Risk of hyperglycemia with different statins by type and dose: a network meta-analysis and real-world pharmacovigilance study
- 1Department of Pharmacy, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital , , ,
- 2Department of Physical Examination Center, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital , , ,
Abstract
Background: The potential diabetogenic effects of statins remain controversial, particularly with respect to differences across statin types and doses.
Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the comparative effects of different statins and doses on hyperglycemia-related outcomes. The NMA was performed within a Bayesian framework. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to April 2025. Data extraction and verification were independently conducted by two investigators. Outcomes included risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial plasma glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Separately, we conducted a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis using disproportionality methods based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to identify potential hyperglycemia-related safety signals in patients without diabetes.
Results: A total of 22 RCTs, which enrolled 99,311 patients, were included. The NMA found no statistically significant differences in NODM risk among statins or compared with placebo. However, pravastatin 40 mg/day showed a numerically lower risk estimate (OR: 0.86; 95% CrI: 0.50–1.50), whereas rosuvastatin 20 mg/day and atorvastatin 80 mg/day showed relatively higher estimates. Analyses of intermediate glycemic markers, including FPG and HbA1c, revealed no significant differences across all statin regimens and placebo. In parallel, FAERS pharmacovigilance analyses identified disproportionate reporting signals for hyperglycemic events with atorvastatin (ROR: 6.11; 95% CI: 5.94–6.29), rosuvastatin (ROR: 2.44; 95% CI: 2.31–2.58), and simvastatin (ROR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.13–1.32).
Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in glycemic outcomes were observed among individual statins or compared with placebo. However, numerical variations in point estimates across randomized evidence and pharmacovigilance signals suggest possible differences in glycemic profiles among statins. Pravastatin showed numerically lower risk estimates; however, these findings were accompanied by substantial uncertainty. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify these observations.
Related
- Safety signals of tocilizumab in pediatric patients: A real-world pharmacovigilance analysis based on the FAERS database with network pharmacology insights.
- Comparative Safety Profiles of Sacituzumab Govitecan and Datopotamab Deruxtecan: A Real-World Pharmacovigilance Study
- Safety Profile of Tirzepatide in Real‐World Clinical Practice: A Pharmacovigilance Study Using the FAERS Database
- Impact of obesity on tolerance and persistence of statins in patients within 3 months following an acute myocardial infarction: A real-world study
- Safety of eribulin: A real-world study based on a pharmacovigilance database
BibTeX
@article{xue2026risk,
title = {{Risk of hyperglycemia with different statins by type and dose: a network meta-analysis and real-world pharmacovigilance study}},
author = {Qingxia Xue and Feixian Wang and Yanyun Zhang and Lu Chen},
journal = {Frontiers in pharmacology},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fphar.2026.1867316},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13671962},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Risk of hyperglycemia with different statins by type and dose: a network meta-analysis and real-world pharmacovigilance study
AU - Qingxia Xue
AU - Feixian Wang
AU - Yanyun Zhang
AU - Lu Chen
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/02
JO - Frontiers in pharmacology
DO - 10.3389/fphar.2026.1867316
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13671962
AB - Background: The potential diabetogenic effects of statins remain controversial, particularly with respect to differences across statin types and doses. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the comparative effects of different statins and doses on hyperglycemia-related outcomes. The NMA was performed within a Bayesian framework. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to April 2025. Data extraction and verification were independently conducted by two investigators. Outcomes included risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (NODM), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial plasma glucose, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Separately, we conducted a real-world pharmacovigilance analysis using disproportionality methods based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to identify potential hyperglycemia-related safety signals in patients without diabetes. Results: A total of 22 RCTs, which enrolled 99,311 patients, were included. The NMA found no statistically significant differences in NODM risk among statins or compared with placebo. However, pravastatin 40 mg/day showed a numerically lower risk estimate (OR: 0.86; 95% CrI: 0.50–1.50), whereas rosuvastatin 20 mg/day and atorvastatin 80 mg/day showed relatively higher estimates. Analyses of intermediate glycemic markers, including FPG and HbA1c, revealed no significant differences across all statin regimens and placebo. In parallel, FAERS pharmacovigilance analyses identified disproportionate reporting signals for hyperglycemic events with atorvastatin (ROR: 6.11; 95% CI: 5.94–6.29), rosuvastatin (ROR: 2.44; 95% CI: 2.31–2.58), and simvastatin (ROR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.13–1.32). Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in glycemic outcomes were observed among individual statins or compared with placebo. However, numerical variations in point estimates across randomized evidence and pharmacovigilance signals suggest possible differences in glycemic profiles among statins. Pravastatin showed numerically lower risk estimates; however, these findings were accompanied by substantial uncertainty. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify these observations.
SN - 1663-9812
ER -