Skip to main content
Journal of Cancer logoLink to Journal of Cancer
. 2016 Sep 13;7(13):1892–1900. doi: 10.7150/jca.15779

Statins Dose-Dependently Exert Significant Chemopreventive Effects Against Various Cancers in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Chun-Chao Chen 1,*, Yi-Ping Hsu 1,*, Ju-Chi Liu 1,4,*, Pai-Feng Kao 1,4, Li-Chin Sung 1,4, Chao-Feng Lin 1, Wen-Rui Hao 1, Shing-Hwa Liu 2, Szu-Yuan Wu 2,3,4,5,
PMCID: PMC5039374  PMID: 27698930

Abstract

PURPOSE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with an increased cancer risk. We evaluated the chemopreventive effect of statins against all cancers in COPD patients and identified the statin with the strongest chemopreventive effect.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients diagnosed with COPD at health care facilities in Taiwan (n = 116,017) from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2012, were recruited. Each patient was followed to assess the following protective and risk factors for all cancers: age; sex; comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia) and the Charlson comorbidity index [CCI]); urbanization level; monthly income; and nonstatin drug use. The index date of statins use was the date of COPD confirmation. Propensity scores (PSs) were derived using a logistic regression model to estimate the effect of statins by considering the covariates predicting intervention (statins) receipt. To examine the dose-response relationship, we categorized statin use into four groups in each cohort (<28 [statin nonusers], 28-90, 91-365, and >365 cumulative defined daily dose).

RESULTS: After PS adjustment for age, sex, CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income, we analyzed the all-cancer risk. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the all-cancer risk were lower among statin users than among statin nonusers (aHR = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.43 to 0.50). The aHRs for the all-cancer risk were lower among patients using rosuvastatin, simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and fluvastatin than among statin nonusers (aHRs = 0.42, 0.55, 0.59, 0.66, and 0.78, respectively). Sensitivity analysis indicated that statins dose-dependently reduced the all-cancer risk.

CONCLUSION: Statins dose-dependently exert a significant chemopreventive effect against various cancers in COPD patients. In particular, rosuvastatin has the strongest chemopreventive effect.

Keywords: statin, COPD, cancer.

Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory condition characterized by airflow limitation 1 and airway and systemic inflammation. 2 Inflammation alone or combined with other factors influences cancer risk in humans 3; the most common link between inflammation and cancer risk in COPD patients is aberrant inflammation and immunity. 4 COPD is primarily caused by smoking. However, COPD has been independently associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and is probably associated with the inflammation and scarring accompanying COPD development. 5, 6 In COPD patients, oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels are high and are associated with lung function, inflammation, and oxidative stress. 7

Lipid metabolism disorders are risk factors for several cancers.8-10 In COPD patients, a common potential mechanism by which major risk factors such as smoking, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and hypertension lead to chronic diseases is systemic inflammation.11, 12 A meta-analysis of 28 case-control studies and 17 observational cohort studies revealed an increased lung cancer risk associated with an affected relative risk of 1.8.13 Taken together, COPD patients are at a high risk of cancers throughout their lives.

Statin therapy has various effects that may contribute to reducing the cancer risk, such as anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antiplatelet effects as well as lipid modification.14-17 Reduced monocyte adhesion to the endothelium, reduced oxidative stress modification of LDLs, and increased mobilization and differentiation of endothelial progenitor cells also are potential benefits of lipid-lowering therapy.18, 19 Thus, statins can be chemopreventive agents for COPD patients with chronic systemic inflammation and hyperlipidemia. Some meta-analyses of randomized trials have consistently revealed that statins do not affect cancer incidence and cancer mortality; however, this may be because of the selection of study populations that are not at a high cancer risk. 20, 21

In this study, we evaluated the chemopreventive effects of statins against all cancers in COPD patients, who are at a high risk of cancer because of chronic systemic inflammation, hyperlipidemia, and higher oxidative stress. In addition, we investigated the dose-dependence of this chemopreventive effect and evaluated the potential of anticancer effects of different types of statins.

Patients and Methods

The National Health Insurance (NHI) program, established in 1995, currently provides comprehensive health insurance coverage to 98% of the more than 23 million people in Taiwan. We used data from the NHI Research Database (NHIRD). Distributions of age, sex, and health care costs in the NHIRD and among NHI enrollees do not differ significantly. Data that can be used to identify patients or care providers, including the names of medical institutions and physicians, are encrypted before being sent to the National Health Research Institutes for inclusion in the NHIRD. The institutes further encrypt the data before releasing the database to researchers. Theoretically, the NHIRD data alone is insufficient to identify any individual. All researchers using the NHIRD and its data subsets must sign a written agreement declaring that they have no intention of attempting to obtain information that could potentially violate the privacy of patients or care providers. 22

Our study cohort comprised all patients diagnosed with COPD (according to International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] codes) at health care facilities in Taiwan (n = 116,017) between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2012. We excluded patients without a subsequent outpatient visit, emergency department visit, or inpatient hospitalization for COPD within 12 months of the first presentation (n = 48,212); these patients were considered to not have COPD (Fig 1). We also excluded 15,436 patients aged younger than 40 years (n = 52,369) and had any cancer-related inpatient or outpatient diagnoses before the index date (n = 5,353) or had been prescribed any statins within 6 months before the index date (n = 3,214).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Patient selection flowchart.

Our final study cohort contained 43,802 patients diagnosed with COPD in Taiwan over the 11-year period; of these, 10,086 used statins and 33,716 did not (Table 1). Each patient was followed to assess the risk and protective factors for all cancers. In addition, we considered factors such as demographic characteristics (age and sex); comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia) and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI); urbanization level; monthly income; and the use of nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, metformin, aspirin, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI). The index date of statin use was the date of COPD confirmation. Because we aimed to evaluate the preventive effects of statin use in COPD patients having a high all-cancer risk, the primary endpoint was the all-cancer risk and the secondary endpoints were the differential benefits of various doses and types of statins. The defined daily dose (DDD)—recommended by the World Health Organization—is a measure of the prescribed drug amount. DDD is the assumed average maintenance dose per day of a drug consumed for its main indication in adults. 23 To examine the dose-response relationship, we categorized statin use into four groups in each cohort (<28, 28-90, 91-365, and >365 cumulative DDDs [cDDDs]) because the duration of the refill card was 3 months. Patients receiving <28 cDDDs were defined as statin nonusers (Tables 2-4). 24 Furthermore, to examine the preventive effect of different types of statins, we categorized statin use into different individual statin use groups in each cohort (Table 3).

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Sample Population.

Entire cohort
(n = 43,802)
Patients using statins (≥28 cDDDs; n = 10,086) Patients not using statins (<28 cDDDs; n = 33,716) P a
n % n % n %
Age, years (mean ± SD) 62.92 (13.18) 61.55 (10.97) 63.33 (13.74) <0.001
40-54 14458 33.01 3180 31.53 11278 33.45 <0.001
55-64 9644 22.02 2899 28.74 6745 20.01
65-74 10455 23.87 2777 27.53 7678 22.77
≥75 9245 21.11 1230 12.20 8015 23.77
Sex
Female 19715 45.01 5150 51.06 14565 43.20 <0.001
Male 24087 54.99 4936 48.94 19151 56.80
CCI+
0 11279 25.75 2586 25.64 8693 25.78 <0.001
1 12597 28.76 3014 29.88 9583 28.42
2 9075 20.72 2195 21.76 6880 20.41
≥3 10851 24.77 2291 22.71 8560 25.39
Diabetes
No 33491 76.46 6819 67.61 26672 79.11 <0.001
Yes 10311 23.54 3267 32.39 7044 20.89
Hypertension
No 22067 50.38 4158 41.23 17909 53.12 <0.001
Yes 21735 49.62 5928 58.77 15807 46.88
Dyslipidemia
No 31731 72.44 5785 57.36 25946 76.95 <0.001
Yes 12071 27.56 4301 42.64 7770 23.05
Nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs
<28 days 39267 89.65 7212 71.51 32055 95.07 <0.001
28-365 days 3186 7.27 1923 19.07 1263 3.75
>365 days 1349 3.08 951 9.43 398 1.18
Metformin
<28 days 35961 82.10 6286 62.32 29675 88.01 <0.001
28-365 days 2684 6.13 964 9.56 1720 5.10
>365 days 5157 11.77 2836 28.12 2321 6.88
ACEI
<28 days 23928 54.63 3066 30.40 20862 61.88 <0.001
28-365 days 7925 18.09 1928 19.12 5997 17.79
>365 days 11949 27.28 5092 50.49 6857 20.34
Aspirin
<28 days 28319 64.65 4161 41.26 24158 71.65 <0.001
28-365 days 7385 16.86 2296 22.76 5089 15.09
>365 days 8098 18.49 3629 35.98 4469 13.25
Urbanization level
Urban 30539 69.72 7208 71.47 23331 69.20 <0.001
Suburban 8914 20.35 1920 19.04 6994 20.74
Rural 4349 9.93 958 9.50 3391 10.06
Monthly income (NT$)
0 3464 7.91 795 7.88 2669 7.92 <0.001
1-21000 15001 34.25 3067 30.41 11934 35.40
21000-33300 12904 29.46 3165 31.38 9739 28.89
≥33301 12433 28.38 3059 30.33 9374 27.80

a Comparison between statin use and no statin use.

+CCI: Charlson comorbidity index.

Table 2.

All-Cancer Risk in Statin Users and Nonusers in the Study Cohort.

Entire cohort
(n = 43,802)
Patients not using statins
(Total follow-up: 194,933.6 person-years)
Patients using statins
(Total follow-up: 80,239.4 person-years)
aHR†
(95% CI)
No. of patients
with any cancer
Incidence rate (per 105 person-years)
(95% CI)
No. of patients
with any cancer
Incidence rate (per 105 person-years)
(95% CI)
Entire cohort
5279 2708.1 (2635.0, 2781.2) 964 1201.4 (1125.6, 1277.2) 0.46(0.43, 0.50)***
Age, 40-64 yearsa
2172 1868.7 (1790.1, 1947.3) 449 889.5 (807.3, 971.8) 0.43(0.39, 0.48)***
Age, 65-74 yearsb
1665 3732.1 (3552.8, 3911.4) 350 1607.1 (1438.7, 1775.5) 0.45(0.40, 0.50)***
Age, ≥75 yearsc
1442 4229.7 (4011.4, 4448.0) 165 2066.3 (1751.1, 2381.6) 0.51(0.43, 0.60)***
Femaled
1874 2144.4 (2047.3, 2241.5) 423 1011.3 (914.9, 1107.6) 0.44(0.40, 0.50)***
Malee
3405 3166.2 (3059.8, 3272.5) 541 1408.5 (1289.8, 1527.1) 0.48(0.43, 0.52)***

aTotal follow-up 116228.5 person-year for patients not using statins and 50476.0 for patients using statins.

bTotal follow-up 44612.9 person-year for patients not using statins and 21778.3 for patients using statins.

cTotal follow-up 34092.2 person-year for patients not using statins and 7985.1 for patients using statins.

dTotal follow-up 87389.9 person-year for patients not using statins and 41828.7 for patients using statins.

eTotal follow-up 107543.7 person-year for patients not using statins and 38410.7 for patients using statins.

C.I.: confidence interval

HR: adjusted hazard ratio

†Main model was adjusted using propensity scores for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income.

Table 4.

Sensitivity Analysis of aHRs of Statin Use for Reduction of the All-Cancer Risk.

Statin use
aHR (95% CI)
P for Trend
<28 cDDDs 28-90 cDDDs 91-365 cDDDs >365 cDDDs
Main model† 1.00 0.65(0.58, 0.73)*** 0.54(0.48, 0.60)*** 0.32(0.29, 0.36)*** <0.001
Additional covariates
Main model + Nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs 1.00 0.66(0.59, 0.74)*** 0.56(0.50, 0.62)*** 0.34(0.30, 0.38)*** <0.001
Main model + Metformin 1.00 0.65(0.58, 0.73)*** 0.55(0.49, 0.61)*** 0.34(0.30, 0.38)*** <0.001
Main model + ACEI 1.00 0.66(0.59, 0.74)*** 0.58(0.52, 0.65)*** 0.38(0.34, 0.42)*** <0.001
Main model + Aspirin 1.00 0.66(0.59, 0.74)*** 0.57(0.51, 0.63)*** 0.35(0.32, 0.40)*** <0.001
Subgroup effects
Age, years
40-64 1.00 0.65(0.55, 0.77)*** 0.50(0.43, 0.59)*** 0.29(0.25, 0.34)*** <0.001
65-74 1.00 0.64(0.52, 0.79)*** 0.54(0.45, 0.64)*** 0.31(0.26, 0.37)*** <0.001
≥75 1.00 0.67(0.51, 0.87)** 0.54(0.42, 0.71)*** 0.37(0.28, 0.49)*** <0.001
Sex
Female 1.00 0.61(0.51, 0.74)*** 0.52(0.44, 0.62)*** 0.33(0.28, 0.39)*** <0.001
Male 1.00 0.69(0.59, 0.80)*** 0.56(0.48, 0.64)*** 0.32(0.27, 0.37)*** <0.001
CCI+
0 1.00 0.63(0.50, 0.80)*** 0.51(0.41, 0.64)*** 0.29(0.23, 0.36)*** <0.001
1 1.00 0.65(0.53, 0.81)*** 0.56(0.46, 0.68)*** 0.32(0.26, 0.39)*** <0.001
2 1.00 0.60(0.47, 0.77)*** 0.49(0.38, 0.63)*** 0.31(0.24, 0.40)*** <0.001
≥3 1.00 0.67(0.53, 0.85)** 0.53(0.42, 0.66)*** 0.32(0.26, 0.41)*** <0.001
Diabetes
No 1.00 0.66(0.58, 0.76)*** 0.53(0.46, 0.61)*** 0.31(0.27, 0.36)*** <0.001
Yes 1.00 0.60(0.48, 0.76)*** 0.52(0.43, 0.62)*** 0.32(0.26, 0.38)*** <0.001
Dyslipidemia
No 1.00 0.63(0.54, 0.73)*** 0.52(0.45, 0.61)*** 0.28(0.24, 0.33)*** <0.001
Yes 1.00 0.67(0.55, 0.82)*** 0.54(0.46, 0.64)*** 0.36(0.31, 0.43)*** <0.001
Hypertension
No 1.00 0.73(0.62, 0.86)*** 0.53(0.44, 0.63)*** 0.28(0.23, 0.34)*** <0.001
Yes 1.00 0.58(0.49, 0.69)*** 0.52(0.45, 0.60)*** 0.32(0.28, 0.37)*** <0.001
Nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs
<28 days 1.00 0.64(0.56, 0.73)*** 0.55(0.49, 0.63)*** 0.32(0.28, 0.37)*** <0.001
28-365 days 1.00 0.89(0.65, 1.20) 0.58(0.44, 0.77)*** 0.36(0.27, 0.47)*** <0.001
>365 days 1.00 0.62(0.30, 1.28) 0.76(0.47, 1.23) 0.49(0.32, 0.76)** 0.002
Metformin
<28 days 1.00 0.65(0.56, 0.74)*** 0.55(0.48, 0.62)*** 0.31(0.27, 0.36)*** <0.001
28-365 days 1.00 0.76(0.54, 1.07) 0.39(0.26, 0.58)*** 0.35(0.24, 0.52)*** <0.001
>365 days 1.00 0.77(0.54, 1.09) 0.81(0.64, 1.03) 0.45(0.36, 0.55)*** <0.001
ACEI
<28 days 1.00 0.65(0.54, 0.77)*** 0.54(0.45, 0.65)*** 0.38(0.30, 0.48)*** <0.001
28-365 days 1.00 0.75(0.61, 0.93)* 0.60(0.48, 0.76)*** 0.30(0.22, 0.41)*** <0.001
>365 days 1.00 0.81(0.64, 1.02) 0.81(0.67, 0.96)* 0.51(0.43, 0.59)*** <0.001
Aspirin
<28 days 1.00 0.63(0.53, 0.74)*** 0.53(0.44, 0.62)*** 0.35(0.29, 0.42)*** <0.001
28-365 days 1.00 0.69(0.55, 0.86)** 0.65(0.52, 0.81)*** 0.30(0.23, 0.40)*** <0.001
>365 days 1.00 0.96(0.74, 1.25) 0.78(0.63, 0.96)* 0.51(0.43, 0.61)*** <0.001

*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

aHR: adjusted hazard ratio

+CCI: Charlson comorbidity index

†Main model was adjusted using propensity scores for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income.

‡Models were adjusted for covariates in the main model as well as each additional listed covariate.

Table 3.

Incidence Rate and aHRs of the All-Cancer Risk Associated with Statin Use During the Follow-Up Period in COPD Patients.

Variable No. ofpatients No. of person-years No. of patients with
any cancer
Incidence Rate
(per 105 person-years)
(95% CI)
aHR
(95%CI)
P for
Trend
Total statin use
Nonuser (<28 cDDDs) 33716 194933.6 5279 2708.1 (2635.0, 2781.2) 1.00 <0.001
User (≥28 cDDDs) 10086 80239.4 964 1201.4 (1125.6, 1277.2) 0.46(0.43, 0.50)***
28-90 cDDDs 2346 17095.6 294 1719.7 (1523.2, 1916.3) 0.65(0.58, 0.73)***
91-365 cDDDs 3215 24193.1 343 1417.8 (1267.7, 1567.8) 0.54(0.48, 0.60)***
>365 cDDDs 4525 38950.7 327 839.5 (748.5, 930.5) 0.32(0.29, 0.36)***
Lipophilia statin use†
Nonuser (<28 cDDDs) 35008 204288.0 5379 2633.0 (2562.7, 2703.4) 1.00 <0.001
User (≥28 cDDDs) 8794 70885.0 864 1218.9 (1137.6, 1300.2) 0.57(0.53, 0.61)***
28-90 cDDDs 2296 17069.8 270 1581.7 (1393.1, 1770.4) 0.67(0.59, 0.75)***
91-365 cDDDs 3012 23258.7 332 1427.4 (1273.9, 1581.0) 0.65(0.58, 0.73)***
>365 cDDDs 3486 30556.4 262 857.4 (753.6, 961.3) 0.42(0.37, 0.48)***
Hydrophilia statin use†
Nonuser (<28 cDDDs) 39878 242812.7 5974 2460.3 (2397.9, 2522.7) 1.00 <0.001
User (≥28 cDDDs) 3924 32360.4 269 831.3 (731.9, 930.6) 0.48(0.42, 0.55)***
28-90 cDDDs 1122 8876.1 102 1149.2 (926.1, 1372.2) 0.62(0.51, 0.75)***
91-365 cDDDs 1531 12432.2 94 756.1 (603.2, 909.0) 0.45(0.36, 0.55)***
>365 cDDDs 1271 11052.0 73 660.5 (509.0, 812.0) 0.40(0.31, 0.50)***
Individual statin use
(≥28 cDDDs )‡
Simvastatin 3418 28625.0 257 897.8 (788.0, 1007.6) 0.55(0.49, 0.63)***
Lovastatin 2109 18281.5 262 1433.1 (1259.6, 1606.7) 0.92(0.81, 1.04)
Atorvastatin 5484 44678.1 484 1083.3 (986.8, 1179.8) 0.59(0.54, 0.65)***
Fluvastatin 1510 12855.7 151 1174.6 (987.2, 1361.9) 0.78(0.66, 0.92)**
Pravastatin 1501 12654.5 122 964.1 (793.0, 1135.2) 0.66(0.55, 0.79)***
Rosuvastatin 2741 22641.7 158 697.8 (589.0, 806.6) 0.42(0.36, 0.49)***

Main model was adjusted using propensity scores for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income.

†Lipophilia statins included simvastatin, lovastatin, atorvastatin, and fluvastatin. Hydrophilia statins include pravastatin and rosuvastatin.

‡HRs for individual statins were compared between users (≥28 cDDDs) and nonusers (<28 cDDDs).

Propensity scores (PSs) were derived using a logistic regression model to estimate the effect of statins by accounting for the covariates predicting receiving the intervention (statins). This method is commonly used in observational studies to reduce selection bias. 25 The covariates in the main model were PS adjusted for age, sex, CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income in New Taiwan dollars (NT$0, NT$1-21,000, NT$21,000-33,300; and ≥NT$33,301; Table 2). The endpoint for both statin users and nonusers was the diagnosis of all cancers (ICD-9-CM 140-209) with a subsequent outpatient visit, emergency department visit, or inpatient hospitalization for any cancer within 12 months of diagnosis; the nonusers were used as the reference arm. The cumulative incidence of any cancer in the two groups was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

A time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HRs) of the all-cancer risk in the statin users and nonusers. The HRs were adjusted for age, sex, CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income in the multivariate analysis. A stratified analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of statin use on age and sex (Table 2). All analyses were conducted using SAS software (Version 9.3; SAS, Cary, NC, USA); two-tailed P < 0.05 was considered significant. In sensitivity analyses, external adjustments are used to improve the understanding of the effects of drugs and other covariates in epidemiological database studies. 26 Hence, in our sensitivity analyses, data were adjusted in different models to estimate the association of all-cancer incidence with age, sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, CCI, anxiety disorder, and the use of nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, metformin, aspirin, and ACEI. The drug use-stratified models were adjusted for covariates in the main model and for each additional covariate (Table 4).

Results

Our COPD cohort comprised 43,802 patients; of these, 10,086 (30%) used statins and the remaining 33,716 (70%) did not (Table 1). The total follow-up duration was 194,933.6 and 80,239.4 person-years for the statin nonusers and users, respectively. Compared with the statin nonusers, the statin users exhibited a higher prevalence of pre-existing medical comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, and a higher CCI (all P < 0.001). In addition, significant differences were observed between the two groups in the distributions of age, sex, monthly income, and urbanization level as well as the use of nonstatin lipid-lowering drug, aspirin, ACEI, and metformin (Table 1). A higher proportion of statin nonusers used nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, metformin, ACEI, and aspirin for <28 days; however, most statin users used these drugs for >365 days. A lower proportion of statin nonusers had a monthly income of ≥NT$33,301 or resided in urban areas. Table 2 shows the all-cancer risk among the statin nonusers and users. After PS adjustment for age, sex, CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income, we analyzed the all-cancer risk. The adjusted HRs (aHRs) for the all-cancer risk were lower among the statin users than among the statin nonusers (aHR = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.50). The stratified analysis showed that the aHRs were significantly lower in the statin users, particularly those aged 40-74 years, regardless of sex. Specifically, the aHRs for the all-cancer risk were lower in the statin users than in the statin nonusers for every age group (40-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years; aHRs = 0.43, 0.45, and 0.51, respectively). The statin users also exhibited lower aHRs for the all-cancer risk than the statin nonusers did, after sex stratification (women: aHR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.50; men: aHR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.52).

Statins dose-dependently reduced the all-cancer risk in different cDDD subgroups; the main model was PS adjusted for age, sex, CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, and monthly income (Table 3). Lipophilia statins comprised simvastatin, lovastatin, atorvastatin, and fluvastatin, whereas hydrophilia statins comprised pravastatin and rosuvastatin. Table 3 presents the all-cancer risk reduction demonstrated by lipophilia and hydrophilia statins in patients with COPD along with the doses and responses (P for trend < 0.001). Among individual statins, lovastatin did not reduce the all-cancer risk in patients with COPD significantly. The aHRs for the all-cancer risk in patients using rosuvastatin, simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and fluvastatin were lower than those of statin nonusers (aHRs = 0.42, 0.55, 0.59, 0.66 and 0.78, respectively). Our results revealed that individual statins reduced the all-cancer risk at varying efficacies among COPD patients.

In the sensitivity analysis, PS adjustments were made to estimate the associations of age, sex, CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization level, monthly income, and nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, metformin, ACEI, and aspirin use with the incidence of all cancers in different models. Table 4 shows that the effects of statins remained significant in the subgroups of various covariates when the main model was adjusted for PSs. Statins dose-dependently reduced the all-cancer risk in all subgroups and the main model with additional covariates (nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, metformin, ACEI, or aspirin use). All aHRs indicated that statins dose-dependently induced significant reductions in the all-cancer risk in all subgroups, regardless of comorbidities or drug use (P < 0.001). Thus, our data revealed that statins show a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect against all cancers.

Discussion

Recently, interest in the function of systemic inflammation in COPD has been increasing.27-31 Epidemiological studies have shown that elevated levels of systemic inflammatory markers, particularly C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6, and fibrinogen, predict poor outcomes in COPD, including accelerated lung function loss, stronger infective exacerbation propensity, and higher mortality.32-34 The prevalence of smoking is considerably high among COPD patients: 54%-77% among mild COPD patients and 38%-51% among severe COPD patients.35-38 A 25-year follow-up study of a general population in the Danish Death Register revealed that 92% of the COPD patients have a current or past history of smoking.39 Smoking reduces the serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels and impairs HDL function by reducing its antioxidant and anti-inflammatory capacity and impeding the cellular cholesterol efflux.40, 41 Statins reduce CRP levels, independent of their effects on lipids,42, 43 thus potentially preventing cancers among COPD patients with systemic inflammation and lipid disorder.

Cancers are the leading causes of death in Taiwan. 44 Age is a major risk factor for sporadic cancer. In this study, the strongest chemopreventive effect against all cancers was observed in COPD patients aged 40-75 years (Table 2). Thus, in Taiwan, statins may have favorable chemoprevention effects in COPD patients at higher all-cancer risk owing to their age. After sex stratification, the aHRs in statin users were lower than statin nonusers (women: aHR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.72; men: aHR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.40 to 0.50). A similar effect of reduction in the all-cancer risk was observed among COPD patients, regardless of their sex.

In this study, statins reduced the all-cancer risk in COPD patients with dose-dependently regardless of lipophilia or hydrophilia statin use. This is the first article to estimate the dose-dependent chemopreventive effect of statins against all cancers in COPD patients. Hydrophilia statins (aHR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.55) appeared to have a stronger potential anticancer effect because their moderate dose (91-365 cDDDs) could more sufficiently reduce cancer incidence compared with lipophilia statins (aHR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.73). On estimating the chemopreventive effects of individual statins against all cancers, we observed the following: the aHRs for the all-cancer risk among patients using rosuvastatin, simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and fluvastatin differed (aHRs = 0.42, 0.55, 0.59, 0.66, and 0.78, respectively). Individual statins reduced the all-cancer risk at varying efficacies among COPD patients. The anticancer efficacies of different statins may be compatible with their lipid-lowering ability. In our study, rosuvastatin had the most predominant chemoprevention effect against all cancers in COPD patients. Rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin also caused the highest percent change in LDL-cholesterol levels. Rosuvastatin is slightly more potent than is atorvastatin, and both these agents are significantly more potent than simvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and fluvastatin.45, 46 At maximal prescribed doses, the reduction in LDL levels is larger with rosuvastatin and atorvastatin than with the other available statins.47 This study is the first to estimate the anticancer efficacies of statins and compatible with the potency of for lowering LDL levels. These outcomes can indicate a statin ideal for further clinical studies

A higher proportion of statins nonuser used nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, metformin, ACEI, and aspirin for <28 cDDDs; however, most statin users used these for ≥28 cDDDs. If moderate to high cDDDs (28-365 or >365 cDDDs) of aspirin, metformin, and ACEI are used, the chemopreventive effect of statins against the all cancer risk will be masked (Table 4). If statin dose is increased to >365 cDDDs, the aHRs of statins for reducing all-cancer risk in COPD patients were significant in our sensitivity analysis. These outcomes might explain the independent chemopreventive effect of aspirin, metformin, ACEI, nonstatin lipid-lowering drugs, and statins.48, 49 However, the anticancer effects of statins, associated with anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiplatelet, and lipid modification effects, cannot be replaced by aspirin, metformin, ACEI, and nonstatin lipid-lowering drug use.14-16 This is also the first study to propose that statins exerts dose-response and chemopreventive effects against all cancers in COPD patients.

However, this study has potential limitations. The bias of additional risk factors associated with COPD and all cancers, including a personal or family history of sporadic cancers, obesity, alcohol use, physical activity, and smoking, could not be eliminated. A large-scale randomized trial with a suitable regimen in well-selected patients comparing standard approaches is required for obtaining this crucial information. However, methodological concerns may obscure the precise relationship between these factors and cancer risk. In our study, we used PSs to match age, sex, the CCI, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, urbanization levels, and monthly income. The urbanization level and monthly income are invalidated alternatives for lifestyle factors and the environmental level. Moreover, the diagnoses of all cancers and other comorbidities were completely dependent on the ICD-9-CM codes. Nevertheless, the NHI Administration randomly reviews medical records and interviews patients to validate diagnoses, and hospitals with outlier diagnoses and practices may be audited and subsequently penalized heavily if malpractice and discrepancies are discovered. Another limitation of this study is that information on several unmeasured confounders, such as body mass index, smoking, alcohol use, and other over-the-counter drug use—which are associated with cancers—is unavailable in the NHIRD. However, considering the magnitude and significance of the observed effects, it is unlikely that these limitations have compromised the results. Finally, because our study is not a prospective randomized blinded study, a cause-effect relationship could not be established. The findings of this study suggest that statins dose-dependently exert a significant chemopreventive effect against all cancers in COPD patients. Additional randomized studies are required to verify these findings.

Conclusions

Statins dose-dependently exert a significant chemopreventive effect against all cancers in COPD patients; in particular, rosuvastatin has the strongest chemopreventive effect.

References

  • 1.Gershon AS, Warner L, Cascagnette P, Victor JC, To T. Lifetime risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a longitudinal population study. Lancet. 2011;378:991–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60990-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sin DD, Paul Man SF. Cooling the fire within: inhaled corticosteroids and cardiovascular mortality in COPD. Chest. 2006;130:629–31. doi: 10.1378/chest.130.3.629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Thompson PA, Khatami M, Baglole CJ, Sun J, Harris SA, Moon EY. et al. Environmental immune disruptors, inflammation and cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2015;36(Suppl 1):S232–53. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgv038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bozinovski S, Vlahos R, Anthony D, McQualter J, Anderson G, Irving L. et al. COPD and squamous cell lung cancer: aberrant inflammation and immunity is the common link. British journal of pharmacology. 2016;173:635–48. doi: 10.1111/bph.13198. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hole DJ, Watt GC, Davey-Smith G, Hart CL, Gillis CR, Hawthorne VM. Impaired lung function and mortality risk in men and women: findings from the Renfrew and Paisley prospective population study. Bmj. 1996;313:711–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7059.711. discussion 5-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kuller LH, Ockene J, Meilahn E, Svendsen KH. Relation of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) to lung cancer mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) American journal of epidemiology. 1990;132:265–74. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shen Y, Yang T, Guo S, Li X, Chen L, Wang T. et al. Increased serum ox-LDL levels correlated with lung function, inflammation, and oxidative stress in COPD. Mediators of inflammation. 2013;2013:972347. doi: 10.1155/2013/972347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jung YS, Ryu S, Chang Y, Yun KE, Park JH, Kim HJ. et al. Associations Between Parameters of Glucose and Lipid Metabolism and Risk of Colorectal Neoplasm. Digestive diseases and sciences. 2015;60:2996–3004. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3713-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McDonnell DP, Park S, Goulet MT, Jasper J, Wardell SE, Chang CY. et al. Obesity, cholesterol metabolism, and breast cancer pathogenesis. Cancer research. 2014;74:4976–82. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1756. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chavarro JE, Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Loda M, Campos H, Sesso HD. et al. Blood levels of saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids as markers of de novo lipogenesis and risk of prostate cancer. American journal of epidemiology. 2013;178:1246–55. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sevenoaks MJ, Stockley RA. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, inflammation and co-morbidity-a common inflammatory phenotype? Respiratory research. 2006;7:70. doi: 10.1186/1465-9921-7-70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.MacNee W. Pulmonary and systemic oxidant/antioxidant imbalance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society. 2005;2:50–60. doi: 10.1513/pats.200411-056SF. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Matakidou A, Eisen T, Houlston RS. Systematic review of the relationship between family history and lung cancer risk. British journal of cancer. 2005;93:825–33. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pignatelli P, Carnevale R, Pastori D, Cangemi R, Napoleone L, Bartimoccia S. et al. Immediate antioxidant and antiplatelet effect of atorvastatin via inhibition of Nox2. Circulation. 2012;126:92–103. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.095554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ridker PM, Rifai N, Pfeffer MA, Sacks FM, Moye LA, Goldman S. et al. Inflammation, pravastatin, and the risk of coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) Investigators. Circulation. 1998;98:839–44. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.98.9.839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Horne BD, Muhlestein JB, Carlquist JF, Bair TL, Madsen TE, Hart NI. et al. Statin therapy, lipid levels, C-reactive protein and the survival of patients with angiographically severe coronary artery disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000;36:1774–80. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(00)00950-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cao C, Wu Y, Xu Z, Lv D, Zhang C, Lai T. et al. The effect of statins on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational research. Scientific reports. 2015;5:16461. doi: 10.1038/srep16461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hussein O, Schlezinger S, Rosenblat M, Keidar S, Aviram M. Reduced susceptibility of low density lipoprotein (LDL) to lipid peroxidation after fluvastatin therapy is associated with the hypocholesterolemic effect of the drug and its binding to the LDL. Atherosclerosis. 1997;128:11–8. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9150(96)05972-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Girona J, La Ville AE, Sola R, Plana N, Masana L. Simvastatin decreases aldehyde production derived from lipoprotein oxidation. The American journal of cardiology. 1999;83:846–51. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(98)01071-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, Holland LE, Reith C, Bhala N. et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010;376:1670–81. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61350-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dale KM, Coleman CI, Henyan NN, Kluger J, White CM. Statins and cancer risk: a meta-analysis. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2006;295:74–80. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.1.74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chen CI, Kuan CF, Fang YA, Liu SH, Liu JC, Wu LL. et al. Cancer risk in HBV patients with statin and metformin use: a population-based cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e462. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000462. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shao JY, Lee FP, Chang CL, Wu SY. Statin-Based Palliative Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1801. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Singh S, Singh PP. Statins for prevention of hepatocellular cancer: one step closer? Hepatology. 2014;59:724–6. doi: 10.1002/hep.26614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.D'Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in medicine. 1998;17:2265–81. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981015)17:19<2265::aid-sim918>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. 2006;15:291–303. doi: 10.1002/pds.1200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Young RP, Hopkins R, Eaton TE. Pharmacological actions of statins: potential utility in COPD. European respiratory review: an official journal of the European Respiratory Society. 2009;18:222–32. doi: 10.1183/09059180.00005309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sin DD, Man SF. Why are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases? The potential role of systemic inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Circulation. 2003;107:1514–9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000056767.69054.b3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Barnes PJ, Celli BR. Systemic manifestations and comorbidities of COPD. The European respiratory journal. 2009;33:1165–85. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00128008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Barr RG. The epidemiology of vascular dysfunction relating to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society. 2011;8:522–7. doi: 10.1513/pats.201101-008MW. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fabbri LM, Beghe B, Agusti A. Cardiovascular mechanisms of death in severe COPD exacerbation: time to think and act beyond guidelines. Thorax. 2011;66:745–7. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sin DD, Man SF. Interleukin-6: a red herring or a real catch in COPD? Chest. 2008;133:4–6. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-2085. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cazzola M, Page CP, Calzetta L, Matera MG. Emerging anti-inflammatory strategies for COPD. The European respiratory journal. 2012;40:724–41. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00213711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ahmad T, Mabalirajan U, Sharma A, Aich J, Makhija L, Ghosh B. et al. Simvastatin improves epithelial dysfunction and airway hyperresponsiveness: from asymmetric dimethyl-arginine to asthma. American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology. 2011;44:531–9. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2010-0041OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wedzicha JA, Calverley PM, Seemungal TA, Hagan G, Ansari Z, Stockley RA. The prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations by salmeterol/fluticasone propionate or tiotropium bromide. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine. 2008;177:19–26. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200707-973OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Vestbo J, Sorensen T, Lange P, Brix A, Torre P, Viskum K. Long-term effect of inhaled budesonide in mild and moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1819–23. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)10019-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Watson L, Vonk JM, Lofdahl CG, Pride NB, Pauwels RA, Laitinen LA. et al. Predictors of lung function and its decline in mild to moderate COPD in association with gender: results from the Euroscop study. Respiratory medicine. 2006;100:746–53. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Calverley PM, Anderson JA, Celli B, Ferguson GT, Jenkins C, Jones PW. et al. Salmeterol and fluticasone propionate and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The New England journal of medicine. 2007;356:775–89. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lokke A, Lange P, Scharling H, Fabricius P, Vestbo J. Developing COPD: a 25 year follow up study of the general population. Thorax. 2006;61:935–9. doi: 10.1136/thx.2006.062802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Rosenson RS, Brewer HB Jr, Ansell BJ, Barter P, Chapman MJ, Heinecke JW. et al. Dysfunctional HDL and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Nature reviews Cardiology. 2016;13:48–60. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2015.124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lipids and lipoproteins in symptomatic coronary heart disease. Distribution, intercorrelations, and significance for risk classification in 6,700 men and 1,500 women. The Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention (BIP) Study Group, Israel. Circulation. 1992;86:839–48. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.86.3.839. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Vernaglione L, Cristofano C, Muscogiuri P, Chimienti S. Does atorvastatin influence serum C-reactive protein levels in patients on long-term hemodialysis? American journal of kidney diseases: the official journal of the National Kidney Foundation. 2004;43:471–8. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2003.11.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kumar S, Raftery M, Yaqoob M, Fan SL. Anti-inflammatory effects of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors (statins) in peritoneal dialysis patients. Peritoneal dialysis international: journal of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis. 2007;27:283–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Health Promotion Administration MoHaW. Taiwan Cancer Registry report, 2011 edition. Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rosenson RS. Rosuvastatin: a new inhibitor of HMG-coA reductase for the treatment of dyslipidemia. Expert review of cardiovascular therapy. 2003;1:495–505. doi: 10.1586/14779072.1.4.495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jones PH, Davidson MH, Stein EA, Bays HE, McKenney JM, Miller E. et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across doses (STELLAR* Trial) The American journal of cardiology. 2003;92:152–60. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(03)00530-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Brown AS, Bakker-Arkema RG, Yellen L, Henley RW Jr, Guthrie R, Campbell CF. et al. Treating patients with documented atherosclerosis to National Cholesterol Education Program-recommended low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol goals with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998;32:665–72. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00300-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gronich N, Rennert G. Beyond aspirin-cancer prevention with statins, metformin and bisphosphonates. Nature reviews Clinical oncology. 2013;10:625–42. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Janne PA, Mayer RJ. Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 2000;342:1960–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006293422606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Ivyspring International Publisher

RESOURCES