-
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Apr 2023Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the life-threatening coronary-associated pathologies characterized by sudden cardiac death. The provision of complete insight into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the life-threatening coronary-associated pathologies characterized by sudden cardiac death. The provision of complete insight into MI complications along with designing a preventive program against MI seems necessary.
METHODS
Various databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Embase, and Google scholar search engine) were hired for comprehensive searching. The keywords of "Prevalence", "Outbreak", "Burden", "Myocardial Infarction", "Myocardial Infarct", and "Heart Attack" were hired with no time/language restrictions. Collected data were imported into the information management software (EndNote v.8x). Also, citations of all relevant articles were screened manually. The search was updated on 2022.9.13 prior to the publication.
RESULTS
Twenty-two eligible studies with a sample size of 2,982,6717 individuals (< 60 years) were included for data analysis. The global prevalence of MI in individuals < 60 years was found 3.8%. Also, following the assessment of 20 eligible investigations with a sample size of 5,071,185 individuals (> 60 years), this value was detected at 9.5%.
CONCLUSION
Due to the accelerated rate of MI prevalence in older ages, precise attention by patients regarding the complications of MI seems critical. Thus, determination of preventive planning along with the application of safe treatment methods is critical.
Topics: Humans; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 37087452
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03231-w -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2023To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of seven popular structured dietary programmes and risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions).
REVIEW METHODS
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016047939.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Risk Factors; Myocardial Infarction; Stroke; Diet, Fat-Restricted
PubMed: 36990505
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072003 -
JAMA Internal Medicine May 2022The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.
FINDINGS
Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 35285850
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 21 September 2016. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, including parallel group, cross-over or quasi-randomised designs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE principles and a Summary of findings table was created.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six new studies (624 participants) for this update, which now includes a total of 23 trials that randomised a total of 2890 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Participants had an acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation or heart failure. A number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias, in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported.No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in clinical primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: total mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.19, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1505; studies = 11/comparisons = 13; very low quality evidence), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.02; participants = 2255; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence), or health-related quality of life up to 24 months (not estimable). Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate quality evidence). However, there was evidence of marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR 1.04, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08; participants = 2615; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low quality evidence) by home-based participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update supports previous conclusions that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme may reflect local availability and consider the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in the included short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term and need to consider adequately powered non-inferiority or equivalence study designs.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Exercise Tolerance; Female; Heart Failure; Home Care Services; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Revascularization; Patient Dropouts; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rehabilitation Centers; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28665511
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007130.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have been associated with an increased risk of arterial thrombosis, i.e. myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke. However, as these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have been associated with an increased risk of arterial thrombosis, i.e. myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke. However, as these diseases are rare in young women and as many types of combined oral contraception exist, the magnitude of the risk and the effect of different hormonal contents of COC preparations remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke in users compared with non-users of different types, doses and generations of combined oral contraception.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE (1966 to July 08, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to July 08, 2015), Popline (1970 to July 08, 2015) and LILACS (1985 to July 08, 2015) for eligible studies, without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included observational studies that recruited women in the reproductive age group (18 to 50 years) and compared the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke between users and non-users of COCs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected relevant studies and extracted data. We pooled relative risks ()(combined odds ratios and one incidence rate ratio) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke in users versus non-users of COCs.We combined the outcomes of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke and also analysed these outcomes separately. Analyses were stratified according to estrogen dose and progestagen type.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we identified 1298 publications through the search strategy. We included 28 publications reporting on 24 studies. COC users were at increased risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke compared with non-users: relative risk (RR) 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-1.9).These RRs were similar for myocardial infarction (1.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.1) and ischemic stroke (1.7, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.9). The risks did not vary clearly according to the generation of progestagen or according to progestagen type. When we stratified preparations according to estrogen dose, the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke seemed to increase with higher doses of estrogen.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that the risk of myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke was 1.6-fold increased in women using COCs . The risk was highest for pills with > 50 microgram estrogen. When combined with the results of studies on the risk of venous thrombosis in COC users, it seems that the COC pill containing levonorgestrel and 30 μg of estrogen is the safest oral form of hormonal contraception.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Observational Studies as Topic; Progestins; Risk Assessment; Stroke
PubMed: 26310586
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011054.pub2 -
European Heart Journal May 2022Obesity is a global health problem, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, often due to cardiovascular (CV) diseases. While bariatric surgery is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Obesity is a global health problem, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, often due to cardiovascular (CV) diseases. While bariatric surgery is increasingly performed in patients with obesity and reduces CV risk factors, its effect on CV disease is not established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on CV outcomes, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.
METHODS AND RESULTS
PubMed and Embase were searched for literature until August 2021 which compared bariatric surgery patients to non-surgical controls. Outcomes of interest were all-cause and CV mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction, and stroke. We included 39 studies, all prospective or retrospective cohort studies, but randomized outcome trials were not available. Bariatric surgery was associated with a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality [pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.62, P < 0.001 vs. controls], and CV mortality (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001). In addition, bariatric surgery was also associated with a reduced incidence of HF (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.66, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.76, P < 0.001), and stroke (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.77, P < 0.001), while its association with AF was not statistically significant (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.06, P = 0.12).
CONCLUSION
The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with reduced all-cause and CV mortality, and lowered incidence of several CV diseases in patients with obesity. Bariatric surgery should therefore be considered in these patients.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Bariatric Surgery; Cardiovascular Diseases; Heart Failure; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Obesity; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Stroke
PubMed: 35243488
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac071 -
Contraception Dec 2016Women with medical conditions associated with increased risk for thrombosis generally should not use estrogen-containing contraceptives; however, less is known about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Women with medical conditions associated with increased risk for thrombosis generally should not use estrogen-containing contraceptives; however, less is known about progestin-only contraceptives (POCs) and thrombosis risk.
OBJECTIVES
The objective was to identify evidence regarding the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thromboembolism [stroke or acute myocardial infarction (AMI)] among women using POCs.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed database for all articles published from database inception through January 2016 for studies examining thrombosis among women using POCs. We included studies which examined women with medical conditions associated with thrombosis risk, as well as studies of women in the general population (either without these conditions or who were not specified to have these conditions). Hormonal contraceptives of interest included progestin-only pills (POPs), injectables, implants and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LNG-IUDs). Outcomes of interest included VTE, stroke and AMI.
RESULTS
There were 26 articles of good to poor quality that met inclusion criteria; 9 studies examined women with medical conditions and 20 examined women in the general population. Two studies found that, among smokers and women with certain thrombogenic mutations, use of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) had elevated odds of VTE compared with nonsmokers or those without mutations, although confidence intervals were wide and overlapped with odds among nonusers. One study found that, among women with previous VTE, use of POCs (including DMPA) was associated with a nonsignificant increased odds of recurrent VTE (all of which were among DMPA users); two other studies that examined POCs other than DMPA did not observe an association with recurrent VTE. Two studies found that use of DMPA among healthy women was also associated with increased odds of VTE. Two studies found that use of POCs for therapeutic indications was associated with increased odds of VTE. Studies did not find increased odds of VTE with POPs for contraceptive purposes, implants or LNG-IUDs nor were there increased odds of stroke or AMI with any POCs.
CONCLUSION
The majority of evidence identified by this systematic review did not suggest an increase in odds for venous or arterial events with use of most POCs. Limited evidence suggested increased odds of VTE with use of injectables (three studies) and use of POCs for therapeutic indications (two studies, one with POCs unspecified and the other with POPs). Any increase in risk likely translates to a small increase in absolute numbers of thrombotic events at the population level.
Topics: Contraception; Female; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Progestins; Risk Assessment; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism; Weight Gain
PubMed: 27153743
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.014 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a coenzyme for mitochondrial enzymes. Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases, including heart failure. The severity of heart failure correlates with the severity of coenzyme Q10 deficiency. Emerging data suggest that the harmful effects of reactive oxygen species are increased in people with heart failure, and coenzyme Q10 may help to reduce these toxic effects because of its antioxidant activity. Coenzyme Q10 may also have a role in stabilising myocardial calcium-dependent ion channels, and in preventing the consumption of metabolites essential for adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. Coenzyme Q10, although not a primary recommended treatment, could be beneficial to people with heart failure. Several randomised controlled trials have compared coenzyme Q10 to other therapeutic modalities, but no systematic review of existing randomised trials was conducted prior to the original version of this Cochrane Review, in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To review the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 16 October 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2020, and the ISRCTN Registry on 11 November 2019. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of either parallel or cross-over design that assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of coenzyme Q10 in people with heart failure. When we identified cross-over studies, we considered data only from the first phase.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR); for continuous data, the mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate data were available, we conducted meta-analysis. When meta-analysis was not possible, we wrote a narrative synthesis. We provided a PRISMA flow chart to show the flow of study selection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eleven studies, with 1573 participants, comparing coenzyme Q10 to placebo or conventional therapy (control). In the majority of the studies, sample size was relatively small. There were important differences among studies in daily coenzyme Q10 dose, follow-up period, and the measures of treatment effect. All studies had unclear, or high risk of bias, or both, in one or more bias domains. We were only able to conduct meta-analysis for some of the outcomes. None of the included trials considered quality of life, measured on a validated scale, exercise variables (exercise haemodynamics), or cost-effectiveness. Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality more than control (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; 1 study, 420 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13.3; moderate-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence of inconclusive results between the coenzyme Q10 and control groups for the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.59; 1 study, 420 participants), and stroke (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.48; 1 study, 420 participants). Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces hospitalisation related to heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; 2 studies, 1061 participants; NNTB 9.7; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that coenzyme Q10 may improve the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 1.77, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.44; 7 studies, 650 participants), but the results are inconclusive for exercise capacity (MD 48.23, 95% CI -24.75 to 121.20; 3 studies, 91 participants); and the risk of developing adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 2 studies, 568 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included studies provide moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low-quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low-quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference. There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Ataxia; Heart Failure; Humans; Mitochondrial Diseases; Muscle Weakness; Myocardial Infarction; Quality of Life; Stroke; Stroke Volume; Ubiquinone; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35608922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008684.pub3 -
Lancet (London, England) Nov 2020The clinical benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering treatment in older patients remains debated. We aimed to summarise the evidence of LDL cholesterol lowering therapies in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The clinical benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering treatment in older patients remains debated. We aimed to summarise the evidence of LDL cholesterol lowering therapies in older patients.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles published between March 1, 2015, and Aug 14, 2020, without any language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials of cardiovascular outcomes of an LDL cholesterol-lowering drug recommended by the 2018 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines, with a median follow-up of at least 2 years and data on older patients (aged ≥75 years). We excluded trials that exclusively enrolled participants with heart failure or on dialysis because guidelines do not recommend lipid-lowering therapy in such patients who do not have another indication. We extracted data for older patients using a standardised data form for aggregated study-level data. We meta-analysed the risk ratio (RR) for major vascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or other acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or coronary revascularisation) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol.
FINDINGS
Data from six articles were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which included 24 trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis plus five individual trials. Among 244 090 patients from 29 trials, 21 492 (8·8%) were aged at least 75 years, of whom 11 750 (54·7%) were from statin trials, 6209 (28·9%) from ezetimibe trials, and 3533 (16·4%) from PCSK9 inhibitor trials. Median follow-up ranged from 2·2 years to 6·0 years. LDL cholesterol lowering significantly reduced the risk of major vascular events (n=3519) in older patients by 26% per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol (RR 0·74 [95% CI 0·61-0·89]; p=0·0019), with no statistically significant difference with the risk reduction in patients younger than 75 years (0·85 [0·78-0·92]; p=0·37). Among older patients, RRs were not statistically different for statin (0·82 [0·73-0·91]) and non-statin treatment (0·67 [0·47-0·95]; p=0·64). The benefit of LDL cholesterol lowering in older patients was observed for each component of the composite, including cardiovascular death (0·85 [0·74-0·98]), myocardial infarction (0·80 [0·71-0·90]), stroke (0·73 [0·61-0·87]), and coronary revascularisation (0·80 [0·66-0·96]).
INTERPRETATION
In patients aged 75 years and older, lipid lowering was as effective in reducing cardiovascular events as it was in patients younger than 75 years. These results should strengthen guideline recommendations for the use of lipid-lowering therapies, including non-statin treatment, in older patients.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Aged; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Ezetimibe; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Reduction Behavior; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33186535
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32332-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from saturated fats eliminated from the diet are more helpfully replaced by polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, carbohydrate or protein.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of reducing saturated fat intake and replacing it with carbohydrate (CHO), polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and/or protein on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, using all available randomised clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) on 15 October 2019, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (16 comparisons, ~59,000 participants), that used a variety of interventions from providing all food to advice on reducing saturated fat. The included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93, 11 trials, 53,300 participants of whom 8% had a cardiovascular event, I² = 65%, GRADE moderate-quality evidence). Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 56 in primary prevention trials, so 56 people need to reduce their saturated fat intake for ~four years for one person to avoid experiencing a CVD event. In secondary prevention trials, the NNTB was 32. Subgrouping did not suggest significant differences between replacement of saturated fat calories with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate, and data on replacement with monounsaturated fat and protein was very limited. We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol; Dietary Carbohydrates; Dietary Fats; Dietary Fats, Unsaturated; Dietary Proteins; Energy Intake; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 32428300
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2