-
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... Mar 2023To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. A systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To summarize the evidence in terms of efficacy and safety of head-to-head studies of high-intensity statins regardless of the underlying population. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the effect sizes in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that compared high-intensity statins. Based on 44 articles, similar effectiveness was observed across the statins in reducing LDL levels from baseline. All statins were observed to have similar adverse drug reactions (ADRs), although higher dosages were associated with more ADRs. Based on a pooled quantitative analysis of atorvastatin 80 mg versus rosuvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin was statistically more effective in reducing LDL. This review further confirms that high-intensity statins reduce LDL by ≥50%, favoring rosuvastatin over atorvastatin. Additional data are needed to confirm the clinical significance on cardiovascular outcomes using real-world studies.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Atorvastatin; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 36847307
DOI: 10.57264/cer-2022-0163 -
European Journal of Preventive... May 2022As the potential impact of statins on cognitive decline and dementia is still debated, we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to examine the effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
As the potential impact of statins on cognitive decline and dementia is still debated, we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies to examine the effect of statin use on the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia.
METHODS AND RESULTS
PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched since inception to January 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (i) cohort or case-control studies; (ii) statin users compared to non-users; and (iii) AD and/or dementia risk as outcome. Estimates from original studies were pooled using restricted maximum-likelihood random-effect model. Measure of effects were reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In the pooled analyses, statins were associated with a decreased risk of dementia [36 studies, OR 0.80 (CI 0.75-0.86)] and of AD [21 studies, OR 0.68 (CI 0.56-0.81)]. In the stratified analysis by sex, no difference was observed in the risk reduction of dementia between men [OR 0.86 (CI 0.81-0.92)] and women [OR 0.86 (CI 0.81-0.92)]. Similar risks were observed for lipophilic and hydrophilic statins for both dementia and AD, while high-potency statins showed a 20% reduction of dementia risk compared with a 16% risk reduction associated with low-potency statins, suggesting a greater efficacy of the former, although a borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05) for the heterogeneity between estimates.
CONCLUSION
These results confirm the absence of a neurocognitive risk associated with statin treatment and suggest a potential favourable role of statins. Randomized clinical trials with an ad hoc design are needed to explore this potential neuroprotective effect.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dementia; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 34871380
DOI: 10.1093/eurjpc/zwab208 -
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 -
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 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2021To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.
RESULTS
62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020169955.
Topics: Aged; Cardiovascular Diseases; Comorbidity; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Middle Aged; Primary Prevention; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 34261627
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n1537 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2022To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative effectiveness of statins on non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol in people with diabetes and at risk of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of different statin treatments by intensity on levels of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to 1 December 2021.
REVIEW METHODS
Randomised controlled trials comparing different types and intensities of statins, including placebo, in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. The primary outcome was changes in levels of non-HDL-C, calculated from measures of total cholesterol and HDL-C. Secondary outcomes were changes in levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol, three point major cardiovascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death related to cardiovascular disease), and discontinuations because of adverse events. A bayesian network meta-analysis of statin intensity (low, moderate, or high) with random effects evaluated the treatment effect on non-HDL-C by mean differences and 95% credible intervals. Subgroup analysis of patients at greater risk of major cardiovascular events was compared with patients at low or moderate risk. The confidence in network meta-analysis (CINeMA) framework was applied to determine the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
In 42 randomised controlled trials involving 20 193 adults, 11 698 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the greatest reductions in levels of non-HDL-C were seen with rosuvastatin at high (-2.31 mmol/L, 95% credible interval -3.39 to -1.21) and moderate (-2.27, -3.00 to -1.49) intensities, and simvastatin (-2.26, -2.99 to -1.51) and atorvastatin (-2.20, -2.69 to -1.70) at high intensity. Atorvastatin and simvastatin at any intensity and pravastatin at low intensity were also effective in reducing levels of non-HDL-C. In 4670 patients at greater risk of a major cardiovascular events, atorvastatin at high intensity showed the largest reduction in levels of non-HDL-C (-1.98, -4.16 to 0.26, surface under the cumulative ranking curve 64%). Simvastatin (-1.93, -2.63 to -1.21) and rosuvastatin (-1.76, -2.37 to -1.15) at high intensity were the most effective treatment options for reducing LDL-C. Significant reductions in non-fatal myocardial infarction were found for atorvastatin at moderate intensity compared with placebo (relative risk=0.57, confidence interval 0.43 to 0.76, n=4 studies). No significant differences were found for discontinuations, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular deaths.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis indicated that rosuvastatin, at moderate and high intensity doses, and simvastatin and atorvastatin, at high intensity doses, were most effective at moderately reducing levels of non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes. Given the potential improvement in accuracy in predicting cardiovascular disease when reduction in levels of non-HDL-C is used as the primary target, these findings provide guidance on which statin types and intensities are most effective by reducing non-HDL-C in patients with diabetes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021258819.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 35331984
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067731 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) May 2022To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant.
DESIGN
Network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke.
RESULTS
We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke.
CONCLUSIONS
Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.
Topics: Adult; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Ezetimibe; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Myocardial Infarction; Network Meta-Analysis; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Proprotein Convertase 9; Risk Factors; Stroke
PubMed: 35508321
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069116 -
European Journal of Pharmacology May 2023To update the evidence about the diabetogenic effect of statins. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To update the evidence about the diabetogenic effect of statins.
METHODS
We searched for randomized-controlled trials reporting the effects of statin therapy on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and/or homeostatic model insulin resistance (i.e., HOMA-IR) as indexes of diabetes. Studies were classified between the ones testing normal vs individuals with already altered glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 6.5%; and HOMA-IR ≥ 2.15). Furthermore, studies were separated by statin type and dosage prescribed. Data are presented as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
A total of 67 studies were included in the analysis (>25,000 individuals). In individuals with altered glycemic control, statins increased HbA1c levels (MD 0.21%, 95% CI 0.16-to-0.25) and HOMA-IR index (MD 0.31, 95% CI 0.24-to-0.38). In individuals with normal glycemic control, statin increased HbA1c (MD 1.33%, 95% CI 1.31-to-1.35) and HOMA-IR (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-to-0.58) in comparison to the placebo groups. The dose or type of statins did not modulate the diabetogenic effect.
CONCLUSIONS
Statins, slightly but significantly raise indexes of diabetes in individuals with adequate or altered glycemic control. The diabetogenic effect does not seem to be influenced by the type or dosage of statin prescribed.
Topics: Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Glycated Hemoglobin; Insulin Resistance; Glycemic Control; Diabetes Mellitus; Blood Glucose; Insulin; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2
PubMed: 36965747
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2023.175672 -
Journal of the American Heart... Sep 2022Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels decreases major cardiovascular events and is recommended for patients at elevated cardiovascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Evaluating the Comparative Efficacy of Lipid-Lowering Therapies Added to Maximally Tolerated Statins for the Reduction of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.
Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels decreases major cardiovascular events and is recommended for patients at elevated cardiovascular risk. However, appropriate doses of statin therapy are often insufficient to reduce LDL-C in accordance with current guidelines. In such cases, treatment could be supplemented with nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy added to maximally tolerated statins, including statin-intolerant patients. The primary objective was to assess relative efficacy of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy in reducing LDL-C levels at week 12. Secondary objectives included the following: LDL-C level reduction at week 24 and change in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B at week 12. There were 48 randomized controlled trials included in the primary network meta-analysis. All nonstatin agents significantly reduced LDL-C from baseline versus placebo, regardless of background therapy. At week 12, evolocumab, 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W)/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were the most efficacious regimens, followed by alirocumab, 75 mg Q2W, alirocumab, 300 mg once a month, inclisiran, bempedoic acid/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, and ezetimibe and bempedoic acid used as monotherapies. Primary end point results were generally consistent at week 24, and for other lipid end points at week 12. Conclusions Evolocumab, 140 mg Q2W/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were consistently the most efficacious nonstatin regimens when added to maximally tolerated statins to lower LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels and facilitate attainment of guideline-recommended risk-stratified lipoprotein levels.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Apolipoproteins; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Dicarboxylic Acids; Double-Blind Method; Ezetimibe; Fatty Acids; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36073669
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025551 -
Nutrients Aug 2020Although a cholesterol-lowering diet and the addition of plant sterols and stanols are suggested for the lipid management of children and adults with familial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although a cholesterol-lowering diet and the addition of plant sterols and stanols are suggested for the lipid management of children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia, there is limited evidence evaluating such interventions in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the impact of cholesterol-lowering diet and other dietary interventions on the incidence or mortality of cardiovascular disease and lipid profile of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant trials were identified by searching US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Metabolism Trials Register and clinicaltrials.gov.gr using the following terms: diet, dietary, plant sterols, stanols, omega-3 fatty acids, fiber and familial hypercholesterolemia.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of cholesterol-lowering diet or other dietary interventions in children and adults with familial hypercholesterolemia were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the included trials and their bias risk and extracted the data which was independently verified by other colleagues.
RESULTS
A total of 17 trials were finally included, with a total of 376 participants across 8 comparison groups. The included trials had either a low or unclear bias risk for most of the assessed risk parameters. Cardiovascular incidence or mortality were not evaluated in any of the included trials. Among the planned comparisons regarding patients' lipidemic profile, a significant difference was noticed for the following comparisons and outcomes: omega-3 fatty acids reduced triglycerides (mean difference (MD): -0.27 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.47 to -0.07, < 0.01) when compared with placebo. A non-significant trend towards a reduction in subjects' total cholesterol (MD: -0.34, 95% CI: -0.68 to 0, mmol/L, = 0.05) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD: -0.31, 95% CI: -0.61 to 0, mmol/L, = 0.05) was noticed. In comparison with cholesterol-lowering diet, the additional consumption of plant stanols decreased total cholesterol (MD: -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.13 to -0.11, = 0.02) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD: -0.58 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.09, = 0.02). The same was by plant sterols (MD: -0.46 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.17, < 0.01 for cholesterol and MD: -0.45 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.16, < 0.01 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol). No heterogeneity was noticed among the studies included in these analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Available trials confirm that the addition of plant sterols or stanols has a cholesterol-lowering effect on such individuals. On the other hand, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids effectively reduces triglycerides and might have a role in lowering the cholesterol of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia. Additional studies are needed to investigate the efficacy of cholesterol-lowering diet or the addition of soya protein and dietary fibers to a cholesterol-lowering diet in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.
Topics: Adult; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Child; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Clinical Trials as Topic; Diet; Dietary Supplements; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Female; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hyperlipoproteinemia Type II; Male; Phytosterols; Triglycerides
PubMed: 32823643
DOI: 10.3390/nu12082436