Cardiovascular Therapeutics

Cardiovascular Therapeutics / 2020 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 3987065 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3987065

Xiaodan Zhang, Lu Xing, Xiaona Jia, Xiaocong Pang, Qian Xiang, Xia Zhao, Lingyue Ma, Zhiyan Liu, Kun Hu, Zhe Wang, Yimin Cui, "Comparative Lipid-Lowering/Increasing Efficacy of 7 Statins in Patients with Dyslipidemia, Cardiovascular Diseases, or Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses of 50 Randomized Controlled Trials", Cardiovascular Therapeutics, vol. 2020, Article ID 3987065, 21 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3987065

Comparative Lipid-Lowering/Increasing Efficacy of 7 Statins in Patients with Dyslipidemia, Cardiovascular Diseases, or Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses of 50 Randomized Controlled Trials

Academic Editor: John D. Imig
Received20 Oct 2019
Revised30 Jan 2020
Accepted18 Mar 2020
Published27 Apr 2020

Abstract

Objective. The drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the lipid-lowering/increasing effects of 7 different statins in patients with dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus by conducting systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) of the lipid changes after certain statins’ use. Methods. In this study, we searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through February 25, 2020, comparing the lipid-lowering efficacy of no less than two of the included statins (or statin vs. placebo). Three reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Firstly, mixed treatment overall comparison analyses, in the form of frequentist NMAs, were conducted using STATA 15.0 software. Then, subgroup analyses were conducted according to different baseline diseases. At last, sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration. The trial was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42018108799). Results. As a result, seven statin monotherapy treatments in 50 studies (51956 participants) were used for the analyses. The statins included simvastatin (SIM), fluvastatin (FLU), atorvastatin (ATO), rosuvastatin (ROS), lovastatin (LOV), pravastatin (PRA), and pitavastatin (PIT). In terms of LDL-C lowering, rosuvastatin ranked 1st with a surface under cumulated ranking (SUCRA) value of 93.1%. The comparative treatment efficacy for LDL-C lowering was ROS>ATO>PIT>SIM>PRA>FLU>LOV>PLA. All of the other ranking and NMA results were reported in SUCRA plots and league tables. Conclusions. According to the NMAs, it can be concluded that rosuvastatin ranked 1st in LDL-C, ApoB-lowering efficacy and ApoA1-increasing efficacy. Lovastatin ranked 1st in TC- and TG-lowering efficacy, and fluvastatin ranked 1st in HDL-C-increasing efficacy. The results should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations in our review. However, they can provide references and evidence-based foundation for drug selection in both statin monotherapies and statin combination therapies.

1. Introduction

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in most countries, with a high prevalence currently driven by dual epidemics of obesity and diabetes [1]. Statins are the hypolipidemic treatment of choice for hyperlipidemia with a confirmed atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) protective effect, proven even in normolipemic patients [2]. Statin drugs are the most effective, evidence-based agents to prevent and treat this disease. Statins have a central role in management and are advised in all published guidelines [1]. Currently, dyslipidemia treatment is based on individualized risk factor assessment. The 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhAHDCDT_3987065/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol [3] recommends the use of statins based on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, rather than low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level targets that were formerly used to guide statin intensity according to the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (ATP III) dyslipidemia guideline [4].

Nowadays, with the emergence of new preparations and therapeutics, as well as the appearance of some adverse reactions and tolerance phenomenon of statins in their applications, the statin monotherapies have been questioned [1, 2, 5]. Nonstatin therapy has gradually entered the field of vision [6]. However, in the clinical practice, evidence such as RCTs, guidelines, and recommendations for these nonstatin therapies are very limited, which provides little evidence-based efficacy support for clinicians to use only nonstatin therapies in the treatment of dyslipidemia. Therefore, at present, statins are still one of the main drugs for the treatment of hyperlipidemia, especially in combination with other drugs. Absolute nonstatin therapies should only be considered in high-risk patients who have a suboptimal response to statins and/or are intolerant to statin therapy [6].

When it comes to choosing one statin treatment among multiple alternatives, scientific evidence is particularly important. However, existing evidence is insufficient to inform prescribing decisions. While traditional meta-analyses synthesize existing RCT data and compare the efficacy between two statin treatments, network meta-analysis allows for the combination of direct and indirect evidences from randomized trials, facilitating the comparison of all kinds of statins even when they are not directly compared with each other in clinical trials [7].

To date, some statin-related studies have focused on the comparison between statin combination therapies with statin monotherapies [8, 9], and others (mainly network meta-analyses) have focused on the comparative tolerability or comparative effects among different statins [10, 11]; however, the outcome indicators were mainly the occurrence and outcome of relevant diseases. In 2014, Naci et al. published a network meta-analysis using the absolute value of lipid as the primary efficacy indicator of different statins [12]. Similar to the method used in this article, the change values of lipids were chosen as the primary endpoint of our network meta-analyses. The direct lipid-lowering/increasing effects of the 7 statins were compared in this study, providing a reference and evidence-based foundation for drug selection in both statin monotherapies and statin combination therapies.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper conforms with the PRISMA-NMA guidance [13]. The trial was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42018108799) [14].

2.1. Data Sources and Searches

A systematic literature review of Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science electronic databases was performed to identify RCTs comparing the lipid-lowering/increasing effect of no less than two types of the included statins or the effect of placebo and no less than one type of the included statin. Articles published through February 25, 2020, were searched using the following keyword combination strategy: lovastatin (All Fields) OR pravastatin (All Fields) OR simvastatin (All Fields) OR fluvastatin (All Fields) OR atorvastatin (All Fields) OR rosuvastatin (All Fields) OR pitavastatin (All Fields) OR statins (All Fields) AND randomized controlled trial (All Fields). A complete detailed search strategy is included in Appendix S1. EndNote software version X8 was used throughout the literature search and screening process.

2.2. Study Selection

The literature search was independently conducted by three authors (XZ, LX, and XJ); in cases of disagreement, a consensus was reached through group discussion. A study was eligible for inclusion if the following criteria were met: (a) a RCT where the random methods, control groups, and blind methods were all included; (b) the study comparing the lipid-lowering efficacy of more than two included statins or placebo with one of the included statins; (c) therapeutic doses of the statins which were administered in the study; and (d) the absolute value change of one of the following six indicators after drug administration which could be directly extracted or calculated from the outcomes of the study: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), Human Apolipoprotein A-1 (ApoA1), and Human Apolipoprotein B (ApoB).

Potentially relevant papers and abstracts were obtained, and the full-text editions were reviewed for inclusion. Studies conducted in healthy volunteers or in patients with diseases other than dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus were excluded. Studies published in languages other than English were excluded.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

An electronic data abstraction form was used to record basic data, including the first author’s name, publication year, number of subjects, ethnicity, subject status (disease type), drug usage/follow-up duration, and outcomes.

The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the eligible trails [15]. We scored the chosen articles while extracting data, and RevMan 5.3 was used to generate the literature quality assessment table. Any incongruence between the 3 investigators (XZ, LX, and XJ) was reassessed and discussed until a consensus was reached.

Outcome data, the absolute mean changes, standard deviation (SD) of the lipids after treatment, and (number of patients in a certain group), were mostly calculated according to the baseline and endpoint lipid data in the articles. The mean change values were calculated by subtracting the mean of the endpoints from the mean of the baseline. The calculation method of SD was adopted from Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0 [16]. The included outcomes were absolute change values of LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoA1, and ApoB. Original data were collected in the form of “mean, SD, and ,” except for five studies [1721], in which the original data for TG were presented in the form of “median, quartiles, and .” For these, the mean and SD were estimated using the calculation method described in Wan et al.’s article [22].

In addition, the units of the outcome indicators were unified by unit conversion for the four outcomes (LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, and TG), while ApoB and ApoA1 did not use unit conversion. In this study, we uniformly used mg·dl-1 as the unit of measurement. When the unit provided in the original text was mmol·l-1, we multiplied the original data by a certain conversion coefficient and converted it to mg·dl-1 as the unit. The methods for unit conversion are shown in AppendixS2.

In our overall NMAs, a method of mixing different dosage groups was adopted. The overall NMAs were conducted only separated by different statin treatments, not by different dosage groups, because 10 of the included studies did not use a fixed drug administration dose, preventing their data from being grouped by different drug dosages. When there were two or more dosage groups for the same statin treatment in one study, we first separately calculated the mean change values, SDs, and (sample sizes) of the patients in different dosage groups according to the method described above, and then we merged these dosage groups using the method introduced in the Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0 [23]. Six of the included studies used this method to merge two dosage groups of the same statin treatment [19, 2428]. As a result, in each study, different dosage groups of the same statin (if there were no less than two dosage groups) were eventually processed into a single experimental group for final network meta-analysis.

Since our NMA included patients of different types of diseases (dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus), after conducting the overall NMA, we also conducted subgroup analyses according to different baseline diseases of the patients.

At last, sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration.

2.4. Data Synthesis and Analysis

We constructed the network meta-analyses by combining direct and indirect evidence. Frequentist NMA was conducted using the network suite and other network-related commands in STATA 15.0 [2931]. STATA was also used in the drawing of Network Plots of Network Meta. Global and local inconsistency tests were conducted. Global Wald tests for inconsistency were performed [32, 33]. Local inconsistency was explored by a node-splitting method [33, 34]. Visual inspection of the funnel plots was conducted separately for the 6 outcomes and used to assess publication bias. In addition, to rank the lipid-lowering/increasing effects of treatments, the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to summarize the probability values. The SUCRA value was 100% for optimal treatment and 0% for worst treatment [32]. League tables were produced for the 6 outcomes, showing the mixed evidence reported results of pair-wise comparisons among different treatments [35].

Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different baseline diseases. Sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration.

All data were processed through Review Manager (version 5.3), STATA software (version 15.0), or Microsoft Excel 2016.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

The study selection process is presented in Figure 1. The bibliographic search retrieved 35814 citations, and after removing duplicates, we reviewed the remaining 27581 articles in the form of a title and an abstract; 650 citations remained after the title and abstract screening. Eventually, after full-text screening, there were 50 studies eligible for the NMA [1721, 2428, 3675], including 51956 participants. The general characteristics of the included studies are summarized in Table 1. The baseline values of the biochemical parameters in all the included studies are shown in Table 2.


StudyGroup (treatment)No. of subjectsMean ageDisease statusCountryPopulationFollow-up durationOutcomes

Zhu et al. [36]ATO (20 mg)
PLA
86Ischemic strokeChinaChinese6 monthsLDL-C, TC, TG
Tunçez et al. [37]ATO (80 mg)
ROS (40 mg)
63 (ATO)
(ROS)
Acute myocardial infarctionTurkeyTurk4 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC
Thondapu et al. [38]ATO (20 mg)
ROS (10 mg)
4354.2 (ATO)
57.5 (ROS)
De novo coronary artery diseaseUSA, Japan, and KoreaUNK1 yearLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Mostafa et al. [17]ATO (80 mg)
ROS (40 mg)
100 (ATO)
(ROS)
Acute coronary syndrome/dyslipidemiaArab Republic of EgyptEgyptians1 monthLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Zhao and Peng 2017 [24]ATO (10 mg)
ROS (5 mg, 10 mg)
414HypercholesterolemiaChinaChinese6 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB
Canas et al. [39]PLA
ATO
38Type 1 diabetesUSAAmerican6 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Aydin et al. [40]ATO (80 mg)
ROS (20 mg)
120ST elevation myocardial infarctionTurkeyTurk40 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Moezzi et al. [18]PLA
SIM (40 mg)
7720-88DyslipidemiaIranIranian1 monthLDL-C, HDL-C, TC
Correa et al. [41]SIM (40 mg)
PLA
7918-70HypertensionBrazilBrazilian6 monthsLDL-C
Koh et al. [42]PLA
ROS (10 mg)
PRA (40 mg)
158UNKHypercholesterolemiaKoreaKorean2 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Nozue et al. [43]PIT (4 mg)
PRA (20 mg)
164Coronary artery diseaseJapanJapanese8 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Nohara et al. [44]ROS (5 mg)
PRA (10 mg)
298AdultCarotid intima-media thicknessJapanJapanese24 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TG
Lee et al. [45]ATO (20 mg)
ROS (10 mg)
271≧18 years oldMild coronary atherosclerotic plaquesKoreaKorean6 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Nicholls et al. [46]ATO (80 mg)
ROS (40 mg)
157818-75Coronary diseaseUSAAmericanUNK (endpoint time was during treatment)LDL-C, HDL-C, TC, ApoB, ApoA1
Saku et al. [47]ATO (10 mg)
ROS (2.5 mg)
PIT (2 mg)
22825-75HypercholesterolemiaJapanJapanese16 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TG
Hernández et al. [19]PLA
ATO (10/40 mg)
6245-75HypercholesterolemiaSpainSpanish3 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Tsutamoto et al. [48]ROS (2.5 mg)
ATO (5 mg)
63
Cardiac sympathetic nerve activity in nondiabetic patient with dilated cardiomyopathyJapanJapanese6 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Shimabukuro et al. [49]PIT (2 mg)
ATO (10 mg)
3130–79Type 2 diabetes mellitusJapanJapanese6 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Bulbulia et al. [50]PLA
SIM (40 mg)
2053640-80High risk of vascularBritainBritish3-5 yearsLDL-C, TC
Sansanayudh et al. [51]PIT (1 mg)
ATO (10 mg)
100≧18HypercholesterolemiaThailandThai8 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Bellia et al. [52]SIM (20 mg)
ROS (20 mg)
29Type 2 diabetesItalyItalian4 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Su et al. [53]SIM (40 mg)
ATO (10 mg)
15151–72Type 2 diabetes mellitusChinaChinese12weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Ose et al. [25]PIT (2 mg, 4 mg)
SIM (20 mg, 40 mg)
85718–75Hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemiaRussia, Norway, UK, Finland, ItalyMultiple groups12 monthsLDL-C
Kurabayashi et al. [54]ATO (10 mg)
ROS (5 mg)
405≧20HypercholesterolemiaJapanJapanese8 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Young et al. [55]ATO (40 mg)
ROS (20 mg)
30
Coronary stenosisKoreaKorean1 yearLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Kyeong et al. [56]ATO (20 mg)
ROS (10 mg)
117
Acute coronary syndromeKoreaKorean40 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Kom et al. [57]PLA
ATO (40 mg)
2435-60HypercholesterolemiaGermanyGerman6 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC
Marketou et al. [58]SIM (40 mg)
ATO (40 mg)
8835-70HyperlipidemiaGreeceGreek3 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TG
Pedersen et al. [59]SIM (20 mg)
ATO (80 mg)
8888≦80Myocardial infarctionEuropeEuropean5 yearsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Sirtori et al. [60]ATO (10 mg)
PRA (20 mg)
86UNKHyperlipidemiaItalyItalian12 weeksLDL-C
Nissen et al. [61]PRA (40 mg)
ATO (80 mg)
65430-75Coronary atherosclerosisUSAAmerican18 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Durazzo et al. [20]PLA
ATO (20 mg)
100UNKAfter vascular surgeryBrazilBrazilian45 daysLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Bevilacqua et al. [62]FLU (80 mg)
ATO (20 mg)
10045 to 71Type 2 diabetes mellitusItalyItalian3 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Schwartz et al. [26]ROS (5 mg, 10 mg)
ATO (10 mg)
382≧18Hypercholesterolemia coronary heart diseaseUS
Canada
American
Canadian
12 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Colhoun et al. [63]PLA
ATO (10 mg)
281940–75Type 2 diabetes mellitusUK
Ireland
European
Irish
4 yearsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Wissen et al. [64]SIM (40 mg)
ATO (80 mg)
325UNKHeterozygous familial hypercholesterolemiaNetherlandDutch2 yearsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Isaacsohn et al. [27]PLA
SIM (20 mg/40 mg/80 mg)
19518-70HypertriglyceridemiaUSAAmerican6 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC
McCrindle et al. [65]ATO (10 mg-20 mg)
PLA
18710-17HypercholesterolemiaUSA
Canada
Europe
South Africa
American
Canadian
European
African
26 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Kadikoylu et al. [66]ATO (10-20 mg)
SIM (10-20 mg)
6139–74Primary hypercholesterolemiaUSA
Europe
American
European
24 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Manuel-Y-Keenoy et al. [67]ATO (40 mg)
PLA
24UNKType 1 diabetesBelgiumEuropean12 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Sever et al. [68]PLA
ATO (10 mg)
1030640–79HypertensionLondonBritish5 yearsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Winkler et al. [69]PLA
FLU (80 mg)
8939–86Type 2 diabetes mellitusGermanyGerman8 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Tan et al. [21]PLA
ATO (10 mg-20 mg)
80UNKType 2 diabetes mellitusHong KongChinese6 monthsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC
Wang and Ting [70]ATO (10 mg)
PLA
5460Elevated LDL cholesterolTaiwanChinese8 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Schrott et al. [71]PLA
ATO
2247-72Modestly overweight (potential tendency of dyslipidemia)USAAmerican14 daysLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Serruys et al. [72]PLA
FLU [80 mg (40 mg bid)]
1054
After successful coronary balloon angioplastyNetherlandsDutch26 weeksLDL-C
Mitropoulos et al. [28]PLA
SIM (20 mg, 40 mg)
16240-75Coronary heart diseaseLondonBritish2 yearsLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Lam et al. [73]PLA
LOV (20 mg~60 mg)
34UNKHypercholesterolemiaChinaChinese1 yearLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1
Contermans et al. [74]SIM
PRA
24HypercholesterolemiaHollandDutch18 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG
Mcdowell et al. [75]PLA
SIM (10 mg-40 mg)
27UNKPrimary hypercholesterolemiaIrelandIrish12 weeksLDL-C, HDL-C, TC, TG, ApoB, ApoA1

PLA: placebo; SIM: simvastatin; FLU: fluvastatin; ATO: atorvastatin; ROS: rosuvastatin; LOV: lovastatin; PRA: pravastatin; PIT: pitavastatin; LDL-C: low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC: total cholesterol; TG: triglyceride; ApoA1: Human Apolipoprotein A-1; ApoB: Human Apolipoprotein B; UNK: unknown.

StudyLDL-C (mg·dl-1)HDL-C (mg·dl-1)TC (mg·dl-1)TG (mg·dl-1)ApoA1ApoB

Zhu et al. [36] (ATO)
(PLA)
NA (ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
NANA
Tunçez et al. [37] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)

(ATO)
(ROS)
NANANA
Thondapu et al. [38] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
NANA
Mostafa et al. [17] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
188 (ATO)#
153 (ROS)#
NANA
Zhao and Peng [24]161.9748.64245.69177.111.45 mmol·l-11.20 mmol·l-1
Canas et al. [39] (PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
mmol·l-1
(PLA)
(ATO)
mmol·l-1
Aydin et al. [40] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
mg·dl-1
(ATO)
(ROS)
mg·dl-1
Moezzi et al. [18] (PLA)
(SIM)
(PLA)
(SIM)
(PLA)
(SIM)
1.24 (PLA)#
1.325 (SIM)#
NANA
Correa et al. [41] (PLA)
(SIM)
(PLA)
(SIM)
(PLA)
(SIM)
(PLA)
(SIM)
NANA
Koh et al. [42] (PLA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
(PLA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
(PLA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
(PLA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
(PLA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
mg·dl-1
(PLA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
mg·dl-1
Nozue et al. [43] (PIT)
(PRA)
(PIT)
(PRA)
(PIT)
(PRA)
(PIT)
(PRA)
(PIT)
(PRA)
mg·dl-1
(PIT)
(PRA)
mg·dl-1
Nohara et al. [44] (ROS)
(PRA)
(ROS)
(PRA)
NA (ROS)
(PRA)
NANA
Lee et al. [45] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
NANA
Nicholls et al. [46] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
130 (ATO)#
128 (ROS)#
(ATO)
(ROS)
mg·dl-1
(ATO)
(ROS)
mg·dl-1
Saku et al. [47] (ATO)
(ROS)
(PIT)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(PIT)
NA (ATO)
(ROS)
(PIT)
NANA
Hernández et al. [19] (PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
125 (PLA)#
128 (ATO)#
NANA
Tsutamoto et al. [48] (ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
1 (ATO)
NA (ROS)
(ATO)
NANA
Shimabukuro et al. [49] (PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
g·l-1
(PIT)
(ATO)
g·l-1
Bulbulia et al. [50] (PLA)
(SIM)
NA (PLA)
(SIM)
NANANA
Sansanayudh et al. [51] (PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
(PIT)
(ATO)
NANA
Bellia et al. [52] (SIM)
(ROS)
(SIM)
(ROS)
(SIM)
(ROS)
124.79 (SIM)
128.33 (ROS)
NANA
Su et al. [53] (SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
NANA
Ose et al. [25]183.85 (PIT)
184.05 (SIM)
52.06 (PIT)
51.66 (SIM)
267.80 (PIT)
267.69 (SIM)
160.03 (PIT)
160.21 (SIM)
162.56 (PIT)
162.56 (SIM)
mg·dl-1
160.74 (PIT)
162.64 (SIM)
mg·dl-1
Kurabayashi et al. [54] (ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
NANA
Young et al. [55] (ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
NANA
Kyeong et al. [56] (ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
(ROS)
(ATO)
mg·dl-1
(ROS)
(ATO)
mg·dl-1
Kom et al. [57] (PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
NANANA
Marketou et al. [58] (ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
NANA
Pedersen et al. [59] (SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
g·l-1
(SIM)
(ATO)
g·l-1
Sirtori et al. [60] (ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
mg·dl-1
(ATO)
(PRA)
mg·dl-1
Nissen et al. [61] (PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
(PRA)
(ATO)
NA (PRA)
(ATO)
mg·dl-1
Durazzo et al. [20] (ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
128 (ATO)#
156.18 (PLA)#
NANA
Bevilacqua et al. [62] (FLU)
(ATO)
(FLU)
(ATO)
NA (FLU)
(ATO)
NANA
Schwartz et al. [26] (ROS 5 mg)
(ROS 10 mg)
(ATO)
(ROS 5 mg)
(ROS 10 mg)
(ATO)
(ROS 5 mg)
(ROS 10 mg)
(ATO)
(ROS 5 mg)
(ROS 10 mg)
(ATO)
(ROS 5 mg)
(ROS 10 mg)
(ATO)
mg·dl-1
(ROS 5 mg)
(ROS 10 mg)
(ATO)
mg·dl-1
Colhoun et al. [63] (PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
147.80 (PLA)#
150.45 (ATO)#
(PLA)
(ATO)
mg·l-1
(PLA)
(ATO)
mg·l-1
Wissen et al. [64] (SIM) (ATO) (SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
NANA
Isaacsohn et al. [27]NANANA405 #NANA
McCrindle et al. [65] (ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
(ATO)
(PLA)
g·l-1
(ATO)
(PLA)
g·l-1
Kadikoylu et al. [66] (ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
(ATO)
(SIM)
NANA
Manue