4.6 Review

Most appropriate animal models to study the efficacy of statins: a systematic review

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 44, 期 9, 页码 848-871

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12304

关键词

Animal models; hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors; meta-analysis; statins; translational medical research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In animal models and clinical trials, statins are reported as effective in reducing cholesterol levels and lowering the risk of cardiovascular diseases. We have aggregated the findings in animal models - mice, rats and rabbits - using the technique of systematic review and meta-analysis to highlight differences in the efficacy of statins. Materials and methods We searched Medline and Embase. After examining all eligible articles, we extracted results about total cholesterol and other blood parameters, blood pressure, myocardial infarction and survival. Weighted and standard mean difference random effects meta-analysis was used to measure overall efficacy in prespecified species, strains and subgroups. Results We included in systematic review 161 animal studies and we analysed 120 studies, accounting for 2432 animals. Statins lowered the total cholesterol across all species, although with large differences in the effect size: 30% in rabbits, 20% in mice and 10% in rats. The reduction was larger in animals fed on a high-cholesterol diet. Statins reduced infarct volume but did not consistently reduce the blood pressure or effect the overall survival. Few studies considered strains at high risk of cardiovascular diseases or hard outcomes. Conclusions Although statins showed substantial efficacy in animal models, few preclinical data considered conditions mimicking human pathologies for which the drugs are clinically indicated and utilized. The empirical finding that statins are more effective in lowering cholesterol derived from an external source (i.e. diet) conflicts with statin's supposed primary mechanism of action.

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

4.6
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