-
Current Medical Research and Opinion May 2022Network meta-analysis was used to derive estimates of the relative efficacy of inclisiran, evolocumab, alirocumab, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Network meta-analysis was used to derive estimates of the relative efficacy of inclisiran, evolocumab, alirocumab, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia and/or at increased cardiovascular risk due to elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol taking maximum tolerated dose statins.
METHODS
Clinical trials published through February 2021 comparing percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were identified a systematic review. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or high cardiovascular risk on maximally tolerated statins in the base case, which included 23 trials.
RESULTS
Results from the base-case analyses demonstrated that inclisiran, evolocumab, and alirocumab provide superior efficacy over placebo, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in terms of reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Inclisiran was also comparable to alirocumab (mean difference: 0.78% [95% CrI: -8.35, 9.88]) and evolocumab (8.16%, [95% CrI: -1.82, 18.49]). Findings of a scenario which also included trials conducted in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia were consistent with the base case. There was evidence of statistical heterogeneity across the included trials, roughly equivalent to variation of 5-10% change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, suggesting that any differences between treatments that were greater than 5-10% are generalizable.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides insight regarding the comparative efficacy of drugs for which no head-to-head trials exist and suggests that inclisiran, alirocumab, and evolocumab are expected to provide similar clinically meaningful improvements in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with hypercholesterolemia on maximally tolerated statins who are at increased cardiovascular risk.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Bayes Theorem; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Cholesterol, LDL; Ezetimibe; Heart Disease Risk Factors; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hypercholesterolemia; Hyperlipidemias; Network Meta-Analysis; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35262430
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2049164 -
PloS One 2023Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Atherosclerosis occurs due to accumulation of low-density lipoprotein... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Atherosclerosis occurs due to accumulation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) in the arterial system. Thus, lipid lowering therapy is essential for both primary and secondary prevention. Proprotein convertase subtilisn/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (Evolocumab, Alirocumab) and small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapy (Inclisiran) have been demonstrated to lower LDL-c and ASCVD events in conjunction with maximally tolerated statin therapy. However, the degree of LDL-c reduction and the impact on reducing major adverse cardiac events, including their impact on mortality, remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors and small interfering RNA (siRNA) therapy on LDL-c reduction and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS
Using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov until April 2023, we extracted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PCSK9 inhibitors (Evolocumab, Alirocumab) and siRNA therapy (Inclisiran) for lipid lowering and risk of MACE. Using random-effects models, we pooled the relative risks and 95% CIs and weighted least-squares mean difference in LDL-c levels. We estimated odds ratios with 95% CIs among MACE subtypes and all-cause mortality. Fixed-effect model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.
RESULTS
In all, 54 studies with 87,669 participants (142,262 person-years) met criteria for inclusion. LDL-c percent change was reported in 47 studies (n = 62,634) evaluating two PCSK9 inhibitors and siRNA therapy. Of those, 21 studies (n = 41,361) included treatment with Evolocumab (140mg), 22 (n = 11,751) included Alirocumab (75mg), and 4 studies (n = 9,522) included Inclisiran (284mg and 300mg). Compared with placebo, after a median of 24 weeks (IQR 12-52), Evolocumab reduced LDL-c by -61.09% (95% CI: -64.81, -57.38, p<0.01) and Alirocumab reduced LDL-c by -46.35% (95% CI: -51.75, -41.13, p<0.01). Inclisiran 284mg reduced LDL-c by -54.83% (95% CI: -59.04, -50.62, p = 0.05) and Inclisiran 300mg reduced LDL-c by -43.11% (95% CI: -52.42, -33.80, p = 0.01). After a median of 8 months (IQR 6-15), Evolocumab reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (MI), OR 0.72 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.81, p<0.01), coronary revascularization, 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.84, p<0.01), stroke, 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.94, p = 0.01) and overall MACE 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.89, p<0.01). Alirocumab reduced MI, 0.57 (0.38, 0.86, p = 0.01), cardiovascular mortality 0.35 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.77, p = 0.01), all-cause mortality 0.60 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.84, p<0.01), and overall MACE 0.35 (0.16, 0.77, p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
PCSK9 inhibitors (Evolocumab, Alirocumab) and siRNA therapy (Inclisiran) significantly reduced LDL-c by >40% in high-risk individuals. Additionally, both Alirocumab and Evolocumab reduced the risk of MACE, and Alirocumab reduced cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.
Topics: Humans; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Cholesterol, LDL; Myocardial Infarction; Proprotein Convertase 9; Atherosclerosis; Heart Disease Risk Factors; RNA, Small Interfering; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
PubMed: 38055686
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295359 -
Circulation Oct 2019Randomized trials of therapies that primarily lowered triglycerides have not consistently shown reductions in cardiovascular events. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association Between Triglyceride Lowering and Reduction of Cardiovascular Risk Across Multiple Lipid-Lowering Therapeutic Classes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Randomized trials of therapies that primarily lowered triglycerides have not consistently shown reductions in cardiovascular events.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-regression analysis of 3 classes of lipid-lowering therapies that reduce triglycerides to a greater extent than they do low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C): fibrates, niacin, and marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids. Key inclusion criteria were a randomized controlled trial that reported major vascular events. We also incorporated data from a previous meta-regression of 25 statin trials. The main outcome measure was the risk ratio (RR) for major vascular events associated with absolute reductions in lipid parameters.
RESULTS
A total of 197 270 participants from 24 trials of nonstatin therapy with 25 218 major vascular events and 177 088 participants from 25 trials of statin therapy with 20 962 major vascular events were included, for a total of 374 358 patients and 46 180 major cardiovascular events. Starting with non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, a surrogate for very-low-density lipoproteins and low-density lipoproteins, the RR per 1-mmol/L reduction in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.82; <0.0001; 0.78 per 40 mg/dL). In a multivariable meta-regression model that included terms for both LDL-C and triglyceride (surrogates for low-density lipoproteins and very-low-density lipoproteins, respectively), the RR was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.76-0.85; <0.0001) per 1-mmol/L (0.79 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75-0.94; =0.0026) per 1-mmol/L (0.92 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in triglycerides. REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl-Intervention Trial) was a significant outlier and strongly influential trial in the meta-regression. When removed, the RRs became 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76-0.83; <0.0001) per 1-mmol/L (0.78 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.81-1.006; =0.06) per 1-mmol/L (0.96 per 40 mg/dL) reduction in triglycerides. In regard to omega-3 dose, each 1 g/d eicosapentaenoic acid administered was associated with a 7% relative risk reduction in major vascular events (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.95]; <0.0001), whereas there was no significant association between the dose of docosahexaenoic acid and the relative risk reduction in major vascular events (RR 0.96 [95% CI, 0.89-1.03]).
CONCLUSIONS
In randomized controlled trials, triglyceride lowering is associated with a lower risk of major vascular events, even after adjustment for LDL-C lowering, although the effect is less than that for LDL-C and attenuated when REDUCE-IT is excluded. Furthermore, the benefits of marine-derived omega-3 fatty acids, particularly high-dose eicosapentaenoic acid, appear to exceed their lipid-lowering effects.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Niacin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk; Triglycerides
PubMed: 31530008
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.041998 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021It remains unclear whether people with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) benefit from intravesical gemcitabine compared to other agents in the primary or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It remains unclear whether people with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) benefit from intravesical gemcitabine compared to other agents in the primary or recurrent setting following transurethral resection of a bladder tumor. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2012. Since that time, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and toxicity of intravesical gemcitabine instillation for NMIBC.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, trial registries, and conference proceedings to 11 September 2020, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs in which participants received intravesical gemcitabine for primary or recurrent NMIBC.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data for the primary outcomes: time to recurrence, time to progression, grade III to V adverse events determined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (CTCAE v5.0), and the secondary outcomes: time to death from bladder cancer, time to death from any cause, grade I or II adverse events determined by the CTCAE v5.0 and disease-specific quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and rated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies with 1222 participants with NMIBC across five comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the three most clinically relevant comparisons. 1. Gemcitabine versus saline: based on two years' to four years' follow-up, gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time compared to saline (39% versus 47% recurrence rate, hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 1.09; studies = 2, participants = 734; I = 49%; low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no effect. Gemcitabine may result in little to no difference in the risk of progression over time compared to saline (4.6% versus 4.8% progression rate, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.71; studies = 2, participants = 654; I = 53%; low-certainty evidence). Gemcitabine may result in little to no difference in the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to saline (5.9% versus 4.7% adverse events rate, risk ratio [RR] 1.26, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.75; studies = 2, participants = 668; I = 24%; low-certainty evidence). 2. Gemcitabine versus mitomycin: based on three years' follow-up (studies = 1, participants = 109), gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence over time compared to mitomycin (17% versus 40% recurrence rate, HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence). Gemcitabine may reduce the risk of progression over time compared to mitomycin (11% versus 18% progression rate, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence), but the CI included the possibility of no effect. We are very uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to mitomycin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.93; very low-certainty evidence). The analysis was only based on recurrent NMIBC. 3. Gemcitabine versus Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) for recurrent (one-course BCG failure) high-risk NMIBC: based on 6 months' to 22 months' follow-up (studies = 1, participants = 80), gemcitabine may reduce the risk of recurrence compared to BCG (41% versus 97% recurrence rate, HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.26; low-certainty evidence) and progression over time (16% versus 33% progression rate, HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.76; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of gemcitabine on the CTCAE grade III to V adverse events compared to BCG (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.66; very low-certainty evidence). In addition, the review provides information on the comparison of gemcitabine versus BCG and gemcitabine versus one-third dose BCG. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on findings of this review, gemcitabine may have a more favorable impact on recurrence and progression-free survival than mitomycin but we are very uncertain as to how major adverse events compare. The same is true when comparing gemcitabine to BCG in individuals with high risk disease who have previously failed BCG. The underlying low- to very low-certainty evidence indicates that our confidence in these results is limited; the true effects may be substantially different from these findings; therefore, better quality studies are needed.
Topics: Adjuvants, Immunologic; Administration, Intravesical; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; BCG Vaccine; Bias; Cause of Death; Confidence Intervals; Deoxycytidine; Disease Progression; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Mitomycin; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 34125951
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009294.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for people who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) reduce LDL-C and CVD risk.
OBJECTIVES
Primary To quantify the effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on CVD, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of influenza, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer, compared to placebo or active treatment(s) for primary and secondary prevention.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by systematically searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in December 2019. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2020 and screened the reference lists of included studies. This is an update of the review first published in 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 24 weeks were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. Where data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence and in 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies with data on 60,997 participants. Eighteen trials randomised participants to alirocumab and six to evolocumab. All participants received background lipid-lowering treatment or lifestyle counselling. Six alirocumab studies used an active treatment comparison group (the remaining used placebo), compared to three evolocumab active comparison trials. Alirocumab compared with placebo decreased the risk of CVD events, with an absolute risk difference (RD) of -2% (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.94; 10 studies, 23,868 participants; high-certainty evidence), decreased the risk of mortality (RD -1%; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96; 12 studies, 24,797 participants; high-certainty evidence), and MI (RD -2%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 9 studies, 23,352 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for any stroke (RD 0%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 studies, 22,835 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment the alirocumab effects, for CVD, the RD was 1% (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.87; 3 studies, 1379 participants; low-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was -1% (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 5 studies, 1333 participants; low-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was 1% (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.28, 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence); and for any stroke, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.13 to 5.61; 5 studies, 1734 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo the evolocumab, for CVD, the RD was -2% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for mortality, RD was less than 1% (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); for MI, RD was -1% (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82; 3 studies, 29,432 participants; high-certainty evidence); and for any stroke RD was less than -1% (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94; 2 studies, 28,531 participants; high-certainty evidence). Compared to active treatment, the evolocumab effects, for any CVD event RD was less than -1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.04; 1 study, 218 participants; very low-certainty evidence); for all-cause mortality, the RD was less than 1% (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.30; 3 studies, 5223 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and for MI, RD was less than 1% (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.85; 3 studies, 5003 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data on any stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the clinical endpoint effects of evolocumab and alirocumab were graded as high. There is a strong evidence base to prescribe PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies to people who might not be eligible for other lipid-lowering drugs, or to people who cannot meet their lipid goals on more traditional therapies, which was the main patient population of the available trials. The evidence base of PCSK9 inhibitors compared with active treatment is much weaker (low very- to low-certainty evidence) and it is unclear whether evolocumab or alirocumab might be effectively used as replacement therapies. Related, most of the available studies preferentially enrolled people with either established CVD or at a high risk already, and evidence in low- to medium-risk settings is minimal. Finally, there is very limited evidence on any potential safety issues of both evolocumab and alirocumab. While the current evidence synthesis does not reveal any adverse signals, neither does it provide evidence against such signals. This suggests careful consideration of alternative lipid lowering treatments before prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol, LDL; Cholinergic Antagonists; Ezetimibe; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Primary Prevention; Proprotein Convertase 9; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Time Factors
PubMed: 33078867
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011748.pub3 -
JAMA Aug 2022A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was associated with reduced...
IMPORTANCE
A 2016 review for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) found use of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was associated with reduced mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To update the 2016 review on statins for primary prevention of CVD to inform the USPSTF.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (to November 2021); surveillance through May 20, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials on statins vs placebo or no statin and statin intensity in adults without prior cardiovascular events; large cohort studies on harms.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
One investigator abstracted data; a second checked accuracy. Two investigators independently rated study quality.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
All-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiovascular outcomes, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included: 22 trials (N = 90 624) with 6 months to 6 years of follow-up compared statins vs placebo or no statin, 1 trial (n = 5144) compared statin intensities, and 3 observational studies (n = 417 523) reported harms. Statins were significantly associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.35% [95% CI, -0.57% to -0.14%]), stroke (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.90]; ARD, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.54% to -0.25%]), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.75]; ARD, -0.85% [95% CI, -1.22% to -0.47%]), and composite cardiovascular outcomes (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.81]; ARD, -1.28% [95% CI, -1.61% to -0.95%]); the association with cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant (RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.02]; ARD, -0.13%). Relative benefits were consistent in groups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics, although data for persons older than 75 years were sparse. Statin therapy was not significantly associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.01]), myalgias (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.11]), or elevated alanine aminotransferase level (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13]). Statin therapy was not significantly associated with increased diabetes risk overall (RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.19]), although 1 trial found high-intensity statin therapy was significantly associated with increased risk (RR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.49]). Otherwise, there were no clear differences in outcomes based on statin intensity.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In adults at increased CVD risk but without prior CVD events, statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality and CVD events. Benefits of statin therapy appear to be present across diverse demographic and clinical populations, with consistent relative benefits in groups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Advisory Committees; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Myocardial Infarction; Preventive Health Services; Primary Prevention; Stroke; United States
PubMed: 35997724
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.12138 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease. People with asthma have inflammation of their airways that causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness and...
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease. People with asthma have inflammation of their airways that causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness and chest tightness, with or without a cough. Statins possess multiple therapeutic effects, including lowering lipid levels in the blood. Statins are reported to have a potential role as an adjunct treatment in asthma. However, comprehensive evidence of the benefits and harms of using statins is required to facilitate decision making.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of statins as an adjunct therapy for asthma in adults and children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for studies in the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP and Embase Ovid SP, from their inception dates We handsearched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences. We also searched clinical trials registries for completed, ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews to identify additional studies. The search is current to 7 February 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group design that assessed statins for at least 12 weeks' duration. We considered all participants with a clinical diagnosis of asthma to be eligible, regardless of age, sex, disease severity and previous or current treatment. We planned to include studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected the studies, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We resolved any disagreement through discussion.
MAIN RESULTS
We found only one trial involving a total of 60 people living with asthma. The trial compared the effect of atorvastatin with a placebo (dummy treatment containing lactose) in treating people with chronic asthma. The trial did not report data for the primary outcomes or adverse events. There was uncertainty about the relative effect on forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) in the atorvastatin group compared with the placebo group. The study did not report serious adverse effects for the interventions. The included study had internal discrepancies in its reported data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence was of very low certainty, so we are unable to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of statins to treat asthma. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess the effect of statins on people with asthma. Well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples and longer duration of treatment are required, which assess outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and costs, to provide better quality evidence. Future studies that include subgroups of obese people with asthma are also required.
Topics: Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Atorvastatin; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Peak Expiratory Flow Rate
PubMed: 32668027
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013268.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A detailed summary and meta-analysis of the dose-related effect of pravastatin on lipids is not available.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess the pharmacology of pravastatin by characterizing the dose-related effect and variability of the effect of pravastatin on the surrogate marker: low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol). The effect of pravastatin on morbidity and mortality is not the objective of this systematic review. Secondary objectives • To assess the dose-related effect and variability of effect of pravastatin on the following surrogate markers: total cholesterol; high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol); and triglycerides. • To assess the effect of pravastatin on withdrawals due to adverse effects.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to September 2021: CENTRAL (2021, Issue 8), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Bireme LILACS, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of pravastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered lipid data from placebo-controlled trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous data and withdrawal due to adverse effects (WDAEs) data as dichotomous data. We searched for WDAEs information from all trials. We assessed all trials using Cochrane's risk of bias tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-four RCTs evaluated the dose-related efficacy of pravastatin in 9771 participants. The participants were of any age, with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and pravastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over the doses of 5 mg to 160 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of pravastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Pravastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 21.7% to 31.9%, total cholesterol by 16.1% to 23.3%,and triglycerides by 5.8% to 20.0%. The certainty of evidence for these effects was judged to be moderate to high. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 3.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 4.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol. This represented a dose-response slope that was less than the other studied statins: atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. From other systematic reviews we conducted on statins for its effect to reduce LDL cholesterol, pravastatin is similar to fluvastatin, but has a decreased effect compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, pitavastatin and cerivastatin. The effect of pravastatin compared to placebo on WADES has a risk ratio (RR) of 0.81 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.03). The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Pravastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with pravastatin because of the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 48.4% of the randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Pravastatin; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Atorvastatin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, HDL; Cholesterol, LDL; Fluvastatin; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37721222
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013673.pub2 -
Biomedica : Revista Del Instituto... Dec 2019Introduction: Identifying the most effective interventions to reverse the metabolic syndrome can be key in the design of clinical strategies to prevent progression to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Introduction: Identifying the most effective interventions to reverse the metabolic syndrome can be key in the design of clinical strategies to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Objective: To estimate the effect size of the interventions used for the reversal of metabolic syndrome. Materials and methods: We searched in Embase and Medline databases for randomized clinical trials with an outcome defined as the reversal of the metabolic syndrome diagnosis. We classified the interventions in four dimensions: 1) lifestyle (diet and exercise); 2) pharmaceuticals; 3) a combination of both, and 4) control groups, and we conducted a mixed treatment comparison analysis. Results: Additional to the previous meta-analysis published by Dunkley, et al. in 2012, we dentified two other studies. Lifestyle interventions had 2.61 more chances to achieve the reversal of the metabolic syndrome than the control group, with a credible interval between 1.00 and 5.47. Pharmaceutical treatments showed a 3.39 higher chance of reversing the syndrome compared with the control group, but the credible interval was estimated from 0.81 to 9.99. Lifestyle interventions had 1.59 more chance of reversal than the pharmaceutical treatments. Conclusion: Diet and physical activity-based interventions had a higher probability of effectiveness to reverse a metabolic syndrome diagnosis.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Cardiovascular Diseases; Combined Modality Therapy; Confidence Intervals; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diet; Exercise; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Hypoglycemic Agents; Life Style; Metabolic Syndrome
PubMed: 31860177
DOI: 10.7705/biomedica.4684 -
Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2020The drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative Lipid-Lowering/Increasing Efficacy of 7 Statins in Patients with Dyslipidemia, Cardiovascular Diseases, or Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analyses of 50 Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVE
The drug efficacy may differ among different statins, and evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse and inconsistent. The study is aimed at comparing the lipid-lowering/increasing effects of 7 different statins in patients with dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes mellitus by conducting systematic review and network meta-analyses (NMA) of the lipid changes after certain statins' use.
METHODS
In this study, we searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through February 25, 2020, comparing the lipid-lowering efficacy of no less than two of the included statins (or statin vs. placebo). Three reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Firstly, mixed treatment overall comparison analyses, in the form of frequentist NMAs, were conducted using STATA 15.0 software. Then, subgroup analyses were conducted according to different baseline diseases. At last, sensitivity analyses were conducted according to age and follow-up duration. The trial was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42018108799).
RESULTS
As a result, seven statin monotherapy treatments in 50 studies (51956 participants) were used for the analyses. The statins included simvastatin (SIM), fluvastatin (FLU), atorvastatin (ATO), rosuvastatin (ROS), lovastatin (LOV), pravastatin (PRA), and pitavastatin (PIT). In terms of LDL-C lowering, rosuvastatin ranked 1 with a surface under cumulated ranking (SUCRA) value of 93.1%. The comparative treatment efficacy for LDL-C lowering was ROS>ATO>PIT>SIM>PRA>FLU>LOV>PLA. All of the other ranking and NMA results were reported in SUCRA plots and league tables.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the NMAs, it can be concluded that rosuvastatin ranked 1 in LDL-C, ApoB-lowering efficacy and ApoA1-increasing efficacy. Lovastatin ranked 1 in TC- and TG-lowering efficacy, and fluvastatin ranked 1 in HDL-C-increasing efficacy. The results should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations in our review. However, they can provide references and evidence-based foundation for drug selection in both statin monotherapies and statin combination therapies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomarkers; Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus; Down-Regulation; Dyslipidemias; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Lipids; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32411300
DOI: 10.1155/2020/3987065