Influence of Vitamin E Supplementation on Glycaemic Control: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Observational studies have revealed that higher serum vitamin E concentrations and increased vitamin E intake and vitamin E supplementation are associated with beneficial effects on glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whether vitamin E supplementation exerts a definitive effect on glycaemic control remains unclear. This article involves a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of vitamin E to better characterise its impact on HbA1c, fasting glucose and fasting insulin. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were electronically searched from the earliest possible date through April 2013 for all relevant studies. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated for net changes using fixed-effects or random-effects models. Standard methods for assessing statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were used. Fourteen randomised controlled trials involving individual data on 714 subjects were collected in this meta-analysis. Increased vitamin E supplementation did not result in significant benefits in glycaemic control as measured by reductions in HbA1c, fasting glucose and fasting insulin. Subgroup analyses revealed a significant reduction in HbA1c (−0.58%, 95% CI −0.83 to −0.34) and fasting insulin (−9.0 pmol/l, 95% CI −15.90 to −2.10) compared with controls in patients with low baseline vitamin E status. Subgroup analyses also demonstrated that the outcomes may have been influenced by the vitamin E dosage, study duration, ethnic group, serum HbA1c concentration, and fasting glucose control status. In conclusion, there is currently insufficient evidence to support a potential beneficial effect of vitamin E supplementation on improvements of HbA1c and fasting glucose and insulin concentrations in subjects with T2DM.     

Return to Work Coordination Programmes for Work Disability: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

The dramatic rise in chronically ill patients on permanent disability benefits threatens the sustainability of social security in high-income countries. Social insurance organizations have started to invest in promising, but costly return to work (RTW) coordination programmes. The benefit, however, remains uncertain. We conducted a systematic review to determine the long-term effectiveness of RTW coordination compared to usual practice in patients at risk for long-term disability.

Methods and Findings

Eligible trials enrolled employees on work absence for at least 4 weeks and randomly assigned them to RTW coordination or to usual practice. We searched 5 databases (to April 2, 2012). Two investigators performed standardised eligibility assessment, study appraisal and data extraction independently and in duplicate. The GRADE framework guided our assessment of confidence in the meta-analytic estimates. We identified 9 trials from 7 countries, 8 focusing on musculoskeletal, and 1 on mental complaints. Most trials followed participants for 12 months or less. No trial assessed permanent disability. Moderate quality evidence suggests a benefit of RTW coordination on proportion at work at end of follow-up (risk ratio = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.13; absolute effect = 5 in 100 additional individuals returning to work, 95% CI = 2 to 8), overall function (mean difference [MD] on a 0 to 100 scale = 5.2, 95% CI = 2.4 to 8.0; minimal important difference [MID] = 10), physical function (MD = 5.3, 95% CI = 1.4 to 9.1; MID = 8.4), mental function (MD = 3.1, 95% CI = 0.7 to 5.6; MID = 7.3) and pain (MD = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.1 to 9.2; MID = 10).

Conclusions

Moderate quality evidence suggests that RTW coordination results in small relative, but likely important absolute benefits in the likelihood of disabled or sick-listed patients returning to work, and associated small improvements in function and pain. Future research should explore whether the limited effects persist, and whether the programmes are cost effective in the long term.     

Steroid Avoidance or Withdrawal Regimens in Paediatric Kidney Transplantation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

We combined the outcomes of all randomised controlled trials to investigate the safety and efficacy of steroid avoidance or withdrawal (SAW) regimens in paediatric kidney transplantation compared with steroid-based (SB) regimens.

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the trials registry and BIOSIS previews was performed. A change in the height standardised Z-score from baseline (ΔHSDS) and acute rejection were the primary endpoints.

Results

Eight reports from 5 randomised controlled trials were included, with a total of 528 patients. Sufficient evidence of a significant increase in the ΔHSDS was observed in the SAW group (mean difference (MD) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.68, P = 0.01), particularly within the first year post-withdrawal (MD = 0.22, 95% CI 0.10–0.35, P = 0.0003) and in the prepubertal recipients (MD = 0.60, 95% CI 0.21–0.98, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the risk of acute rejection between the groups (relative risk = 1.04, 95% CI 0.80–1.36, P = 0.77).

Conclusions

The SAW regimen is justified in select paediatric renal allograft recipients because it provides significant benefits in post-transplant growth within the first year post-withdrawal with minimal effects on the risk of acute rejection, graft function, and graft and patient survival within 3 years post-withdrawal. These select paediatric recipients should have the following characteristics: prepubertal; Caucasian; with primary disease not related to immunological factors; de novo kidney transplant recipient; with low panel reactive antibody.     

Effects of Anabolic Steroids on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

Anabolic steroids are known to improve body composition and muscle strength in healthy people. However, whether anabolic steroids improve the physical condition and function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains undetermined. A meta-analysis was conducted to review the current evidence regarding the effects of anabolic steroids on COPD patients.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed to identify randomised controlled trials that examine the effects of anabolic steroids on COPD patients. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine differences between anabolic steroid administration and control conditions.

Results

Eight eligible studies involving 273 COPD patients were identified in this meta-analysis. Significant improvements were found in body weight (0.956 kg), fat-free mass (1.606 kg), St. George''s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (−6.336) and symptom score (−12.148). The apparent improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure (2.740 cmH₂O) and maximal expiratory pressure (12.679 cmH₂O) were not significant. The effects on handgrip strength, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), predicted FEV₁ percent, PaO₂, PaCO₂ and six-min walk distance were negative, with WMDs of −0.245 kg, −0.096 L/sec, −1.996% of predicted, −1.648 cmHg, −0.039 cmHg and −16.102 meters, respectively.

Conclusions

Limited evidence available from the published literature suggests that the benefit of anabolic steroids on COPD patients cannot be denied. However, further studies are needed to identify the specific benefits and adverse effects of anabolic steroids on COPD patients and to determine the optimal populations and regimes of anabolic steroids in COPD patients.     

Ranibizumab versus Bevacizumab for Ophthalmic Diseases Related to Neovascularisation: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

Bevacizumab is believed to be as effective and safe as ranibizumab for ophthalmic diseases; however, its magnitude of effectiveness and safety profile remain controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis and systematic review appears necessary.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched with no restrictions. All relevant citations comparing ranibizumab and bevacizumab were considered for inclusion. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using a fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis.

Results

Nine independent randomised-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving 2,289 participants were identified. Compared with bevacizumab, the overall combined weighted mean difference (WMD) of the mean change in visual acuity for ranibizumab was 0.52 letters (95% CI −0.11–1.14). The odds ratios (ORs) of gaining ≥15, gaining 5–14, losing 5–14 and losing ≤15 letters were 1.10 (95% CI 0.90–1.33), 0.93 (95% CI 0.77–1.11), 0.89 (95% CI 0.65–1.22) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.73–1.25), respectively. The risk of serious systemic events increased by 17% (95% CI 6%–27%, p = 0.0042) for bevacizumab treatment in comparison with ranibizumab. No statistically significant differences between the two treatments were found for the nonfatal arterial thrombotic events, ocular serious adverse, death from vascular and all causes events.

Conclusions

Bevacizumab is not inferior to ranibizumab as a treatment for achieving visual acuity. The use of bevacizumab was associated with an increased risk of developing serious systemic events. Weighing the costs and health outcomes is necessary when selecting between bevacizumab and ranibizumab for ophthalmic diseases. Due to the limitations of the available data, further research is needed.     

Reappraisal of Metformin Efficacy in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

The UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality.

Methods and Findings

This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, and versus no treatment; metformin as an add-on therapy; and metformin withdrawal) against cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included all myocardial infarctions, all strokes, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, leg amputations, and microvascular complications. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (13,110 patients) were retrieved; 9,560 patients were given metformin, and 3,550 patients were given conventional treatment or placebo. Metformin did not significantly affect the primary outcomes all-cause mortality, risk ratio (RR) = 0.99 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.31), and cardiovascular mortality, RR = 1.05 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64). The secondary outcomes were also unaffected by metformin treatment: all myocardial infarctions, RR = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.09); all strokes, RR = 0.76 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.14); heart failure, RR = 1.03 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.59); peripheral vascular disease, RR = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.78); leg amputations, RR = 1.04 (95% CI: 0.44 to 2.44); and microvascular complications, RR = 0.83 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.17). For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, there was significant heterogeneity when including the UK Prospective Diabetes Study subgroups (I² = 41% and 59%). There was significant interaction with sulphonylurea as a concomitant treatment for myocardial infarction (p = 0.10 and 0.02, respectively).

Conclusions

Although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain. We cannot exclude a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. We cannot exclude a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed to clarify this situation.Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Neoadjuvant Bevacizumab plus Chemotherapy versus Chemotherapy Alone to Treat Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Purpose

Results from previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating whether the addition of bevacizumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) could statistically significantly increase the pathological complete response (pCR) and to identify which subgroup would benefit most from such regimens have produced conflicting results. This meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in the neoadjuvant setting.

Methods

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library was performed to identify eligible studies. The primary endpoint of interest was pCR. The secondary endpoints were clinical complete rate (cCR), surgery rate, breast-conserving surgery (BCS) rate, and toxicity. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software version 5.3.

Results

Nine RCTs matched the selection criteria, yielding a total of 4967 patients (bevacizumab plus chemotherapy: 50.1%, chemotherapy alone: 49.9%). The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to NAC significantly increased the pCR rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34 [1.18–1.54]; P < 0.0001) compared with chemotherapy alone. Subgroup analysis showed that the effect of bevacizumab was more pronounced in patients with HER2-negative cancer (OR = 1.34 [1.17–1.54]; P < 0.0001) compared with HER2-positive cancer (OR = 1.69 [0.90–3.20]; P = 0.11). Similarly, in patients with HER2-negative cancer, the effect of bevacizumab was also more pronounced in patients with HR-negative cancer (OR = 1.38 [1.09–1.74]; P = 0.007) compared with HR-positive cancer (OR = 1.36 [0.78–2.35]; P = 0.27). No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to cCR, surgery rate, or BCS rate. Additionally bevacizumab was associated with a higher incidence of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and hand–foot syndrome.

Conclusions

Higher proportions of patients achieved pCR when bevacizumab was added to NAC compared with when they received chemotherapy alone; acceptable toxicities were also found. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients with histologically confirmed HER2-negative and HR-negative breast cancer benefited the most.     

Effect of Statins on Venous Thromboembolic Events: A Meta-analysis of Published and Unpublished Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins.

Methods and Findings

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months'' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9%] statin versus 521 [1.0%] control, odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% CI 0.78–1.01, p = 0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72–1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76–1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9%] versus 461 [1.0%], OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.82–1.07], p = 0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0%] versus 202 [1.0%], OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.80–1.20, p = 0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary.

Conclusions

The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out.     

Idraparinux or Idrabiotaparinux for Long-Term Venous Thromboembolism Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent disease with potential serious consequences. Idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux are two kinds of long-acting pentasaccharides. Evidence has shown that idraparinux and idrabiotaparinux are effective anticoagulants. However, up to now, there is no consensus on whether they are better than other anticoagulation methods for long-term VTE treatment.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of idraparinux or idrabiotaparinux versus other anticoagulation methods for long-term VTE treatment.

Methods

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, Web of science, clinical trial registry web sites (clinical trials,WHO clinical trial registry), Googlescholar, PubMed related articles and companies'' web sites electronically up to Dec 30^th, 2012 and manually searched the reference lists and conference proceedings. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving adult patients comparing idraparinux and/or idrabiotaparinux versus other anticoagulation methods for long-term VTE treatment was included. Two reviewers evaluated the studies and extracted data independently. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated as outcome measures and Revman 5.2 software was used to analyze data. Our primary efficacy and safety outcomes were the recurrent VTE and major bleeding rates.

Results

We included four RCTs and involved 8584 participants on idraparinux or idrabiotaparinux versus standard warfarin for VTE treatment from 9364 references. We did not perform meta-analysis on the VTE rate because of the significant heterogeneity. We used the fixed effect model to analyze the safety outcomes and demonstrated that idraparinux or idrabiotaparinux decreased major bleeding rate significantly (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.98, P = 0.04) but had a trend to increase the all cause mortality (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.57, P = 0.05) compared with warfarin.

Conclusions

Until now there is not sufficient evidence to clarify whether idraparinux or idrabiotaparinux is as effective and safe as the standard warfarin treatment for VTE treatment.     

Statin Use and Risk of Lung Cancer: a Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Clinical studies have shown that statin use may alter the risk of lung cancer. However, these studies yielded different results. To quantify the association between statin use and risk of lung cancer, we performed a detailed meta-analysis. A literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE database between January 1966 and November 2012. Before meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using adequate statistical tests. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used to calculate the pooled relative risks (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were also performed. A total of 20 (five randomized controlled trials, eight cohorts, and seven case–control) studies contributed to the analysis. Pooled results indicated a non-significant decrease of total lung cancer risk among all statin users (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.78, 1.02]). Further, long-term statin use did not significantly decrease the risk of total lung cancer (RR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.39 , 1.64]). In our subgroup analyses, the results were not substantially affected by study design, participant ethnicity, or confounder adjustment. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results. The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant association between statin use and risk of lung cancer. More studies, especially randomized controlled trials and high quality cohort studies are warranted to confirm this association.     

Mindfulness-Based Interventions for People Diagnosed with a Current Episode of an Anxiety or Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Objective

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) can reduce risk of depressive relapse for people with a history of recurrent depression who are currently well. However, the cognitive, affective and motivational features of depression and anxiety might render MBIs ineffective for people experiencing current symptoms. This paper presents a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of MBIs where participants met diagnostic criteria for a current episode of an anxiety or depressive disorder.

Method

Post-intervention between-group Hedges g effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model. Moderator analyses of primary diagnosis, intervention type and control condition were conducted and publication bias was assessed.

Results

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria (n = 578). There were significant post-intervention between-group benefits of MBIs relative to control conditions on primary symptom severity (Hedges g = −0.59, 95% CI = −0.12 to −1.06). Effects were demonstrated for depressive symptom severity (Hedges g = −0.73, 95% CI = −0.09 to −1.36), but not for anxiety symptom severity (Hedges g = −0.55, 95% CI = 0.09 to −1.18), for RCTs with an inactive control (Hedges g = −1.03, 95% CI = −0.40 to −1.66), but not where there was an active control (Hedges g = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.54 to −0.48) and effects were found for MBCT (Hedges g = −0.39, 95% CI = −0.15 to −0.63) but not for MBSR (Hedges g = −0.75, 95% CI = 0.31 to −1.81).

Conclusions

This is the first meta-analysis of RCTs of MBIs where all studies included only participants who were diagnosed with a current episode of a depressive or anxiety disorder. Effects of MBIs on primary symptom severity were found for people with a current depressive disorder and it is recommended that MBIs might be considered as an intervention for this population.     

Randomised Controlled Trials May Underestimate Drug Effects: Balanced Placebo Trial Design

Background

It is an inherent assumption in randomised controlled trials that the drug effect can be estimated by subtracting the response during placebo from the response during active drug treatment.

Objective

To test the assumption of additivity. The primary hypothesis was that the total treatment effect is smaller than the sum of the drug effect and the placebo effect. The secondary hypothesis was that non-additivity was most pronounced in participants with large placebo effects.

Methods

We used a within-subject randomised blinded balanced placebo design and included 48 healthy volunteers (50% males), mean (SD) age 23.4 (6.2) years. Experimental pain was induced by injections of hypertonic saline into the masseter muscle. Participants received four injections with hypertonic saline along with lidocaine or matching placebo in randomised order: A: received hypertonic saline/told hypertonic saline; B: received hypertonic saline+lidocaine/told hypertonic saline; C: received hypertonic saline+placebo/told hypertonic saline+pain killer; D: received hypertonic saline+lidocaine/told hypertonic saline+pain killer. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC, mm²) of pain intensity during injections.

Results

There was a significant difference between the sum of the drug effect and the placebo effect (mean AUC 6279 mm² (95% CI, 4936–7622)) and the total treatment effect (mean AUC 5455 mm² (95% CI, 4585–6324)) (P = 0.049). This difference was larger for participants with large versus small placebo effects (P = 0.015), and the difference correlated significantly with the size of the placebo effect (r = 0.65, P = 0.006).

Conclusion

Although this study examined placebo effects and not the whole placebo response as in randomised controlled trials, it does suggest that the additivity assumption may be incorrect, and that the estimated drug effects in randomised controlled trials may be underestimated, particularly in studies reporting large placebo responses. The implications for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews need to be discussed.     

Making Co-Enrolment Feasible for Randomised Controlled Trials in Paediatric Intensive Care

AIMS: Enrolling children into several trials could increase recruitment and lead to quicker delivery of optimal care in paediatric intensive care units (PICU). We evaluated decisions taken by clinicians and parents in PICU on co-enrolment for two large pragmatic trials: the CATCH trial (CATheters in CHildren) comparing impregnated with standard central venous catheters (CVCs) for reducing bloodstream infection in PICU and the CHIP trial comparing tight versus standard control of hyperglycaemia. METHODS: We recorded the period of trial overlap for all PICUs taking part in both CATCH and CHiP and reasons why clinicians decided to co-enrol children or not into both studies. We examined parental decisions on co-enrolment by measuring recruitment rates and reasons for declining consent. RESULTS: Five PICUs recruited for CATCH and CHiP during the same period (an additional four opened CATCH after having closed CHiP). Of these five, three declined co-enrolment (one of which delayed recruiting elective patients for CATCH whilst CHiP was running), due to concerns about jeopardising CHiP recruitment, asking too much of parents, overwhelming amounts of information to explain to parents for two trials and a policy against co-enrolment. Two units co-enrolled in order to maximise recruitment to both trials. At the first unit, 35 parents were approached for both trials. 17/35 consented to both; 13/35 consented to one trial only; 5/35 declined both. Consent rates during co-enrolment were 29/35 (82%) and 18/35 (51%) for CATCH and CHiP respectively compared with 78% and 51% respectively for those approached for a single trial within this PICU. The second unit did not record data on approaches or refusals, but successfully co-enrolled one child. CONCLUSIONS: Co-enrolment did not appear to jeopardise recruitment or overwhelm parents. Strategies for seeking consent for multiple trials need to be developed and should include how to combine information for parents and patients.     

The Effect of Statins on Mortality in Septic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective

Statins are among the most prescribed drugs worldwide and their recently discovered anti-inflammatory effect seems to have an important role in inhibiting proinflammatory cytokine production, chemokines expression and counteracting the harmful effects of sepsis on the coagulation system. We decided to perform a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials ever published on statin therapy in septic patients to evaluate their effect on survival and length of hospital stay.

Data sources and study selection

Articles were assessed by four trained investigators, with divergences resolved by consensus. BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of statins versus any comparator in septic patients.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data from 650 patients in 5 randomized controlled studies were analyzed. No difference in mortality between patients receiving statins versus control (44/322 [14%] in the statins group vs 50/328 [15%] in the control arm, RR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.65 to 1.26], p = 0.6) was observed. No differences in hospital stay (p = 0.7) were found.

Conclusions

Published data show that statin therapy has no effect on mortality in the overall population of adult septic patients. Scientific evidence on statins role in septic patients is still limited and larger randomized trials should be performed on this topic.