Statin intolerance (SI) represents a significant public health problem for which precise estimates of prevalence are needed. Statin intolerance remains an important clinical challenge, and it is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. This meta-analysis estimates the overall prevalence of SI, the prevalence according to different diagnostic criteria and in different disease settings, and identifies possible risk factors/conditions that might increase the risk of SI. We searched several databases up to 31 May 2021, for studies that reported the prevalence of SI. The primary endpoint was overall prevalence and prevalence according to a range of diagnostic criteria [National Lipid Association (NLA), International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)] and in different disease settings. The secondary endpoint was to identify possible risk factors for SI. A random-effects model was applied to estimate the overall pooled prevalence. A total of 176 studies [112 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 64 cohort studies] with 4 143 517 patients were ultimately included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of SI was 9.1% (95% confidence interval 8.0–10%). The prevalence was similar when defined using NLA, ILEP, and EAS criteria [7.0% (6.0–8.0%), 6.7% (5.0–8.0%), 5.9% (4.0–7.0%), respectively]. The prevalence of SI in RCTs was significantly lower compared with cohort studies [4.9% (4.0–6.0%) vs. 17% (14–19%)]. The prevalence of SI in studies including both primary and secondary prevention patients was much higher than when primary or secondary prevention patients were analysed separately [18% (14–21%), 8.2% (6.0–10%), 9.1% (6.0–11%), respectively]. Statin lipid solubility did not affect the prevalence of SI [4.0% (2.0–5.0%) vs. 5.0% (4.0–6.0%)]. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.33, P = 0.04], female gender (OR 1.47, P = 0.007), Asian and Black race (P < 0.05 for both), obesity (OR 1.30, P = 0.02), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.26, P = 0.02), hypothyroidism (OR 1.37, P = 0.01), chronic liver, and renal failure (P < 0.05 for both) were significantly associated with SI in the meta-regression model. Antiarrhythmic agents, calcium channel blockers, alcohol use, and increased statin dose were also associated with a higher risk of SI. Based on the present analysis of >4 million patients, the prevalence of SI is low when diagnosed according to international definitions. These results support the concept that the prevalence of complete SI might often be overestimated and highlight the need for the careful assessment of patients with potential symptoms related to SI. The worldwide prevalence of statin intolerance and risk factors/conditions that effect or do not effect the risk of statin intolerance.

There is good evidence showing that inactivity and walking minimal steps/day increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease and general ill-health. The optimal number of steps and their role in health is, however, still unclear. Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between step count and all-cause mortality and CV mortality. We systematically searched relevant electronic databases from inception until 12 June 2022. The main endpoints were all-cause mortality and CV mortality. An inverse-variance weighted random-effects model was used to calculate the number of steps/day and mortality. Seventeen cohort studies with a total of 226 889 participants (generally healthy or patients at CV risk) with a median follow-up 7.1 years were included in the meta-analysis. A 1000-step increment was associated with a 15% decreased risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–0.91; P < 0.001], while a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.91–0.95; P < 0.001). Compared with the reference quartile with median steps/day 3967 (2500–6675), the Quartile 1 (Q1, median steps: 5537), Quartile 2 (Q2, median steps 7370), and Quartile 3 (Q3, median steps 11 529) were associated with lower risk for all-cause mortality (48, 55, and 67%, respectively; P < 0.05, for all). Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps/day used as reference [median steps 2337, interquartile range 1596–4000), higher quartiles of steps/day (Q1 = 3982, Q2 = 6661, and Q3 = 10 413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16, 49, and 77%; P < 0.05, for all). Using a restricted cubic splines model, we observed a nonlinear dose–response association between step count and all-cause and CV mortality (P_nonlineraly < 0.001, for both) with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increased step count. This meta-analysis demonstrates a significant inverse association between daily step count and all-cause mortality and CV mortality with more the better over the cut-off point of 3967 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2337 steps for CV mortality. There is strong evidence showing that sedentary life may significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease and shorten the lifespan. However, the optimal number of steps, both the cut-off points over which we can see health benefits, and the upper limit (if any), and their role in health are still unclear. In this meta-analysis of 17 studies with almost 227 000 participants that assessed the health effects of physical activity expressed by walking measured in the number of steps, we showed that a 1000-step increment correlated with a significant reduction of all-cause mortality of 15%, and similarly, a 500-step increment correlated with a reduced risk of CV mortality of 7%. In addition, using the dose–response model, we observed a strong inverse nonlinear association between step count and all-cause mortality with significant differences between younger and older groups. It is the first analysis that not only looked at age and sex but also regional differences based on the weather zones, and for the first time, it assesses the effect of up to 20 000 steps/day on outcomes (confirming the more the better), which was missed in previous analyses. The analysis also revealed that depending on the outcomes, we do not need so many steps to have health benefits starting with even 2500/4000 steps/day, which, in fact, undermines the hitherto definition of a sedentary life.

In addition to their cholesterol-lowering effects, statins are associated with pleiotropic effects including improvements in heart failure (HF), reduced blood pressure, prevention of the rupture of atherosclerotic plaques and improved angiogenesis. In addition to these cardiovascular benefits, statins have been implicated in the treatment of neurological injuries, cancer, sepsis, and cirrhosis. These cholesterol-independent beneficial effects of statins are predominantly mediated through signaling pathways leading to increased production and bioavailability of nitric oxide (NO). In this review, the mechanistic pathways and therapeutic effects of statin-mediated elevations of NO are described and discussed.

Background: The ‘placebo effect’ and ‘nocebo effect’ are phenomena whereby beneficial (placebo) or adverse (nocebo) effects result from the expectation that an inert substance will relieve or cause a particular symptom. These terms are often inappropriately applied to effects experienced on drug therapy. Quantifying the magnitude of placebo and nocebo effects in clinical trials is problematic because it requires a ‘no treatment’ arm. To overcome the difficulties associated with measuring the nocebo effect, and the fact that its definition refers to inert compounds, rather than drugs, we introduce the concept of ‘drucebo’ (a combination of DRUg and plaCEBO or noCEBO) to relate to beneficial or adverse effects of a drug, which result from expectation and are not pharmacologically caused by the drug. As an initial application of the concept, we have estimated the contribution of the drucebo effect to statin discontinuation and statin‐induced muscle symptoms by performing a systematic review of randomized controlled trial of statin therapy.Methods: This preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis‐compliant systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017082700). We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central from inception until 3 January 2018 using a search strategy designed to detect studies including the concepts (Statins AND Placebo AND muscle pain). We included studies that allowed us to quantify the drucebo effect for adverse muscle symptoms of statins by (i) comparing reported rates of muscle symptoms in blinded and unblinded phases of randomized controlled trials and (ii) comparing rates of muscle symptoms at baseline and during blinded therapy in trials that included patients with objectively confirmed statin intolerance at baseline. Extraction was performed by two researchers with disagreements settled by a third reviewer.Results: Five studies allowed the estimation of the drucebo effect. All trials demonstrated an excess of side effects under open‐label conditions. The contribution of the drucebo effect to statin‐associated muscle pain ranged between 38% and 78%. The heterogeneity of study methods, outcomes, and reporting did not allow for quantitative synthesis (meta‐analysis) of the results.Conclusions: The drucebo effect may be useful in evaluating the safety and efficacy of medicines. Diagnosis of the drucebo effect in patients presenting with statin intolerance will allow restoration of life‐prolonging lipid‐lowering therapy. Our study was limited by heterogeneity of included studies and lack of access to individual patient data. Further studies are necessary to better understand risk factors for and clinical management of the drucebo effect.