritis (OA) Outcome: Discrete Time Series Designs
Full size table

Statin Dose and OA Outcome by CVD Severity

Within all the CVD subgroups, except heart failure, higher dose of statin was associated with a reduction in clinical OA outcome (Table 4). The statistically significant trends (p < 0.001) in the association between higher dose of statin and reduction of OA outcome compared to non-statin users were significant for atrial fibrillation, angina, myocardial infarction, and ‘other’ CVD group.

Table 4 Statin Dose and OA Outcome over 10 year Follow up by CVD Groups
Full size table

DISCUSSION

Our study shows that increasing dose of statin use and larger statin dose increments were associated with a reduction in clinical OA compared to non-statin users. These findings were not explained by the duration or severity of associated cardiovascular disease, or pain-modifying drug co-therapies or age, gender, deprivation, or baseline cholesterol levels or BMI status. At the highest statin daily dose, which was a therapeutic dose of around 20 mg daily, there was approximately a 60 % relative reduction in clinical OA outcome, compared to non-statin users. Larger increments in the dose of statins were also associated with a 40 % relative reduction in clinical OA outcome compared to non-statin users over a 4-year time period.

Other emerging evidence over the life course is further adding to idea of shared pathogenesis for OA and cardiovascular disease. Studies have shown that the co-occurrence of OA and cardiovascular disease is common.11,35,36 Severity of hand osteoarthritis is associated with atherosclerosis37 and it has also been shown that OA is a predictor of all-cause mortality, particularly for cardiovascular disease-related mortality.38 An additional relevant study suggests that diabetes, as part of the metabolic syndrome, may influence the onset of OA.39

It is postulated that statin modification of OA might be through two mechanisms, either through lowering of the cholesterol levels5 or through anti-inflammatory properties.15 There is evidence of local inflammatory processes that occur in osteoarthritis joints,40 and it is thought that traumatic stimuli induce mechanical receptors in chondrocytes to produce cytokines41 and matrix metalloproteinases, which lead to a degradation of articular cartilage.42 Statins may modify these inflammatory mechanisms, and this may be separate to that of cholesterol lowering activity.

The study findings need to be placed within the context of the design and measurement issues. Statins measurement was based on prescribing by general practitioners, and in the United Kingdom they are still clinician prescribed-only drugs. This means the statin users and non-users were likely to be clearly defined, and the construction of dose quartile groups showed a gradient effect as hypothesised. The study design time frame from 1995 to 2006, during which there was increasing use of statins and statin doses, also provides the appropriate cardiovascular population at risk for investigating treatment hypothesis without indication.

The definition of OA was based on clinician-defined diagnosis as presented by patients, and the study findings for older age, female gender and body mass index associations show the validity of such a definition. This approach is reasonable, as in the UK it is largely presented to and managed by GPs, and the population-based database used has also been shown to have high clinical validity for a range of clinical conditions.43 Finally, it is unlikely that clinical recording of OA diagnostic labels would have been influenced by statin prescribing, other than the random variation in the recording of clinically defined OA, but the large number of practices provide a reliable reflection of clinical OA in the general population.

We also considered the potential effects of disease severity and duration. Severity of cardiovascular disease may attenuate the potential impact of statins, and the associations between low dose statin groups and higher OA outcome compared to reference group seemed to suggest this, but our study showed that there was a gradient effect of statins within all but the heart failure cohort. It is probable that the heart failure group represents end-stage cardiovascular disease, when modification of OA pathogenesis is too late to take effect. The incorporation of duration of disease and statins modelled on change in dose over time, also addressed the issue of unexposed time, which can be an analytic bias30 in pharmaco-epidemiology studies. An a priori treatment hypothesis was tested, and even though there may still be residual unmeasured confounders, it would be difficult to propose alternative explanations of the dose response gradient or the magnitude of statin effects that were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that therapeutic statin dose and larger statin dose increments were associated with a reduction in clinically defined OA outcome. These findings further support the hypothesis that biologic modification of OA may be plausible, and the potential clinical implication is that OA management may share preventative approaches with cardiovascular disease.

REFERENCES

  1. Brandt KD, Doherty M, Lohmander LS. Osteoarthritis. 2nd ed. Oxford: OUP; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(9):981–1000.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kellgren JH, Moore R. Generalized osteoarthritis and Heberden’s nodes. Br Med J. 1952;1(4751):181–187.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cooper C, Egger P, Coggon D, et al. Generalized osteoarthritis in women: pattern of joint involvement and approaches to definition for epidemiological studies. J Rheumatol. 1996;23(11):1938–1942.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Aspden RM, Scheven BA, Hutchison JD. Osteoarthritis as a systemic disorder including stromal cell differentiation and lipid metabolism. Lancet. 2001;357(9262):1118–1120.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Conaghan PG, Vanharanta H, Dieppe PA. Is progressive osteoarthritis an atheromatous vascular disease? Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(11):1539–1541.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science. 1999;284(5411):143–147.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Diascro DD Jr, Vogel RL, Johnson TE, et al. High fatty acid content in rabbit serum is responsible for the differentiation of osteoblasts into adipocyte-like cells. J Bone Miner Res. 1998;13(1):96–106.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dumond H, Presle N, Terlain B, et al. Evidence for a key role of leptin in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48(11):3118–3129.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lippiello L, Walsh T, Fienhold M. The association of lipid abnormalities with tissue pathology in human osteoarthritic articular cartilage. Metabolism. 1991;40(6):571–576.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kadam UT, Jordan K, Croft PR. Clinical comorbidity in patients with osteoarthritis: a case–control study of general practice consulters in England and Wales. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(4):408–414.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh G, Miller JD, Lee FH, Pettitt D, Russell MW. Prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors among US adults with self-reported osteoarthritis: data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8(15 Suppl):S383–S391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sturmer T, Sun Y, Sauerland S, et al. Serum cholesterol and osteoarthritis. The baseline examination of the Ulm Osteoarthritis Study. J Rheumatol. 1998;25(9):1827–1832.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Nuesch E, Dieppe P, Reichenbach S, Williams S, Iff S, Juni P. All cause and disease specific mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: population based cohort study. BMJ. 2011;342:d1165. doi:10.1136/bmj.d1165.:d1165.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Baker JF, Walsh P, Mulhall KJ. Statins: a potential role in the management of osteoarthritis? Joint Bone Spine. 2011;78(1):31–34.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kadam UT, Holmberg A, Blagojevic M, Nilsson PM, Åkesson K. Risk factors for cardiovascular disease and future osteoarthritis-related arthroplasty: a population-based cohort study in men and women from Malmö, Sweden. Scan J Rheum. 2011;40(6):478–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Beattie MS, Lane NE, Hung YY, Nevitt MC. Association of statin use and development and progression of hip osteoarthritis in elderly women. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(1):106–110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Clockaerts S, Van Osch GJ, Bastiaansen-Jenniskens Y, et al. Statin use is associated with reduced incidence and progression of knee osteoarthritis in the Rotterdam study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(5):642–7.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110(2):227–39.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smeeth L, Thomas SL, Hall AJ, Hubbard R, Farrington P, Vallance P. Risk of myocardial infarction and stroke after acute infection or vaccination. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(25):2611–2618.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. van Staa TP, Wegman S, de Vries F, Leufkens B, Cooper C. Use of statins and risk of fractures. JAMA. 2001;285(14):1850–1855.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Harding A, Stuart-Buttle C. The development and role of the Read Codes. J AHIMA. 1998;69(5):34–38.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary, No. 58 September 2009. London: BMJ Group and Pharm Press; 2009.

  24. Weng TC, Yang YH, Lin SJ, Tai SH. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the therapeutic equivalence of statins. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;35(2):139–51.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kadam UT, Croft PR. Clinical comorbidity in osteoarthritis: associations with physical function in older patients in family practice. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(9):1899–1904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kopec JA, Rahman MM, Berthelot JM, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of osteoarthritis in British Columbia, Canada. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(2):386–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pereira D, Peleteiro B, Araújo J, Branco J, Santos RA, Ramos E. The effect of osteoarthritis definition on prevalence and incidence estimates: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19(11):1270–85.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Creamer P, Hochberg MC. Why does osteoarthritis of the knee hurt–sometimes? Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(7):726–728.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Neogi T, Felson D, Niu J, et al. Association between radiographic features of knee osteoarthritis and pain: results from two cohort studies. BMJ. 2009;339:b2844. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2844.:b2844.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Suissa S. Immortal time bias in pharmaco-epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;167(4):492–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(2):137–162.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The English Indices of deprivation 2004—summary (revised). 2004; Link: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/131206.pdf.

  33. Lakhan SE, Bagchi S, Hofer M. Statins and clinical outcome of acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Int Arch Med. 2010;3:22.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bavry AA, Mood GR, Kumbhani DJ, Borek PP, Askari AT, Bhatt DL. Long-term benefit of statin therapy initiated during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review of randomized trials. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2007;7(2):135–141.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hart DJ, Doyle DV, Spector TD. Association between metabolic factors and knee osteoarthritis in women: the Chingford Study. J Rheumatol. 1995;22(6):1118–1123.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lago F, Gomez R, Conde J, Scotece M, Gomez-Reino JJ, Gualillo O. Cardiometabolic comorbidities and rheumatic diseases: Focus on the role of fat mass and adipokines. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(8):1083–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Jonsson H, Helgadottir GP, Aspelund T, et al. Hand osteoarthritis in older women is associated with carotid and coronary atherosclerosis: the AGES Reykjavik study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(11):1696–1700.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Haara MM, Manninen P, Kroger H, et al. Osteoarthritis of finger joints in Finns aged 30 or over: prevalence, determinants, and association with mortality. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62(2):151–158.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Schett G, Kleyer A, Perricone C, et al. Diabetes is an independent predictor for severe osteoarthritis: results from a longitudinal cohort study. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(2):403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Attur MG, Dave M, Akamatsu M, Katoh M, Amin AR. Osteoarthritis or osteoarthrosis: the definition of inflammation becomes a semantic issue in the genomic era of molecular medicine. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10(1):1–4.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Goldring SR, Goldring MB. The role of cytokines in cartilage matrix degeneration in osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:S27–S36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Burrage PS, Brinckerhoff CE. Molecular targets in osteoarthritis: metalloproteinases and their inhibitors. Curr Drug Targets. 2007;8(2):293–303.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Herrett E, Thomas SL, Schoonen WM, Smeeth L, Hall AJ. Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;69(1):4–14.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funders: Supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Post-Doctoral Fellowship [to Dr Kadam; grant number PAS/PDA/03/07/035]; by a Royal Society International Short-Visiting grant and the WestMidlands Advantage scheme [to Dr Kadam]; and a MRC licence for the use of General Practice Research Database; and a NIHR National School for Primary Care Research Fellowship [to Dr Blagojevic], Design Service [to Dr Belcher].

Role of the funding source

The study sponsors had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR (UK).

Prior Presentations

None.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Health Services Research Unit, Innovation Centre 1, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5NB, UK

    U. T. Kadam PhD

  2. Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

    U. T. Kadam PhD & M. Blagojevic PhD

  3. Department of Mathematics, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

    J. Belcher PhD

Authors
  1. U. T. Kadam PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Blagojevic PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Belcher PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. T. Kadam PhD.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kadam, U.T., Blagojevic, M. & Belcher, J. Statin Use and Clinical Osteoarthritis in the General Population: A Longitudinal Study. J GEN INTERN MED 28, 943–949 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2382-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2382-8

KEY WORDS

  • drug therapy
  • osteoarthritis
  • cardiovascular diseases