4.3 Article

Association of Statins and Risk of Fractures in a Military Health System: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

期刊

ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 48, 期 11, 页码 1406-1414

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1060028014545038

关键词

statin; hip fracture; fractures; observational studies

资金

  1. US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the form of a NIH/KL2 career development award [RR025766]
  2. AstraZeneca
  3. Bristol Myers Squibb
  4. Elan
  5. Forest
  6. Ortho-McNeil Janssen
  7. Pfizer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Contradictory evidence exists regarding statin use and risk of osteoporotic fractures. Objective: The study objective was to examine the effect of statins on fracture risk in a Military Healthcare System (MHS) with similar access and standard of health care for its beneficiaries. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients enrolled in an MHS encompassing the period from October 1, 2003, to March 1, 2010. Statin users were defined as those receiving a statin for >= 90 days in Fiscal Year 2005, whereas nonusers were defined as individuals not receiving a statin throughout the study period. A propensity score matched cohort of statin users and nonusers was created using 42 variables. The outcomes were identified using ICD-9-CM codes in the follow-up period (October I, 2006, to March 1, 2010). In all, 4 outcomes were examined: all fractures, femoral neck fractures, upper-extremity fractures, and lower-extremity fractures. Results: Of 46 249 patients, 6967 pairs of statin users and nonusers were matched. Statin users had a lower risk of femoral neck fracture in comparison to nonusers (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.36-0.94) but similar risk of all fractures, lower-extremity fractures, and upper-extremity fractures. Conclusions: In this cohort of patients managed in an MHS, statin use was associated with a lower risk of femoral neck fractures, but not all fractures, upper-extremity fractures, or lower-extremity fractures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据