Lipophilic statin versus rosuvastatin (Hydrophilic) treatment for heart failure: a meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison of randomised trials

Objectives: This study aims to compare lipophilic and hydrophilic statin therapy on clinical outcomes of heart failure (HF) using a systematic review and an adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization and hospitalization for worsening HF. Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases until 31st December 2014 for randomized control trials (RCTs) in HF evaluating statins versus placebo. Identified RCTs and their respective abstracted information were grouped according to statin type evaluated and analyzed separately. Outcomes were initially pooled with the Peto’s one-step method, producing odd ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for each statin type. Using these pooled estimates, we performed adjusted indirect comparisons of lipophilic versus hydrophilic statin for each outcome. Results: Thirteen studies involving 10,966 patients were identified and analyzed. Lipophilic statins were superior to hydrophilic rosuvastatin regarding all-cause mortality (OR 0 · 50; 95 % CI, 0 · 11–0 · 89; p = 0 · 01), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0 · 61; 0 · 25–0 · 97; p = 0 · 009), and hospitalization for worsening HF (OR 0 · 52; 0 · 21–0 · 83; p = 0 · 0005). However, both statins were comparable with regards to cardiovascular hospitalization [OR 0 · 80 (0 · 31, 1 · 28); p = 0 · 36]. Conclusions: Lipophilic statin treatment shows significant decreases in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for worsening HF compared with rosuvastatin treatment. This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence that lipophilic statins offer better clinical outcomes in HF till data from head to head comparisons are available.