From the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine

Save time and stay informed. Our physician-editors offer you clinical perspectives on key research and news.

  1. Home>
  2. Specialties>
  3. General Medicine>
  4. Summary and Comment

Cardiovascular Benefits of Statins vs. Risk for Incident Diabetes

One additional case of incident diabetes occurred for every 255 patients who received statins for 4 years.

Does statin therapy raise risk for incident diabetes? When statins were compared with placebo (or usual care), mixed signals have emerged, with statins seeming to raise diabetes incidence in some trials and to lower it in others.

In a collaborative meta-analysis, investigators reviewed data from 13 trials in which 90,000 stable nondiabetic patients were randomized to receive a statin or placebo (or usual care) and were followed for a mean of 4 years. The rate of incident diabetes was slightly but significantly higher in patients who took statins than in those who received placebo or usual care (4.9% vs. 4.5%; odds ratio, 1.09). In absolute terms, one additional case of incident diabetes occurred for every 255 patients who received statins for 4 years. No variations in diabetes risk were noted among different statins. The association of statin use and incident diabetes was stronger in trials that involved older patients.

Comment: Although statins might cause one additional case of diabetes per 255 nondiabetic patients treated for 4 years, data from another meta-analysis indicate that statins would prevent five major coronary events in those 255 patients. Therefore, the authors recommend that risk for diabetes should not deter therapy with statins in patients at moderate-to-high cardiovascular risk, but they suggest that older patients who take statins be monitored for hyperglycemia.

Bruce Soloway, MD

Published in Journal Watch General Medicine March 4, 2010

Citation(s):

Sattar N et al. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: A collaborative meta-analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet 2010 Feb 27; 375:735.

Reader Remarks:

Review and add to remarks on this article

Your Remark:

Reader Remarks are intended to encourage lively discussion of clinical topics with your peers in the medical community. We ask that you keep your remarks to a reasonable length, and we reserve the right to withhold publication of remarks that do not meet this standard.

The editors of Journal Watch may respond to Reader Remarks, but we cannot promise to respond to a particular remark.

Fields marked with an * are required.

Name as you'd like it to appear:

Submitting a comment indicates you have read and agreed to the remark guidelines and declare:*

PRIVACY: We will not use your email address, submitted for a comment, for any other purpose nor sell, rent, or share your e-mail address with any third parties. Please see our Privacy Policy.

 

CLEAR erases anything you've added in any part of the form. CONTINUE allows you to check your entire post (and edit it if necessary) before submitting.

To ensure that your Reader Remark is not formatted as one long paragraph, precede new paragraphs with either a blank line or an indentation.

Search

Advanced

Related Content

Sign-In

Forgot your password? Login via Athens
or your institution

New to Journal Watch?

E-mail Alerts

Delivered to your inbox.
Tailored to your interests. Free.

Sign Up Now!

Journal Watch Newsletters

Available in 13 specialties with convenient delivery and 10 free online CME exams.

Subscribe Now!

Copyright © 2010. Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.