Statin Use and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies
Keming Yang,Andrew R. Marley,Huilin Tang,Yiqing Song,Jean Y. Tang,Jiali Han
2017-01-01
Abstract:// Keming Yang 1 , Andrew Marley 1 , Huilin Tang 1 , Yiqing Song 1 , Jean Y. Tang 2 and Jiali Han 1 1 Department of Epidemiology, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202-2872, USA 2 Department of Dermatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94063, USA Correspondence to: Jiali Han, email: jialhan@iu.edu Keywords: statins, non-melanoma skin cancer, meta-analysis Received: June 26, 2017 Accepted: July 26, 2017 Published: August 08, 2017 ABSTRACT Background: Existing evidence of the association between statin use and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk has been inconsistent. Objective: To maximize statistical power to synthesize prospective evidence on this relationship. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrial.gov were systematically searched up to December 11, 2016. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to calculate summary estimates. Results: Our meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 63,157 subjects showed no significant association between statin use and NMSC risk (RR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.85–1.39). However, meta-analysis of four observational studies including 1,528,215 participants showed significantly increased risk of NMSC among statin users compared to non-users (RR = 1.11, 95%CI = 1.02–1.22). Furthermore, ever using lipophilic statins (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.04–1.24) or lower-potency statins (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.03–1.26), as well as usage of any statin longer than one year (RR = 1.14, 95%CI = 1.09–1.18) were significantly associated with increased NMSC risk based on observational studies. Conclusions: Evidence from observational studies supported an association between statin use and increased NMSC risk. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to modest number of included studies, possible between-study heterogeneity and inherent limitations of observational studies.