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.

Objective: This meta-analysis aims to compare the relationship between phenotypic manifestation of coronary and carotid atherosclerosis using available imaging techniques. Approach and Results: We searched all electronic databases until October 2020 for studies which reported relationship between carotid and coronary atherosclerosis. The primary end point was correlation between carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and carotid plaque features (calcification and lipid-rich necrotic core) with coronary artery disease (CAD). Secondary end points included carotid pathology that predicts CAD. Eighty-nine papers with 22 683 patients comparing carotid and coronary atherosclerosis were included in the analysis. CIMT was increased linearly with severity of CAD irrespective of its significance ( P <0.001), mono versus 2 vessel disease ( P =0.003), and 2 versus multivessel disease ( P <0.001). Carotid plaque presence and calcification were less, and lipid-rich necrotic core was highly prevalent in nonsignificant versus significant CAD ( P <0.001, P =0.03, P <0.001, respectively). Moderate correlation was found between CIMT and severity of CAD ( r =0.60, P <0.001) and the number of diseased vessels ( r =0.49, P <0.001). There was a moderate correlation between carotid and coronary stenosis ( r =0.53, P <0.001) and between carotid and coronary calcification ( r =0.61, P <0.001). CIMT ≥1.0 mm with a summary sensitivity of 77% and summary specificity of 72% and respective values of 80% and 67% for carotid plaque were the best predictors of CAD, irrespective of the technique used for its diagnosis. Conclusions: These results support the concept that atherosclerosis affects both carotid and coronary systems, although not always in identical phenotypic manner. These findings highlight the beneficial examination of carotid arteries whenever CAD is suspected.

Background: This meta-analysis aims to estimate the power of walking stride length as a predictor of adverse clinical events in older adults. Methods: We searched all electronic databases until April 2021 for studies reporting stride length and other spatial gait parameters, including stride velocity, stride width, step width and stride variability, and compared them with clinical outcomes in the elderly. Meta-analyses of odds ratios (ORs) of effects of stride length on clinical outcomes used the generic inverse variance method and random model effects. Clinical outcomes were major adverse events (MAEs), physical disability and mortality. Results: Eleven cohort studies with 14,167 patients (mean age 75.4 ± 5.6 years, 55.8% female) were included in the analysis. At 33.05 months follow up, 3839 (27%) patients had clinical adverse events. Baseline stride length was shorter, WMD −0.15 (−0.19 to −0.11, p < 0.001), and stride length variability was higher, WMD 0.67 (0.33 to 1.01, p < 0.001), in fallers compared to non-fallers. Other gait parameters were not different between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all). Short stride length predicted MAE OR 1.36 (95% CI; 1.19 to 1.55, p < 0.001), physical disability OR 1.26 (95% CI; 1.11 to 1.44, p = 0.004) and mortality OR 1.69 (95% CI; 1.41 to 2.02, p < 0.001). A baseline normalized stride length ≤ 0.64 m was more accurate in predicting adverse clinical events, with summary sensitivity 65% (58–71%), specificity 72% (69–75%) and accuracy 75.5% (74.2–76.7%) compared to stride length variability 5.7%, with summary sensitivity 66% (61–70%), specificity 56% (54–58%) and accuracy 57.1% (55.5–58.6%). Conclusion: The results of this meta-analyses support the significant value of stride length for predicting life-threatening clinical events in older adults. A short stride length of ≤0.64 m accurately predicted clinical events, over and above other gait measures.

Surgical myectomy (SM) and alcohol septal ablation (ASA) are two invasive therapies for symptomatic patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM), despite medical therapy. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of the two procedures. We searched all electronic databases until February 2020 for clinical trials and cohorts comparing clinical outcomes of ASA and SM treatment of patients with HOCM. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), re-intervention, and complications. Secondary endpoints included relief of clinical symptoms and drop of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient. Twenty studies (4547 patients; 2 CTs and 18 cohorts) comparing ASA vs. SM with a mean follow-up of 47 ± 28.7 months were included. Long term (8.72 vs. 7.84%, p = 0.42) and short term (1.12 vs. 1.27%, p = 0.93) all-cause mortality, CV mortality (2.48 vs. 3.66%, p = 0.26), SCD (1.78 vs. 0.76%, p = 0.20) and stroke (0.36 vs. 1.01%, p = 0.64) were not different between procedures. ASA was associated with lower peri-procedural complications (5.57 vs. 10.5%, p = 0.04) but higher rate of re-interventions (10.1 vs. 0.27%; p < 0.001) and pacemaker dependency (12.4 vs. 4.31%, p = 0.0004) compared to SM. ASA resulted in less reduction in LVOT gradient (−47.8 vs. −58.4 mmHg, p = 0.01) and less improvement of clinical symptoms compared to SM (New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV, 82.4 vs. 94.5%, p < 0.001, angina 53.2 vs. 84.2%, p = 0.02). Thus, ASA and SM treatment of HOCM carry a similar risk of mortality. Peri-procedural complications are less in alcohol ablation but re-intervention and pacemaker implantations are more common. These results might impact the procedure choice in individual patients, for the best clinical outcome.