4.3 Article

Statin and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus infection: a meta-analysis

Journal

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01222-1

Keywords

Statin; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis C virus; Cirrhosis; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Statin may confer anticancer effect. However, the association between statin and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C (HCV) virus infection remains inconsistent according to results of previous studies. A meta-analysis was performed to summarize current evidence. Methods Related follow-up studies were obtained by systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane's Library, and Embase databases. A random-effect model was used to for the meta-analysis. Stratified analyses were performed to evaluate the influences of study characteristics on the outcome. Results Thirteen studies with 519,707 patients were included. Statin use was associated with reduced risk of HCC in these patients (risk ratio [RR]: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.66, p < 0.001; I-2 = 86%). Stratified analyses showed that the association between statin use and reduced HCC risk was consistent in patients with HBV or HCV infection, in elder (>= 50 years) or younger (< 50 years) patients, in males or females, in diabetic or non-diabetic, and in those with or without cirrhosis (all p < 0.05). Moreover, lipophilic statins was associated with a reduced HCC risk (RR: 0.52, p < 0.001), but not for hydrophilic statins (RR: 0.89, p = 0.21). The association was more remarkable in patients with highest statin accumulative dose compared to those with lowest accumulative dose (p = 0.002). Conclusions Satin use was independently associated with a reduced risk of HCC in patients with HBV or HCV infection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available