Gehlbach Peter, Li Tianjing, Hatef Elham
Retina Division, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1550 Orleans Street, Cancer Research Building #2, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 21231.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 4;2016(8):CD006927. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006927.pub5.
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a progressive, late-onset disorder of the macula affecting central vision. It is the leading cause of blindness in people over 65 years in industrialized countries. Recent epidemiologic, genetic, and pathological evidence has shown that AMD shares a number of risk factors with atherosclerosis, leading to the hypothesis that statins may exert protective effects in AMD.
The objective of this review was to examine the effectiveness of statins compared with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in delaying the onset and progression of AMD.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2016), PubMed (January 1946 to March 2016), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (last searched 5 June 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 31 March 2016.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials that compared statins with other treatments, no treatment, or placebo in people who were diagnosed as having the early stages of AMD.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently evaluated the search results against the selection criteria, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We did not perform meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes between the included studies.
Two RCTs with a total of 144 participants met the selection criteria. Both trials compared simvastatin versus placebo in older people (older than 50 or 60 years) with high risk of developing AMD (drusen present on examination). Overall, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, as we downgraded all outcomes due to limitations in the designs of the trials and insufficient outcome reporting. The larger trial, with 114 participants, was conducted in Australia and used a higher dose (40 mg daily) of simvastatin for three years. Participants and study personnel in this trial were adequately masked, however data were missing for 30% of participants at three years' follow-up. The smaller trial, with 30 participants, was conducted in Italy and used a lower dose (20 mg) of simvastatin for three months. This trial reported insufficient details to assess the risk of bias.Neither trial reported data for change in visual acuity. Low-quality evidence from the smaller trial, with 30 participants, did not show a statistically significant difference between the simvastatin and placebo groups in visual acuity values at three months of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.21 ± 0.56 in simvastatin group and 0.19 ± 0.40 in placebo group) or 45 days after the completion of treatment (decimal visual acuity 0.20 ± 0.50 in simvastatin group and 0.19 ± 0.48 in placebo group). The lack of a difference in visual acuity was not explained by lens or retina status, which remained unchanged during and after the treatment period for both groups.Preliminary analyses of 42 participants who had completed 12 months' follow-up in the larger trial did not show a statistically significant difference between simvastatin and the placebo groups for visual acuity, drusen score, or visual function (effect estimates and confidence intervals were not available). Complete data for these outcomes at three years' follow-up were not reported. At three years, low-quality evidence showed an effect of simvastatin in slowing progression of AMD compared with placebo to be uncertain (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 1.09).One trial did not report adverse outcomes. The second trial reported no difference between groups in terms of adverse events such as death, muscle aches, and acute hepatitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from currently available RCTs is insufficient to conclude that statins have a role in preventing or delaying the onset or progression of AMD.
年龄相关性黄斑变性(AMD)是一种影响中心视力的黄斑进行性迟发性疾病。它是工业化国家65岁以上人群失明的主要原因。最近的流行病学、遗传学和病理学证据表明,AMD与动脉粥样硬化有许多共同的危险因素,这引发了他汀类药物可能对AMD具有保护作用的假说。
本综述的目的是研究他汀类药物与其他治疗方法、不治疗或安慰剂相比,在延缓AMD发病和进展方面的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)(其中包含Cochrane眼与视觉试验注册库)(2016年第3期)、Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid MEDLINE在研及其他未索引引文、Ovid MEDLINE每日更新、Ovid OLDMEDLINE(1946年1月至2016年3月)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2016年3月)、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献数据库(LILACS)(1982年1月至2016年3月)、PubMed(1946年1月至2016年3月)、对照试验元注册库(mRCT)(www.controlled-trials.com)(最后检索时间为2014年6月5日)以及ClinicalTrials.gov(www.clinicaltrials.gov)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)(www.who.int/ictrp/search/en)。在电子检索试验时,我们未使用任何日期或语言限制。我们最后一次检索电子数据库的时间为2016年3月31日。
我们纳入了将他汀类药物与其他治疗方法、不治疗或安慰剂进行比较的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机试验,这些试验的对象为被诊断为患有早期AMD的人群。
我们采用了Cochrane期望的标准方法程序。两位综述作者根据入选标准独立评估检索结果、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。由于纳入研究之间干预措施和结局存在异质性,我们未进行荟萃分析。
两项共有144名参与者的RCT符合入选标准。两项试验均在有发生AMD高风险(检查时存在玻璃膜疣)的老年人(50岁或60岁以上)中比较了辛伐他汀与安慰剂。总体而言,我们判断证据质量较低,因为由于试验设计的局限性和结局报告不充分,我们对所有结局都进行了降级。规模较大的试验有114名参与者,在澳大利亚进行,使用较高剂量(每日40毫克)的辛伐他汀,为期三年。该试验的参与者和研究人员得到了充分的遮蔽,但在三年随访时,30%的参与者数据缺失。规模较小的试验有30名参与者,在意大利进行,使用较低剂量(20毫克) 的辛伐他汀,为期三个月。该试验报告的细节不足,无法评估偏倚风险。两项试验均未报告视力变化的数据。规模较小的试验(30名参与者)提供的低质量证据未显示在治疗三个月时(辛伐他汀组小数视力为0.21±0.56,安慰剂组为0.19±0.40)或治疗完成后45天(辛伐他汀组小数视力为0.20±0.50,安慰剂组为0.19±0.48)辛伐他汀组和安慰剂组在视力值上有统计学显著差异。两组在治疗期间及之后晶状体或视网膜状态均未改变,这无法解释视力无差异的原因。对规模较大试验中完成12个月随访的42名参与者进行的初步分析未显示辛伐他汀组和安慰剂组在视力、玻璃膜疣评分或视觉功能方面有统计学显著差异(效应估计值和置信区间未提供)。三年随访时这些结局的完整数据未报告。在三年时,低质量证据显示与安慰剂相比,辛伐他汀在减缓AMD进展方面的效果不确定(比值比0.51,95%置信区间0.23至1.09)。一项试验未报告不良结局。第二项试验报告两组在死亡、肌肉疼痛和急性肝炎等不良事件方面无差异。
现有RCT的证据不足以得出他汀类药物在预防或延缓AMD发病或进展方面起作用的结论。